View Full Version : The Morality of Prostitution
Pages :
1
2
3
[
4]
5
6
7
8
Actually, there are a fair number of prostitutes here who pay taxes -- especially the higher-end ones such as porn stars turning tricks on the side, and they'd damned well better, because lots of times it's far easier to go after them for nonpayment of taxes than it is for prostitution. (Some recent fairly high-profile folks have been in trouble exactly for this.) Same kind of logic that's been used with gangsters -- if you can't absolutely prove they're doing something illegal, you can still track the money.
RN, so who is Linda Watson and what did Phoenix do to her?
For what it's worth, I'd hardly be crazy about streetwalkers in my neighborhood -- I've lived in places where that was the situation and it's lousy for the the area, and lots of my female friends truly did have to put up with a lot of unnecessary crap -- but to complain about and restrict that and not offer viable alternatives is certainly bullshit. If you're offering your services in any other business, you generally can't just hang out on the street wherever you please and flag down passerby. People don't simply get to set up vegetable stands wherever they like either -- there are street vendor restrictions and guidelines in most places, and areas specifically set aside for such activities. The problem, of course, is that setting aside an area specifically for SWs is likely to raise an even bigger stink than not doing it.
And as far as Georgie and Laura, sigh, I can only look at them as catalysts for forcing the left the get its act together, though it's taking an abysmally long time and shows no real sign of happening.
JZ, I'd be interested in seeing any numbers you have for what % of hookers pay income tax here. My guess is <5% report anything at all, and 95% of those who do report (porn stars is probably a good example but I would think they are very few in number; porn's not my thing) income report way less than they actually make (just like waiters and bartenders and pizza deliverers and and and - tipping really sucks).
Rub, do you mean that the 100k hooker's unemployed partner is "forced by law" to claim the dole so as not to be charged for living off her/his earnings? What if he/she has his/her own savings or family money?
Sometimes here they make you claim one form of dole in lieu of or to be eligible for another form of dole, but by and large they're plenty happy when you don't claim benefits to which you are entitled.
Re NSW vs. WA: You would notice the same thing in my country. The southeast is very conservative and yes a bit backwards. The northeast is very ethnically oriented, highly unionized, people dress more formally. The center of the country (the plains states) is very conservative but better educated than the southeast and less backwards. The southwest is very informal and has a bit of a libertarian bent (gun rights, anti-government sentiment, etc.). The northwest tends to be socially liberal (more tolerant of the homeless, as an example). Then there are the huge states of Alaska, California, and Texas. The latter two especially are very different even in different parts within the same state.
I like that aspect because it sort of gives you many different "mini-countries" from which to choose, but the problem is they all have the same president.
BUCK FUSH!!
DH, I agree entirely that there are tons of prostitutes, most likely the vast, vast majority, who don't pay or radically underpay taxes, same as happens with lots of folks who get paid primarily in cash. Naturally, stats are hard to come by, since even if a prostitute is properly paying taxes she's not defining the income as such. Still, I've read a several interviews with escorts (and also talked to a couple) who talk about being very careful about taxes since it's a way for them to have trouble that is probably far greater than being busted on a prostitution beef. Again, these aren't streetwalkers, but women who've generally got some degree of business acumen. Keep in mind that tax evasion is part of what originally was used to send Heidi Fleiss to prison.
My favorite hoot, by the way, is that Nevada has been considering a tax on each sex act a legal prostitute there performs, falling under the proposed 7.3% tax on entertainment and admissions (snigger!) I can just picture each brothel room in Nevada being equipped with a calculator... rather the ultimate literal sin tax.
RN, since this issue is one that comes up repeatedly, do you have any idea of what percentage of prostitutes' partners actually are unemployed and unable to find work? The whole issue seems like a tempest in a teapot -- is there some reason (other than the truth of accusations of pimping) why this rate should be substantially higher than the general unemployment rate, which is Oz is, what, six or seven percent? This just seems like a massive focus on a truly minor issue, from a statistical perspective, though I know it's really more a philosophical battleground than anything else.
As far as Linda Watson -- seems it's always amazingly easier to find religion when you end up with a fat bank account, doesn't it? Nothing like being born again so you can not only make more money off your repentance but try to weasel your way into "respectable" society.
PosterLion
05-22-03, 15:00
Yeah,
I never paid taxes for my earnings in college. I took it upon myself to supply our football heros with all the illicit (and illegal) substances they required to help them get through the tough life of being a jock. Hey, some of those guys even made the pros! I had to pay for univeristy somehow... as my scholarship was for tution only. :)
OK, RN, but 10% is simple to figure, even for the math challenged. 7.3% simply doesn't spring to the brain quite as freely -- let's see, what's 7.3% of $350? I can do it easily enough, but still...
And while I can certainly understand paraplegic's partners going to work and them being unemployed, the rest of the scenarios seem to me to be more straw men than anything else. Is there actually a real case where an 18-year-old university student is arrested for living off the earnings of a prostitute by going to college? I absolutely doubt that -- the government would be foolish to make such a case, even if it were theoretically winnable, because they would not only lose the battle of public opinion (oh, gee, let's keep a socially challenged kid from bettering himself) but likely an ensuing court battle as well. You appear to be saying that the situation is more dire when you're talking about prostitutes -- are you saying that 10% of partners have this problem? 20%? You may have a point about brothel owners and their husbands, but frankly, that seems off the point, as there we're talking about the degree to which acting as a panderer is viable -- still seems different from the situation of a sex worker in such a brothel and her husband. Surely the husband of a prostitute doesn't spend all his time supporting her business interests.
Points well taken -- but this still seems to me a rather flashpoint issue, in terms of pushing people's hot buttons, making it difficult to win the point, and thereby retarding winning some of the other sides of the equation. People, as has been apparent in discussions here regarding pimps, have particularly strong opinions and emotions regarding men exploiting women in this regard, and this issue treads that line. While you characterize these laws as interfering with the civil liberties of sex workers, the opposition paints it as protecting people from unscrupulous predators, and, frankly, theirs is the more emotionally dramatic picture, regardless of right or wrong. (Obviously, the battleground isn't simply for the correct moral position, but for gaining popular support and translating that into action.) Since, as you define the numbers, this is an issue that affects about 12% of workers, isn't this a secondary issue to some of the others? Especially if it's something on the books that's threatened often but never really used?
Given all this, how would you draw a that would define "pimping" as an offense to protect sex workers from predatory exploitation yet wouldn't get into the areas we've been talking about? Or wouldn't you? (I think it's an issue not simply of what ought to be, but of what might need to be in order to have a realistic chance of moving other sides of the equation forward.) I always love that quote by Bismarck -- "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." A lot of what we've been talking about in your situation is exactly that.
And there are tons of laws on the books that serve no purpose and are never enforced, no question about that. We could easily do a whole thread on some of the more idiotic ones. But if they have no practical effect because they're not enforced, aren't there more important things to push against? Despite police threats (which come in a million flavors and don't always mean much) if these offenses aren't actually going to be prosecuted -- and I have a very hard time seeing, for example, how some domestic partner whose temporarily out of work and get fed by his sex worker wife is realistically going to get tried -- then the laws don't have much practical effect. Enforcement is every bit as important as legislation -- there are laws passed all the time as cynical political exercises that don't mean a damn thing, because they're never going to be enforced.
Although I prefer the Costa Rican model, I don't think the Méjico model is bad either. Keep in mind that each state in Méjico also has its own laws and I believe there are 33 different states (plus the Distrito Federal aka Mexico City which is like the ACT except it has more people than all of Oz!), of which I've mongered in maybe 8. Their approach is to have "zones of tolerance" which also fall short of legality. Some of these are just certain streets while others such as in Nuevo Laredo in Nuevo León state are walled compounds. This isolates it somewhat from the good conservative Catholic folk.
But of course there is far more corruption in Méjico than in Oz. Instead of having laws on the books that are rarely enforced, the police just make up laws on an ad hoc basis. You are guilty until proven innocent with no right to jury trial (Napoleonic Code) which is the bad side. The good side is that you can normally pay your "fine" (read: bribe) on the spot without the inconvenience of going to court.
I am slowly making me way down there now. Should arrive in Guadlajara in the state of Jalisco on Tuesday. There I am told the scene is mostly massage parlors or "esteticas." Sold my car and some of my furniture and my house is under contract to hopefully sell June 30. Then it is off to Buenos Aires where nobody really seems concerned about the Morality of Prostitution. Due to the weakening of the dollar blow jobs in Morón have gone from $3 to $4 but I think I can struggle through.
Best of luck, DH! Are you getting enough from the equity from the house to give you a bit of a cushion?
Good point about the plus/minus aspect of the Napoleonic code -- it's pretty much the norm in most of the third world, whether actually in force of not, which means that in essence the police (invariably underpaid and looking for methods to overcome that) define the law as their pocketbooks see fit. Fine, I suppose, when it's fairly under control, but when it gets to be too much it's just like anywhere someone's bleeding you just because they can.
Interesting question: whether or not it's better to be in a place with restrictions but clear parameters or one with flexible rules that are affected by who you happen to be dealing with and what you can pay. Kind of the classic lure of the frontier...
If I pay off my student loans and other debts, I'll clear $50k which I think I will put in the least risky securities I can think of, most likely Series I savings bonds. Those are portable and can't be liquidated for a year. Then the 4.5 months of work when spread over 12 months will give me about $1500 a month after tax (and figuring $1000 for RT airfare) for the 7.5 months I'm not working. I think I can live pretty well on that in BA if I hold myself to one hooker per week. But if I can't, I can return early and collect a pretty decent unemployment check. Worst, worst, worst case scenario would be 6 months here and 6 there, I think. That's without dipping into the $50k and plus I'd still be putting about $1800 a year in my retirement plan (mandatory) and maintaining my US health insurance (minimal).
You only live once, and you only die once, and I choose to live until I die.
I'm halfway to Méjico right now.
DH,
Wow, those are major, major changes in your life. I had no idea that you were contemplating such a "sea change." I can only wish you the best and I greatly admire your guts and vision. Whereas I only sit here at my laptop contemplating such changes, you're actually going ahead and doing it. My compliments!
When my daughter finally graduates and I can get out from under her fearsome tuition payments ($27,000 this year alone), I'll hopefully follow in your foosteps - literally.
Keep in touch and let us know how you're doing in Mexico and BA.
I don't think it's that big of a change, all things considered. I've had summers off for a long time. I haven't had enough work in the spring for a long time. I've been taking 2 or 3 trips of 1-3 weeks a year for 6 or 7 years. Now I'm just gonna go to a different country or two every year for a longer period of time. I bet I can even do it for less money if I put my mind to it. And why does a single guy need a whole house in the suburbs? I'm not burning any bridges at my job. I've got half a dozen friends I'll miss but really, I only actually see them once a month and e-mail and international phone calls are cheap. We'll stay in touch, and I'll be back 90% for sure in the fall and 75% for sure in 2004. All bets are off after that, though.
I can stay two months in an apartment and cook my own meals for what it costs to stay a week in a hotel and eat in restaurants, and I don't have to worry about security guards and bullshit rules, and I can cook better than 90% of the professional cooks out there.
Right now I am at my friend's house outside Albuquerque. He is going to drive me to the border tomorrow. He's been in bed since 9 PM and it's Saturday night. He has put on thirty pounds since he got married two and a half years ago. His wife is bitchy and smokes like a chimney. Their house is a total disgusting mess, she can't cook, and she doesn't work outside the house except for boarding some horses and selling some produce and stuff from the garden. He is killing himself supporting her two kids and their baby and he tells me that he would never pay for sex. Everybody pays for it one way or another; it's all prostitution.
He will fuck the same woman once a week (if he is lucky) for the next x number of years while I will fuck a different, younger, better looking woman once a week and not have to put up with any bullshit plus have my amigovia whenever I want for as long as it works for both of us. He says I am crazy to work for the salary that I work for. He makes three times as much as I do and has nothing left at the end of the month, and is putting nothing away for retirement. Yup, I'm crazy.
Now $27,000 a year in tuition, that is crazy. Send her to public school.
DH,
Geez, that's really depressing about your friend in New Mexico. I have several friends who are in the same predicament. As bad as it is now for your friend, can you imagine what the next 5-10 years will be like for him??? Now, that's really depressing - not to mention scary.
Yes, $27,000 is crazy and that's only tuition. There's also room and board, books, the lease on her car, etc. Hey, but I love her dearly and she appreciates it.
Best of luck in Mexico. I hope that you find what you're looking for.
Stranger99
06-07-03, 23:34
Dickhead,
I haven't written here in ages but I regularly read your posts as they add a smile on my face and make me wish that there were more people like you around.
Just wanted to wish you good luck.
S99
Had a good time in Guadalajara where you can get reamed steamed and dry cleaned for $40 which seems eminently moral to me. Now I'm in Puerto Vallarta but I'm out of action until my ATM cards arrive by FedEX (I knew I had forgotten something). Being down to your last 50 pesos in cash (less than five bucks) in Mexico is a disconcerting feeling to say the least although credit cards are FAIRLY widely accepted. They are NOT, however, accepted by hookers and I think that is highly immoral.
Hmm, I think the immoral part would be the non-cash surcharge said workers would no doubt attach to credit card payments :)
Interesting thing on travelling like that -- I've had a couple of times in other countries without money -- once when my bank just decided to switch ATM cards without warning while I was overseas and once when folks who were scheduled to give me a substantial bit of money simply didn't come through. Argues for maintaining some degree of financial flexibility, doesn't it? One reason I try to keep a small stash of traveler's checks with me, in case my cards get lifted or screwed up.
Travelers' checks are a pain in the ass in Mexico because they won't cash them without ID which defeats the purpose. But, I found an American Express office which gave me beaucoup cash at an exorbitant fee so I am in pursuit of prostitution again.
Understood -- that's why I just use 'em as a backup. But if your passport's gone so you can't cash them then you've got more trouble than a forgotten ATM card :) (A reason also why I've always got photocopies of that stashed hither and yon.)
Good to hear you're back on the prowl!
James D 2004
06-29-03, 03:03
SA, I don't think you don't know yourself enough. You are saying that you are not lonely, and that you use prostitutes for pure relief. You had better do some self analysis, or else I'll do it for you.
90% lonely clients - sounds right. If you have female friends or wife that is close enough for sex, you are not lonely.
SA, I don't see what someone being a professional and not necessarily caring about you as a person has to do with easing loneliness. Loneliness is the sense of being isolated or separated from the rest of the world, and it's well documented that a lack of physical contact helps heighten it, and this is true regardless of the sexual aspects involved. It's why there can be such despair in hospices and homes for the elderly, and it's why physical contact has become part of the equation in many such situations. The sense that a nurse or attendant in that situation cares about you can have as much reality as that of a sex worker -- they're just doing their job.
The endorphins released into the bloodstream during orgasm not only tend to act as a kind of morphine, they tend to promote the sense of closeness between sexual partners. That -- not the belief that a sex worker cares about you -- is what helps on the loneliness front. Massage, for example, also releases endorphins (though not the precise same ones) and so touch itself has side-effects. Physical closeness, regardless of emotional attachment, has a function in creating a sense of intimacy that onanism does not. You've repeated your mantra about your hand being better than many prostitutes, but putting your hand on yourself is a different sensation than putting your hand on a woman, and has different effects beyond orgasm. Visual stimulation, smell and sound, stroking a woman's skin, etc., are all left out of your whacking off sessions, and the former are expressions not only of sex, but of a general sense of sexuality. That's not even including other things such as a sense of anticipation, discovery, etc., and the heightening of excitement that come from those, all of which become part of the experience and also mirror traditional relationships. If you're getting the same experience of those when jerking off, you're definitely the exception as opposed to the rule.
I tend to think of interacting with prostitutes kind of like the internet -- both have lowered barriers that allow, say, shy people to open up safely or be the gregarious folks they wish they could be, lonely people to connect with someone else, people who want controlled meaningless stimulation to get it, etc. In general, both allow us to become Samus Aran or any other video game character, go on a series of adventures and experience vicarious emotions, and then step back into our real worlds without harm.
Do I care whether or not an actress believes she is the person she's playing, or whether that actress is genuinely heartbroken when her onscreen/onstage lover is killed? Not in the least -- I get the same rush as long as I've suspended my sense of disbelief. That's what happens here: it's like going to a movie or reading a book in that you give yourself over to the experience, go through it fully engaged, and after it's over you return to your world but with some subtle after-effects.
Having sex with someone who's a non-prostitute can certainly ease loneliness -- even if it's a one-night stand, so why shouldn't sex with prostitutes have the same effect?
James D 2004
06-29-03, 23:24
DH, I almost missed your story. Good luck to selling your house. History showed that it could take some 10 years to get back to the current price. On the other hand, as in recent few years, you can keep on drawing home equity and pay for the mortgage, while your net worth goes up.
Public vs private school. I think your friend have the common genetic insecurity. He think he didn't pass on a great brain or a great body to his offspring's. So one way to avoid a difficult life, you know how difficult it can get, is to give as good a start as possible. Don't save enough for your own retirement is trivial compared to the entire life of the child. If the child do well since pre-school, you may even be able to skip saving for college. But that sort of money is over the top, if you don't know that you can afford it long term. Parents don't understand that it's just as difficult for the child changing from a free public school into an expensive private school, and vice versa!
I agree with you about women, everybody has a price, paying for sex everytime, occasional gifts, or the so called 'long term meal ticket'. But I hope your plans for not committing are temporary. May be in a week, or several years, you will find that physical needs, no matter how hot the girls are, cannot totally replace emotional needs. You need someone that will love you for what you are, not how much you worth.
I hope that your plan of living cheap down there is also temporary. Bettering yourself is like rowing up river. If you don't keep rowing forward, you will be carried backward. It's tough but there's no better place on earth to better yourself than where you are. Yes, you can have 'attractive' women for a lot less. But going upmarket is a side effect when you try to better yourself. Women are attracted to successful men. Either you make a lot of money, or you unemployment check worth a lot in some countries. Who does you want to be? With all that time, I would think about what business I can go into. What other countries in the world would allow you to deduct your expenses even if you make a loss for the 1st 2 years? And do you want to keep that job that pay only several months of the year?
I'm always an under achiever. I took the science route instead of the medical route. It's boring and why I need that much money? I'm dirt poor in high school and I'm OK with it. I tended to attract future model or porn star types. I know what they are after but I turned them down because to be successful will be hard work. I also attracted rich girls who always tell me stories about her rich friend's husbands. Basically they are very unhappy and lucky if they can find someone to marry who want an easy life but treat them good enough. That's sad and I had better things to do than marrying her. When I accepted the offer to relocate, I just hit any girl I fancy on the street during lunch time. I wouldn't do it otherwise, it's a small town. I didn't know I'm that attractive there. The relocation agent made some excuse and asked me to follow her to her car in the underground parking lot.
I do have a point. Try not to look back. Pussies here are about the most expensive in the world. If they cost a few times more, try to make up for it. If you succeed you can try the next level, say porn stars or import models. Maybe try someone long term. Make sure that you make enough for a divorce if you want to marry. With modern medical advances you can have a long active life ahead of you.
James D 2004
07-01-03, 23:54
A somewhat current trafficking report
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/traffic/report/homepage.htm#contents
VilunyaChert
07-03-03, 07:25
Lots of interesting stuff in this news item.
-----
Olympic city aims to license its brothels
Church and feminists furious at Athens mayor's
plan for influx of tourists in 2004
Helena Smith in Athens
Thursday July 3, 2003
The Guardian
The city council in Athens was yesterday embroiled in a row with
the Greek Orthodox church over plans to license brothels to cope
with an expected influx of tourists during next year's Olympic
Games.
The Greek capital's new mayor, Dora Bakoyianni, has come up
against the fierce opposition of leading clerics in her attempt
to "bring law and order" to the profession. Her campaign to
register 230 brothels was denounced by the church's Holy Synod,
which said the proposal was nothing short of an insult.
Even worse, it would "convey the impression that the country's
largest municipality was showing an untoward interest in sex
tourism", the church's governing board, fumed. Just when the eyes
of the world would be fixed on the city of the gods, local
officials were talking about turning it into a "huge bordello".
"This decision constitutes an insult to the city of Athens and
will only satisfy the gangs of procurers that carry out the
unchecked traffic in young foreign women."
Last night a group of Icelandic feminists also stepped into the
fray, denouncing "proposals [that go against] the spirit of the
Olympic games".
"The proposals by Athens officials are in total contrast to the
spirit of the Olympic games which advocates health, peace, sexual
equality and co-operation," said Kirstin Astgeirsdottir, a
spokeswoman for the Icelandic Feminist Association.
But Athens' municipality was unwavering yesterday: it was going
to tackle the problem head on, a spokesman told the Guardian.
Prostitutes may be legal in Greece, enjoying perks that include
retirement benefits, but in the capital at least almost none
bother to register with local authorities. With just 13 months to
go before the Olympics come home, the problem has turned into a
headache for officials now keen to clean up Athens' act.
"We can't take an ostrich-like approach to this," said the
capital's deputy mayor, Ira Valsamaki. "We have a law that
permits brothels and prostitutes to work under licence, which
would be foolish to oppose given the social nature of this
matter, but it is never enforced. With the games coming up
solutions have to be found, and found quickly. "
Untoward interest
Short of an answer, city officials say they fear foreigners may
well end up "having sex behind bushes or in the streets".
An estimated 10,000 sex workers packed the streets, strip clubs
and bars of Sydney for the 2000 Olympics where they are reported
to have had as many as 150,000 clients per day. Already, many are
believed to have booked tickets to Athens.
But under Greek law, sexual services can only be dispensed in
licensed brothels - which must not be located within a 200 metre
radius of a church, school, youth centre or hospital. In theory,
brothels can only employ three people working an eight-hour shift
per day. Mayor Bakoyianni wants 230 brothels to be properly
licensed, amounting to 690 prostitutes in total.
Ms Valsamaki said: "All we have said is that we want to bring
some order by getting the owners of brothels to register their
establishments and clients."
"We have to face the reality that people get very excited during
the Olympics and they're going to have certain demands," said one
city administrator.
"Our hope is that we can come to some agreement with hotels that
will allow them to be satisfied."
Supply and demand
o Prostitution is legal in Greece, but in Athens hardly any
brothels register for licences, although they are supposed to.
o Up to 6,000 fulltime prostitutes may be working in the city.
Athens' municipality wants 230 brothels to operate in the city
centre and surrounding suburbs. This would give the city about
690 registered prostitutes.
o Registered prostitutes undergo regular health checks and pay
social security even if they operate from unlicensed
establishments.
o An estimated 10,000 sex workers were needed to cope with
demand during the last Olympics in Sydney.
I think it is somewhat immoral that RN left the forum without saying goodbye. I miss her. RN, if you still lurk, I hope you are OK and I wish you would check in.
DH
Agreed.
I think I've been going through RN withdrawl or something.
Try going through RN withdrawal and Argentina withdrawal and weed withdrawal at the same time. Talk about a Jones! Gotta get this monkey off my back somehow.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class." - Oscar Wilde
DH,
I think it is mainly Maria withdrawal . . .
I dreamt about her almost every night for a couple of weeks. Some guy backchanneled me last week and said he met her and she lost my e-mail address, so I had him give it to her again. He says she has a friend now who is helping her use the internet so maybe maybe maybe I will hear from her.
"Aprovéchate ese mujer" .... "Abúsame" .... "Amigos, amantes, amigovios" ....
But she is probably in love with Rogelio and not El Toro Rojo.
Great to hear from you, RN, and we'll all look forward to you yammering on, as there's always some substance to it. I notice your site is down -- I hope all is going well.
I forgive you. Mostly. Glad you are still alive. Backchannel me at richardhead41 at hot mail dot com and let me know what's been going on in the opposing quadrant of the world.
OttoGraham
10-25-03, 09:23
UNCLE OTTO’S CHARITIBLE FUND DRIVE!
Support WSG Charities, increase your charitable giving by 50%!
As you know, the WSGForum comes to you completely free of charge, thanks to the hard work of our webmaster, Jackson. Sites that provide far less entertainment and information charge big bucks for “memberships.”
Some of you may not realize that Jackson is also the moving spirit behind WSGCharities, which was formed for the express purpose of collecting funds to be used to purchase food for hungry children in Argentina.
The website is www.wsgcharities.com.
Between now and November 30th, for each $2 you contribute to WSGCharities, I will kick in an additional dollar, up to the breaking point of my own bank account. Your contributions are 100% tax deductible and totally in the good spirit that our community has.
In order to donate, visit the www.wsgcharities.com, and click on “donations.” After you have sent in your Pay Pal or snail-mail contribution, send me an email (ottograham@hotmail.com) with “I’m a friend of Uncle Otto” in the subject line, with the donation amount listed in the body of your email. And for every two dollars you contribute, I will match it with another dollar.
Thanks!
-Uncle Otto
Country John
11-17-03, 21:35
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Sounds like there must be some shrinks out there in the forum (present company excluded).
The male is genetically programmed to pro-create and his drive to do so (if he is normal and sometimes lucky) can last into the autumn of his years. This is a natural fact.
The male body has a need to mate and mate often. Culturally we've conditioned ourselves to take one woman but this does not follow natural law.
It is not un-natural to want to mate with many women, it is a violation of the moral law and in some cases civil law. It is also sometimes a violation of religious law but it is NOT a violation of natural law. I don't care what moral majority mindless dribble you've heard or believe.
OK, so the streets are not lined with women waiting to have sex with you - thank society (which really is OK by the way). Many years have passed since we as a society changed out thinking and settled down with one partner. It is WE who have changed.
Does this make prostitution right? Well, why is it the "world's oldest profession?" It's looked down upon because the society needed to characterize it in a negative manner in order to forward the aims of the new society - whenever that was. Who knows, maybe it got out of control - jeez.
What made prostitution a four letter word was besides the social tabooness of it all, the resulting diseases that spread and the number of marriages per square household that broke up. Ever see a condom made in the '20's, the '30's, the '40's, the '50's?
One thing is clear. Societies throughout the ages have had a part in the prostitution profession. In their own way they've condoned the practice. Law enforcement in the worsts of cases has been light at worst.
I am married for 14 years to a lovely latina woman. Why do I fuck other women? Well, the real question is what do I think about it and how do I rationalize it.
I know that my relationship with the other women is on a pure physical level - no emotion- no conditions (except payment for services rendered) but it fulfills a basic physical urge, that all men have as unfair as it may sound to some. My providers understand this, even though I give them money we enjoy great sex and they are NEVER left feeling used or cheap. They know better anyway. It's part of the business that cuts both ways.
I am not out to cheat on my wife (what the fuck is this "cheat" thing in here for anyway). I did promise to love, honor etc. so there is probably a "cheat" in there somewhere but that's not what we're talking about. I make her happiness my reason for living and she enjoys a very good life.
Yes, she would de-nut me if she ever found out and I would deserve it for the hurt I would bring to bear on her. This, however does not satisfy my urge to mate and mate often with different women. Do I have a problem with sex? No. I can go a long time without getting laid but when I want it, I get it. I am writing in a forum, not selling anything and you don't know who I am anyway so what good would it do to proffer any self serving bullshit?
My sexual life with my wife has improved 100%. It's not dirty, it's not vile, crude or anything else. I've learned much from my providers. They are very clean and dignified women. How do I know? I check.
Look at their teeth, their gums, their skin, their vagina, anus, check their feet (LOTS of disease enters the body through the skin, anyone who says this is not true is lying). Are they clean?
Any signs of illness? What, you don't know how to check? Silly you.
Any brothel worth it's salt teaches the girls as LESSON #1 how to do a DC (dick check). You need to learn this stuff if you plan on staying in the game. If not, you could get very sick.
There are a lot of the other types out there too as we all know but I am not referring to them. There are girls that do not take care of themselves, just like some guys. There are some AIDS infested people out there infecting us. I'm not on that level here. That's a different post.
If I were to "cheat on my wife" I would have fallen in love with another woman, supported her, etc etc etc. Sex alone labelled as "cheating" is a self serving term that enables one to not confront the reality of what is really going on and it is not a bad thing if it makes you happy in your life.
With all of the sex I enjoy from some fantastic providers, none of them could ever be my wife. Sounds strange? Well, remember we are speaking genetically here. My wife brings to my life things that no other person could. I have a duty to her to stay safe at all costs but denying my genetic urge and pathology, not being able to "conform" to some long ago agreed upon moral cannot be part of the program during this lifetime.
Men are men (but you already know that) and their need to have more than one partner for SEX is not un-natural.
Paying for the sex they desire is no different than paying for any service in reality. What is stupid is unprotected sex in an age where we are smarter than that.
Being disrespectful to women and not taking the time to select a sex partner that will satisfy you are stupid things.
The joy we feel as we glam slam our way to the headboard is not the satisfaction of cheating on someone or the thrill of stepping outside the norm or being different in some way.
It is the fulfillment of a basic genetic drive that we as males possess. Females possess it too. There are male hookers. Some people even take money to have their fucking dogs mate.
If the dogs know there was money involved, would that change their thinking on fucking Fifi? I think not.
So let's get off the endless cycle of trying to rationalize our behaviour. The pathology is in and it is all fact. Sex is a GOOD THING. The more the better. Don't worry, the back of your head will not cave in.
There is nothing more stimulating genetically than a beautiful woman who will be intimate to release. They just don't seem to realize how beautiful they are. Some try, some think they understand but I never met a woman yet who truly got it and understood the aesthetic qualities they possess and effect on the male nerve endings. They see the effect, they just dont understand it. Some think they got it but they would have to understand the pathology and your average provider is a) not interested and b) is not interested.
Stupid me tried explaining this one time to a very beautiful latina provider (who spoke english) but I am sure she thought I was bullshitting her to get into her pants. Well, I actually paid her to get into her pants. I was being very honest. Women don't seem to want to hear it and it means more to me that they understand it than maybe it should.
Too bad it costs so much goddam money but you can't blame them for figuring out how to make it work for them - can you?
Keeping our dick in our pants is to deny our basic genetic make up and the pathology of thousands of years past. Don't go stupid by just nodding you head up and down to the beat of the moral majority mindless dribble. They don't even know what they believe in. Don't go stupid by denying the things you need to do to stay well and protect your provider(s).
Don't be stupid and not understand your place.
Be SAFE.
Country John
Chapter 2 - Spirituality and Prostitution
Stay tuned
Lombardi II
12-04-03, 02:02
I have an interesting question that I would like to pose to the group.
Prostitution is illegal in all but a few areas of the United States.
One can assume that the laws of a community are a direct reflection of its mores, and this is often the case. One may also assume that an illegal activity is inherently immoral, or at least detrimental to the well being of the community. This is certainly true in some cases - murder and rape, for example, are clearly immoral <i>and</i> unlawful acts. But arriving at a consensus about the morality of other unlawful acts (including, e.g., prostitution) proves to be a far greater challenge. I suppose the problem is that the law is objective (if you do "x" then "y" is the consequence), while morality is highly subjective. I have never met two people who have exactly the same concept of morality, or of what constitutes immoral behavior.
So, my "chicken or the egg" question for the group is thus: Is prostitution illegal in the United States because a majority of Americans find it immoral, or do a majority of Americans find prostitution immoral because it is illegal? Does the law influence public opinion, or does public opinion influence the law?
I have a theory, but I would like to know what others think about this.
Thanks!
First, I'm not so certain I'd agree that the laws of an area are a direct reflection of its mores -- a general reflection, perhaps, but direct is stretching it. I also think that point extends only so far -- I don't know that a community as a whole thinks a lot about what streets have 25 versus 25 MPH speed limits, for example, as opposed to simply accepts the general recommendations of its various servants in that regard. We could look at public opinion regarding euthanasia, for example, and find a disconnect between mores of the majority and laws in place.
I bring up the latter because I think rather than most communities originally worrying overmuch about prostitition one way or another when laws come into being, instead they generally simply accept general patterns of morality. Laws are very often based on laws from other places, and morality is not different. It's not so much that communities necessarily think about this or that being illegal or immoral as that they accept the default patterns and perhaps add a couple of local twists.
We've just gone through a (rather idiotic, imho) strange exercise in Alabama over the Ten Commandments and their basis for being the underpinning of general American laws, and whether that historical issue smehow trumps the Constitution. The truth is that religion is responsible in so many ways for deciding what should and shouldn't be in legal code, as religion is about modes of thought and conduct.
But to answer your question directly, I absolutely believe that a majority of Americans find prostitution immoral because it is illegal. One need only look at the issue of abortion before and after Roe v. Wade to see that process in bas relief. Regardless of anyone's personal beliefs on that issue, there's little question that the leading champions of restrictions on the issue of "choice" come from the religious community. We could look at changes in attitudes regarding gambling before and after the spread of lotteries and casinos as another example. I'd expect the same to be true in the case of prostitution, as it's another of the behaviors condemned by the dominant religious strains of the country.
The Virgin Terr
12-05-03, 13:24
Country john's post was interesting, although i think he confuses the word "pathology" for something else like perhaps evolution.
Re. the chicken or egg question, i tend to go with the idea that prostitution's illegality is what makes it immoral to many. But i'd like to add a caveat, for which i've been flamed here in the past: children and adolescents are bombarded with sex-negative messages from their parents and other adult authority figures in their lives, which in my mind contributes significantly to their puritanical attitudes as adults. This kind of leads to another chicken or egg question: for sexual freedom to prevail, which minds must be the first to change, those of adults, or those of children and adolescents?
With all due respect, VT, that's a rather disingenuous mischaracterization of the disagreements folks have had with you here in the past.
PosterLion
12-05-03, 16:19
I have no real desire to debate about morality. Men and women having sex for money merely exists as a truth, as sure as the moon is going to be full 12 times a year.
That said, sometimes when this happens, a little baby is produced out of the trade. This is also a truth and I am one thankful individual for a particular occurence of this truth.
It would be safe to say that I am glad prostitution exists. It has brought good things to my life. I'll leave it to the experts to decide whether this is right or wrong. :)
I would like to point out that sexual freedom and prostitution don't seem to me as a related issue. Prostitution is not (for me) a form of sexual freedom. It is an activity that is illegal, the same as not wearing a saftey belt.
The fact that both are illegal is an attack on personal freedom period. We can thank society for that. Maybe we can change it to where prostitution is legal. Maybe we can't. Who knows? Not me.
But we also have to thank society for prostitution as well. Because without society there would be no prostitution. I believe this is a paradox, as societies have tended to be since they came into existence. As you can tell, I am not one to ask if you really need an answer. I don't have one! :)
Sexual freedom is an entirely different ball game. It is merely a battle between youself and your inhibitions. If you win the battle, you are sexually free. :)
I've said enough. I don't remember why I decided to comment on this now. I think I was bored from cleaning house or something.
poster...
Umm, speaking of truth, PosterLion, the truth is that every two or three years there are 13 full moons in a year. :D
(Sorry -- since you write poetry, I just couldn't resist, as you might know there's a feminist literary magazine of long standing called "13th Moon...)
Country John
12-05-03, 18:52
Very interesting posts -all of them.
The common mistake in evaluating this issue is not separating the moral issues from the legal issues.
The moral issues (Church as opposed to State) center around the base agreement in the society that something is bad. Let's use prostitution as an example.
Remember please that many many moons ago (in biblical times) prostitution (harlots) were to be avoided for fear of nasties. (Proverbs Chapter 5 & 7)
The main reasons for this appear to have at their base the destruction of the body caused by ones own actions (which by the way is a sin). This destruction was most likely caused by STD's because back in biblical times there were no condoms, creams, spermacides etc. What you got was what you got. Now, a stiff dick having no conscience even back in olden times would not have been concerned about such things and the ignorance of things medical would lead one to attribute anything nasty happening to the body as a wrath from God and you would most certainly look like you were on your way to hell by the time some of these illness really got a grip on you.
So I would say that in early times, prostution was "bad" not because the authorities had problems with it, but because society lost many to disease and it was probably a pretty awful thing to watch happening -jeez, just the though of it.
Since this was the wrath of God for having laid with a prostitute, then prostitution was taboo so far as religion goes. Not because one woman should not provide a man with sexual gratification for money, but because one would lose onself unto the Lord. (Peace be upon Him.)
Gaining a foothold in the religious beliefs of a society is a great way to get money (Benny Hin, Oral Roberts etc. will attest to this) and it's also a great way to get stuff outlawed (check the many statutes of New York City for basis in the Jewish Faith - Peace Be Upon Them).
There was a time when the law of the land was whatever the Pope said. (Review the Inquisition History). Many examples of religious rule exist today in the Middle East. Fuck with the Saudis and you get your head cut off.
If the Pope said "Do not eat meat on Friday." and if you then ate meat on Friday, you might get your balls cut off and so it goes. Are you with me? Good.
OK. So the MORAYS of the group are rules and codes of conduct that are AGREED UPON BY THE GROUP. They are NOT the laws of the land (although many laws are also considered moral issues). They are SEPARATE and APART from the laws of civil obedience.
Laws of the land are not (always) AGREED UPON BY THE GROUP but are, rather enacted by the authorities and lawmakers who represent us (the good of the people). Often times item of moral agreement serve well as laws for civil obedience and therefore become laws of civil obedience.
No-one tells you that you shouldn't lay with a prostitute because "PROSTITUTION" is bad. What's bad is the effect of laying with a prostitute should your body be pierced through the liver by a rod, or have thy purse stolen from thee.
I'm not as concerned about the rod through the liver as I am about watching my wallet, but clearly the threat level had more to do with being hurt or robbed.
The word Prostitute means:
"...to offer indiscriminately for sexual activity especially for money."
There is no reference to this as immoral. In another context, it means:
"...to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes."
"Corrupt" means "..to make evil."
"Evil" means "wicked."
"Wicked" in this context means "morally bad - evil - sinful."
"Sinful" means "..marked by or full of sin."
The definitions go around in circles - this is what "society" would have you learn.
Now let's be careful to not jumble these definintions together, the right wing bible thumpers would shove both of these up your ass in a heartbeat but it THEY who misunderstand this stuff - that's why they are jumping up and down throwing money at Benny Hin and not in a house of prayer on their knees in solemn
reflection and worship -seriously.
The legal issues surrounding prostitution are born out of the religious taboo. Nothing more, nothing less.
Society AGREED that it was bad, the lawmakers are part of society so they AGREED to make it illegal but NOBODY proves it is WRONG.
What goes WRONG is STD's because of a problem provider or a stupid mongerer. Having sex with a woman who is not your wife is a violation of your AGREEMENT with your wife that you woud not fuck someone else. Tell me, was this sexual encounter the result of a lustful urge or the falling in love with another? Lust -I know. So "cheating on your wife" means that you 1-fucked a woman who is not her, 2-fell in love with a woman who is not her. Which is worse?
Thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife - well, don't covet her damn it!! Covet the one down the street.
We talking about a physical release, not a spiritual bonding.
Depending on your religious convictions you are guilty of a sin and you must confess this sin to your priest and obtain forgiveness. If you are ok with it then fuck it.
Remember: it's illegal because the GROUP says it's illegal and its morally wrong to the GROUP that agrees it is morally wrong. Which group you belong to is your business and it's your right to belong to whichever group you damn well want. So get out there and BELONG.
If we can link that pissing against a wall is morally wrong then you'd better copp to it next time you're in the confessional because by definition it is also a sin.
Masterbation was taboo, (anybody out there have the back of their head fall in?) for ever. Now, its masterbation everywhere. Look at what's happened in the catholic church. How did these educated men rationalize that it was OK to get inside little Johnnies pants? They rationalize that "celebacy" means not getting married or having sex with a woman, it does not mean not fondling children or engaging in homosexual activity.
I guarantee you this: you will find more references in the bible (and interpretations of these references) that refer to homosexuality than prostitution yet they ain't throwing the fruits in jail.
What about the homosexual that gives another homosexual money for sex? Fuck man, what a mess!
Lets look at religious significance in 2004 as people who live in 2004 and stop trying to apply BC500 laws and morays to life in 2004 because the result of these attempts have filled the middle east countryside with mass graves and even today they are blowing each other to Kindom-Come in the name of GOD.
Look, I believe there is a God. I believe someday I will meet him. If I am wrong then there will be no bigger fool than me and I will be left in whatever condition I find myself in the end.
Time goes by and we evolve. The pathology ("the study of the essential nature of..") is that we progress as beings who control (to a large extent) our planet, our lives and our destiny and as such we make determinations about what is good or bad for the group and then we make decisions about how we react to these things. It's good or it's bad; it helps us survive good or it makes us survive bad.
We all want to survive good don't we? Of course we do. Things that were thought of as being "bad" for our survival are not really "bad" now because we understand them and can deal with them unless they are destructive by nature. Prostitution is no worse than sharing a bus ride in terms of what you could catch from someone -man or woman - I take that back, sex would certainly be a higher risk activity then getting on the bus but there is no denying that getting on the bus can expose you to boogers too-right?
So the STIGMA connected to prostitution is the initial shock value of realizing that someone has come out against the morays of the group. The perceived evil act committed therein and the resultant nasty feelings about something you're not really 100% sure about but man if felt good. Sounds fucked up to me too.
For me, there is no better thrill than crawing in the sack with an 18 or 19 year old model type (latina) girl who is most willing. The experience is a physical fantasy with a release ending that, well, happy is a good word. No denying that. I have no unresolved issues in my universe about this. There might be those who will argue - I welcome the challenge and the opportunity.
My fingers are getting tired - I'll continue (if you like) at a later time. I've got 8709 characters here, enough is enough.
In the meantime, be at peace this holday season and give someone a hug or two.
Be safe and BE NICE.
Country John
Merlin Magician
12-06-03, 21:42
Here is Merlin enjoying his X Mas.
The Virgin Terr
12-06-03, 22:09
i have a totally different interpretation of why prostitution is illegal, and it has everything to do with sexual freedom.
i think the great cynical political writer said something like the best politicians, or at least the most popular ones, are those most adept at the art of deceit and coercion, often of the most subtle psychological variety. society operates on control of the masses by an elite few, and having a great deal of control over people's most powerful passions is essential for having control over them. shame is the powerful emotion which gives the controllers the leverage they need to be in control. the controllers deem under what conditions sex is ok, and persecute all sex which falls outside of their narrow limits. machiavelli was right.
Country John, I've gotta disagree with your take on why prostitution was defined as bad by connection with disease, on historical grounds. The truth is that the connection between sex and STDs was not at all well established in the past. Syphillis, which has probably the most dramatic effects (i.e. people ended up in insane asylums) wasn't identified as the root cause of paralysis until the beginning of the last century. The first real treatise on STDs didn't appear until after Columbus (and it was connected to the spread of syph, which most agree came from the New World.) Leprosy and plague were the things people were really afraid of, and neither of them was connected to prostitutes, either actually or popularly. While people did connect some STDs with sexual acts, it simply wasn't as dramatic as you make it out to be. This is far more about control of societal structure and behavior than it is about disease.
The "wrath of God" was more about the proper level of sexual interest, with prostitutes seen as having a greater level of that, which could thereby over-interest "normal" folks and corrupt children. Religion works in the service of societal structure, and having people working and creating wealth (and tithing a portion of it) as opposed to screwing fits into the equation. Prostitution has the potential to convince that pursuit of bodily, rather than abstract spiritual, pleasures is the way to go, and that sets it directly against religion.
(Edited to correct grammatical error, not to change meaning.)
Country John
12-07-03, 15:29
JZ:
Interesting take. People were dropping like flies and having a very bad time of it. Prostitution even in biblical times was linked to physical demise as a wrath. Prostitutes were more interested in getting your money though, same as now for the most part. There did not have to be a medical link in order to make a spiritual link to the physical manifestation of Gods wrath.
I loved your comments though. Sounds like you know your stuff and I am always interested in other points of view.
Kind regards,
Country John
The Virgin Terr
12-07-03, 19:20
zop and i agree. his explanation is more erudite, while mine's more intuitive, but i think we come to somewhat different conclusions. social coercion must be kept to a bare minimum to achieve a fair and free and peaceful society. the burden of proof in favor of social coercion should always be on those who make that argument, but usually they resort to deceit and violence instead. (Of course! what else can they resort to?) truth is on the side of the "anarchist", the person who desires a minimal coercion existence.
however u r still a pedophile and that remains repugnant 2 most of us. its probably no more your fault than being left handed or homosexual but those deviates dont tend to advertise as heavily
Nice to drop in here and see the same old misconceptions being peddled.
Ancient Rome: To blame STDs on American Indians is bs. The Emperors Tiberius Claudius and Nero banned kissing in public ceremonies from 14 – 37 A.D. due to an epidemic of fever blisters. Herpes! You mean to tell me STDs were not an integralpart of Roman orgies!
In ancient Rome, prostitutes were licensed by the state and taxed. Patrician woman were absolutely forbidden to engage in prostitution. Women who were neither patricians nor slaves, but relied on other means of income (for example, actresses, musicians, dancers, and so on), were free to sell sexual services without registration or taxation. Male prostitutes were also numerous in Rome, but were not regulated by the state. Throughout the empire, female employees of inns and taverns were grouped with prostitutes by law.
The early Christian church excommunicated (AD 305) all prostitutes on moral grounds. Nevertheless, prostitution remained a well-established institution, and it provided an important source of tax revenue to the imperial state. Thus, by late antiquity, the status of prostitution was reversed from its temple origins: it was now specifically excluded from the sacred while it flourished in the profane world.
Both secular and sacred prostitution have coexisted in India since classical Hindu times. Lay prostitutes were a recognized caste. The Muslim invasions of India (c.AD 1000) resulted in official pronouncements against the institution, since it is forbidden by the Koran. However, practices under Muslim rule did little to discourage it. Temple prostitution, in which girls are dedicated to a deity, continue to this day.
In China, the earliest historical reference to prostitution dates from the Chou dynasty (c.650 BC), at which time it was already a well established institution. In China, more than elsewhere, the predominant form of prostitution has been in brothels of female slaves. After slavery was officially ended, the sale of wives, concubines, and daughters into prostitution remained a common practice.
The well-known role of the Geisha in Japan is of relatively recent origin and resembles that of the classical Greek hetaerae.
Prior to European colonization, prostitution in the Western Hemisphere and Africa was probably likewise limited to the religious realm. In what seems to be a world historical pattern, an upsurge in prostitution followed the effects of urbanization and wage labor. Women often supplemented their low wages with occasional prostitution, or, in the absence of employment, turned to prostitution as full-time work. Plus le change!
Please do not mix up your religions: Judaism is a tribal cult, so Jewish hookers, being outside the fold, had to be dealt with. Protestantism is an offshoot of Judaism and Catholicism is a dolly mixture of Judaism and paganism!These help to explain attitudes to hookers and the services they provide.
Country John, people have been dropping like flies throughout history, whether there's a connection to prostitution or not.
As Skinless notes, I think it's also important to be clear exactly what religion we're talking about. While Christianity tends to look at things in terms of the temptations of the flesh and sexuality as being about sinfulness, there were plenty of religions with other takes on things, with various goddess religions believing exactly the opposite -- that sex was a way of getting in touch with the divine. A number also had different takes on prostitution, including, for example, the Canaanites, who practiced ritual prostitution in the hope of ensuring fertility of pretty much everything. Some of the moon goddesses, for example, and Baal were associated with these practices. A number of the images we take from the Old Testament reflect the disdain of the Israelites for these practices.
There are also many cultures and religions with a connection between prostitutes and temples, ranging from either the temples of Ishtar (Babylonia, though this may be a slander by Herodotus) or Astarte (Phoenicians) where women were supposed to sleep with someone as an offering to the goddess to many others. Frazer, in "The Golden Bough" describes similar practices basically all over the region. Egyptian temples supposedly had prostitutes who were temple servants and whose jobs it was to bring in money for the temple. In Devadasi Buddhism there was a practice of basically dedicating girls to a temple, which often basically meant she first had a paramour and then was destined for a brothel. (Very ironic considering that Buddha was opposed to prostitution -- though not to prostitutes per se, as he attempted to convert temple prostitutes.)
In terms of common prostitution, the general brush and complaint prety much across societies was that they were money-hungry, which I've always found interesting. (Either they were of low character because they liked sex or because they liked money.) The Romans were careful to make legal distinction between prostitutes, who were registered, made money, and paid taxes, and harlots, who were simply lascivious. Again, this sets prostitutes against standardized religions in that money going to them is not going to the religion, so it's an issue of control of mens' interests and pocketbooks.
Country John
12-08-03, 13:13
Well for one thing I had no idea there was 13 full moons every year - shows to go ya!
Interesting stuff this history lesson. You guys sure know your history better than I do - very refreshing.
We need to go back a bit further though on the historical timeline. Clearly the assimilation of prostitution into the moral/legal/ethical arenas follows a path with it's beginnings much earlier than the described events.
Most of the time physical demise was connected to spiritual wrongdoing and prostitutes were then (as they are today) excellent targets. Having a rock fall on your head was also the hand of God.
Sounds like more research is needed. Keep up the excellent posts.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
PS: JZ, just rea-read one of your earlier posts that I suppose I should have read earlier.
I think the sex urge is not out of a spiritual lust but rather a genetic tendancy. We don't want to be bad, and many have reconciled our mongering ways so as not to carry guilt and I think the ability to do that (if genuine as opposed to a denial routine) comes from that genetic program that feeds the need to spread the seed.
Now I may be way off base here but I've been looking at it for quite some time (long before my mongering ways) and I think there is something in there and I'd be very interested in your comments.
Except for the orthodox practices, I don't see much understanding in religious groups - more blind faith than anything. So the interpretation of the morality of prostitution thoughout the ages would most certainly place it in the taboo after several thousand years if all people had to use as a filter was the religious standard, whether understood or not.
Most of our laws come from the Magna Carta which seems to have borrowed heavily from the religious laws of the time. Do you think the line between the morality issue of prostitution and the legality is as clear today as it was then?
(Revised to include the PS)
Ok, on rereading this, I think it's gotta be one of my strangest posts ever. But here goes:
I'd agree that the sex urge is basically genetic tendency, as it's one of the things that's pretty common to all living things. I don't picture anteaters, for example, undergoing some kind of spiritual quest before they boink. As humans, we tend to make too much of ourselves in any event, and this is another occasion, imho.
I also agree with you about the lack of understanding in religions, but, really, that's part of the whole point of them, isn't it? Kierkegaard has pointed out that the essence of real belief is faith when rational proof is absent, and that in order to believe we must suspend reasoning. You either believe or you don't. That's not a great recipe for promoting understanding as opposed to reliance on law or ritual.
It's also hardly a great situation for anything having to do with sex -- keep in mind that the Catholic Church considered (still does, I believe) enjoyment of sex to be a sin unless it was a byproduct of an attempt to procreate, which could only properly occur between man and wife. And regardless of the Reformation, the underpinnings of Christianity still spring from "the Church." So, given that the entire idea of prostitutes is making use of knowledge and technique to bring sexual pleasure to the client, there's not a lot of wiggle room for understanding of prostitution in that religious constellation.
Strangely, then, you've got stuff like St. Augustine's warning "banish prostitutes...and you reduce society to chaos through unsatisfied lust" which led to his amazing statement that "unnatural sex (meaning not only oral or anal sex, etc., but any non-procreative urge -- my italics) is atrocious if committed with a prostitute, even more atrocious if committed with a wife... If a man wishes to use part of the body of a woman which it is forbidden to use for that, it is more shameful for the wife to allow for such crime to be performed on her body than to let it be done on another woman." In other words, better to use a prostitute than a condom. (Of course, Augustine was also the guy who said, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.")
In essence, then, prostitution is seen by the church as a necessary evil, with a prostitute acting as a kind of weird release point -- women should expect men to go do nasty things with prostitutes, because it's a bigger sin to do them with their wives. The men are bad, of course, but, hey, man is bad. And prostitutes are also bad, but better them than having all these wives sin. Everyone better go to confession. Small wonder history ended up with Rasputin's whole "let's sin together so we can be forgiven, take off your clothes now, baby" schtick.
You ask why the laws and the morality are screwed up on this? Because the religion is as well! Let's put it this way -- all this certainly doesn't sound any better or clearer then as opposed to now, to say the least.
As far as the Magna Carta, let's keep in mind that one of the things that sparked the whole thing was King John's tendency to sell off women -- the Magna Carta is really the first great document to contribute to the emancipation of women by saying this wasn't really kosher. But it didn't really borrow from religious law as much as common law, if there was really much of a difference between the two back in the thirteenth century. I don't really know enough about the historical underpinnings of English common law to make such a judgement. If there's a lawyer in the house he might be better able to say.
Whew! :)
(Of course, Augustine was also the guy who said, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.")
I shall embrace that philosophy on my deathbed. Of course, I'll probably be INcontinent by then!
Morality of prostitution in poor countries: Is it more moral if I eschew prostitution and let these women work for a dollar a day doing repetitive, mind numbing, meaningless labor? Or is it more moral if I pay them ten dollars for a small part of a day to do repetitive, mind numbing, meaningless labor and then I get to also blow a nut?
Morality of prostitution in rich countries: Most flat-out prostitutes are substance abusers, other than SOME of the very high priced ones with whom I am too much of a Dickhead to consort. There's also the gold diggers who are maybe not technically prostitutes but who are still fucking for financial gain. Not my cup of tea and I'd rather do my own manual labor under those conditions.
Morality of prostitution in general: Not lying, not cheating, and not stealing when done properly. Or, at least no more so than working in marketing or being an attorney, to name just a few examples.
Ergo, moral or at worst moral neutral.
When we engage the services of fallen women, we are buying emotion, even if we are merely using them as sperm tupperware. In the early days of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis held hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners. Accounts say they would all be jacking off, hundreds of thousands of them, at the same time. I use hookers for a similar reason: stress relief. I also like a lot of them as simple people who provide a simple service as best they can and who open up their pussies to me as they cannot open their hearts. Because we have bought them, we can never change the master slave relationshiop between us and them. A lot of the trouble we experience with the problem cases is precisely because of that. Last night, John Skinless was eyeing up a hooker in a lane. She was dancing with herself. Why? Because she wanted to give herself self respect before John Skinless or someone else filled her up with white gravy. We are sad cases.
My only problem with prostitution is seeing 60 or 70 year old men with 16 year old girls. Sorry, but that's just wrong. For god's sake they're old enough to be your grandaughters. Maybe I'll change my mind when I reach that age. I doubt it.
Just to note, I sort of agree with you in that I don't permit any discussion of sex with any persons under 18 years of age on this Forum.
The Virgin Terr
12-11-03, 11:39
i've just begun reading a book by danny goldberg titled DISPATCHES FROM THE CULTURE WARS (HOW THE LEFT LOST TEEN SPIRIT). it appears to be basically a diatribe against how the democratic party (for those of u unfamiliar with american politics, the democrats are the main party of the left) has abandoned progressive ideas as characterized by the youth movement of the 1960's. i was too young then to have been involved with that time, but i can readily identify with the frustration of wanting to identify with a group which doesn't want to identify with me. it's how i feel whenever i try to identify with some particular group of progressives, only to discover that my views are too extreme for them.
the only thing i've ever "advertised" is my open mindedness and disgust with brain-dead intolerance of any sort. unfortunately some ideas are too dangerous for expression on any open forum.
i enjoy the educational aspect of this thread, but my approach to this issue is very simple, as it is to all issues. power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few who can then dictate to and brainwash the "masses" as to questions of morality, and punish anyone who defy their authority. it is the concentration of power in the hands of a minority able and willing to use force to attain and maintain that power which results in the lack of consensual freedom in society.
i disagree with zop's assertion that prostitution is about bringing knowledge and technique to enhancing sexual experience. i'd say that's a very small part of it. it's more about meeting the need for physically attractive sexual partners, and capitalizing on that need. if it were primarily about knowledge and experience, older prostitutes would be in more demand, and as we all know, prostitutes over the age of 40 are rare and not much in demand.
VT, you're misinterpreting what I said. My statement wasn't some simplistic characterization of the boundaries of prostitution, it was to highlight the difference between prostitution and the position of the Church, which is adamantly anti-pleasure. I was certainly not asserting that knowledge and technique was all there was to it; it's the issue of pleasure versus procreation that is the key and core difference between the two. Your assertion that it's about physical attraction is just another way of saying the same thing: attraction is connected to pleasure, which still stands opposite the Church's position. The bottom line is this -- prostitutes are not hired for the purpose of procreation. (Hmm, makes me wonder how the church handles surrogacy. Gonna have to research that one.)
And VT, I'm sorry, but your logic confuses me. You rail against control of an agenda or perpective by a minority, and then decry the fact that you're too radical for folks you'd prefer to hang with. Which implies, in other words, you feel you should be the minority in control of the agenda, and that the larger group should somehow incorporate your perspectives as opposed to you incorporating theirs. To choose a practical example from the same time period as the book you're reading, you can look at the relationship between the SDS and the Weather Underground, who mostly shared the same perspectives about the need for change in society, but differed radically about how that should be achieved. SDS folks weren't willing to go as far as the WU folks wanted to go, and many were horrified by their suggestions, so the latter split off and did their bombings all by their lonesome. (And, no, I'm not saying or implying you're violent, or a terrorist, or anything like that!)
BTW, Skinless, since I read through your comment on this -- I didn't blame STDs on American Indians. My comment was strictly about syphillis, which is fairly well documented to have come from the New World. We all know there's a massive range of STDs and that they've been around forever (around 1000BC the Egyptians used condoms to try to prevent disease), and I was singling out this specific one. Such a statement is no more inflammatory than asserting that smallpox came to the Americas from Europe or that AIDs probably originated in Africa.
just out of curiosity, plugger, does your problem with prostitution extend to seeing 70 year old men with 20 year old women, who are still young enough to be their granddaughters? in other words, is this about **** or age difference?
Country John
12-11-03, 14:36
What we need here is a woman's input on that side of the morality issue. I for one would be very interested in reading it.
Part of what made prostitution such a controversial topic through the ages in the first place, imho, is a lack of understanding of who we really are now and who we really were then. We seem to be trying to analyze with missing or corrupt data. With so much open to interpretation, I question the accuracy of most documented ancient history (although I'm not being goofy about it or saying it is all inaccurate, I'm sure some of it is).
I also believe that we are not simply animals that are responding to a sexual stimuli but the sexual stimuli is triggering the sex urge which I believe is genetic in nature and not spritual in origin.
Sex is natural between a man and a woman PERIOD. Sex between two males is not "natural" but (and I am not Gay) who is to step in between a guy jerking off another guy, or worse? I love watching two women (better when they're crawing over me).
We have the mental capacity to make decisions of course and we are intelligent; but our lack of self awareness gets us into trouble and affects our ability to make decisions, I guess that's why some are good decisions and some are bad decisions right?
We pile all this other stuff on top and now the issue becomes so convoluted that we lose sight of the core issue. 99% of the religious foundation is (today anyway) faith - we just got to believe. Since most "church people" have no first hand experience with miracles or other substantial first hand reality, EVERYTHING is taken at face value under faith. Faith being the belief in and the hope of eternal survival as a spiritual being after your bod ends off on this little adventure.
The universe was a very small place 2000 years ago. People had no reality of a universe beyond their village and with so little to hang blame on or to attribute as a source for anything, the only universe that was real to them was the one between their ears and it was all they could do to work with that. So they made up rules about it and then sought agreement on those rules. Anything that threatened their survival became taboo, natural law or not.
I guess where I am going is that we need to undercut as far as we can back to the core issue. I know there are a lot of members who are well educated and very fluent in ancient history and philosophy on this firum. I enjoy very much reading your posts. The answer to the question "Is prostitution immoral?" is Yes.
What was the think on prostitution before questions of morality or even morality itself emerged as a social issue? Why is prostitution now "bad" because morality emerged as a social issue? Who says that I have to agree with that? Reality is that upon which is agreed to but if you don't want to agree with someone elses reality how is that interpreted as immoral?
Man(kind) is NOT bad. He is good. He is seeking to survive which is the one common denominator found in EVERY living thing. How he choses to do that is another story. Some men equate "good survival" with stealing what he needs. Others are prepared to do the time, put in the work, acquire the assets etc. Both end up with the same result but different methods.
The bad guy gets what he wants (or needs) from the good guy at the expense of the good guy. Maybe the good guy kills the bad guy, well, that would be bad survival for the bad guy because now he's dead and you can't get any more "wrong" than that.
How does paying a woman to partake in fulfilling a sexual goal wrong?
Hummm.
Thanks for your time.
Country John
jz,
i'd have to say it's about both. in thailand for example, the number of young girls i see with older men really shocked me. obviously sex with any **** girl is repulsive, and i'm sure no one here condones it. but i also have a problem seeing 20 year olds with 70 year old men. that's like my grandad going out with my baby sister. i guess we all would have different perspectives on this point but, i've been coming to los for years and it still hasn't softened my stance.
i'm sorry if i've offended any older members. but hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.
" but who is to step in between a guy jerking off another guy? "
. . . Probably another gay guy.
Plugger, I don't like to be critical of a fellow Aussie but, where do you draw the line? How about a 60 year old and a 25 year old, or a 18 year old and a 50 year old? Also the fact that we are all regular seekers of "pros" doesn't exactly give us a high moral ground to stand on. I've long accepted the fact that prostitution is immoral, but I learn to live with participating in it, because I'm not married. But that's another topic.
Has anybody been following this case in China? I guess a group of Japanese men scheduled a three-day orgy in a Chinese hotel on the anniversary of Japan's invasion of Manchuria, so the locals are ticked off. Here's a link to the Guardian's story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,7369,1051849,00.html.
plugger, i do think the issue of where you draw the line is a rather critical one. i've no disagreement with you on the **** thing (though that line varies by country) as that's a line i agree needs drawing somewhere. but i don't know how you somehow legislate the actions of who hooks up with who once you're talking about consenting adults.
how do you possibly solve such a thing? is someone sleeping with someone you enough to be a granddaughter somehow worse than sleeping with someone young enough to be a daughter? is that the same or different than someone sleeping with someone old enough to be a grandmother? is there a line of age somewhere that's absolutely magic, where younger or older simply isn't ok? is it something that's ok if it's done for an hour in private, but offensive if you're out walking around?
in los you see that kind of thing all the time for a number of reasons -- one of which is that thais, despite their various hangups about how dark or light skin is and what that represents as a social indicator, don't really have an age thing going on. marriages between thais of radically different ages is nothing shocking or surprising, and given the huge pay-for-play scene there (and its past history as a place pedophiles sought out, though there's far less of that now) it's hardly surprising that you're going to see such a thing with foreigners and sex workers.
are we left to simply rely on your personal offended sensibilities, or is there some way to have a clear way of looking at this. (and i'm not offended in the least, don't worry. i'm not at geezer level yet, and in any event when i'm mongering i'm not someone who's obsessed with tracking down the youngest available partner.)
Country John, I agree with you that we need a woman's input -- please come back soon, RN!! If you read back through the archives here you'll find a couple of women have participated in this discussion at various points.
Your point about decision making is something I think our species is aware of and fascinated by. Men always tell themselves and each other to "think with the big head, not the little one." There are countless examples in literature and real life about basically stupid choices in the name of love or lust, from Romeo and Juliet to Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob and so on. I'm not so sure self-awareness has a lot to do with it, though -- one of the characterizations of humans is the ability to be self-aware of what drives you, of the potential disasterous consequences of an action, and still go forward. We long for black-and-white circumstances, but the reality is that most things contain various shades of gray.
To follow that point, you say "the answer to the question 'Is prostitution immoral?' is Yes."
Are you saying it's defined as immoral in the culture (all cultures? American culture? what?) or that it is inately immoral according to your core values, or what? And what is it that makes it immoral? Is it a specific act, or is there a line that gets crossed? Are there mitigating circumstances, in the same way that we would understand differently the morality of stealing bread to feed your children versus robbing a bank for personal gain, or is it simply always immoral at the same level? Are there differences in the morality of the participants -- is a somehow provider more or less culpable than a client, and why? Are there grays to this immorality, in terms of, say, being a streetwalker being more or less immoral than, say, being a kept woman?
I'm obviously not expecting you to answer each of these (though you're welcome to, of course) but bring them up mostly to note that this is not really all that simple an issue, which is part of the reason there's a high degree of moral ambivalence surrounding it.
Women being attracted to money, power and stability isn't just a prostitution issue or something that happens in Mexico and Thailand. It's genetic and cuts across time and all cultures. It's perhaps less obvious in the more developed countries since women have less dependence upon men for the basics of life and to care for children. But the need for a stable, predictable lifestyle with a few creature comforts leads most women towards older men - be it 2 to 3 years older or 20+. Men are programmed toward youth and fertility and this combination has been very succesful in populating the planet. Men (unknowingly?) seek women who are capable of bearing children and women (unknowingly?) seek men who have a higher chance of supporting the child and family. First hand experience in the business world has shown me that most sucessful professional guys have wives who are both younger and more attractive than they are. This is especially true for the 2nd marriage, when the man is well established and now looks for youth and beauty in exchange for his position. There have been several excellent TV series looking at sexual evolution and the genetics of sexual attraction - both among animals and human animals. Fascinating stuff, for me at least.
As to age, I would of course suggest that everyone follow existing law. But a magic number like 18 for sex is both arbitrary and historically high. Even in the US, a 60 yo can marry a 15 or 16 yo in most states with the consent of the minors parents. Throughout history the line between child sex and an acceptable union is usually when the girl begins her periods and is capable of reproduction - somewhere between 10 and 14. That seems shockingly low today (for most of us) but is logical and not at all unusual in the past. A good idea now? Perhaps not, but in an era where average lifespan was 35 or 40 years and many children died in infancy, waiting until 18 or 25 or 30 wasn't an option for species survival.
As for me, I never liked 16 yo girls even when I was 16. I always wanted to screw their mothers or the school nurse or librarian. And when hunting for a pro, I still prefer a woman 28-45. Different strokes.
Peace, -P
Interesting, PK. When I was in my teens, I liked women in their early 30s. Now I'm 46 and I like women in their early 30s. Although, 27 years 4 months and 18 days is a good age also IF you know what I mean.
However, I believe that it is immoral to fuck hookers if you are married, unless, of course, your wife knows about it and is OK with it. Maybe that's an easy thing for me to say since I am not married and have no intention of ever being married again. But, when I was married I never cheated.
I would guess that a high percentage, though perhaps not a majority, of posters are married.
Comments?
- Sorry DH, 27 + 4 + 18 doesn't quite make my cut-off, but I have been known to make exceptions. Actually, it is more the attitude, experience and emotional maturity that I like in older women. So if an 18 yo can act as a responsible adult, I have no complaints about her youthful body. And we all know that you grow-up alot faster in places like Mexico or Argentina than here in the US.
I also believe that you should live up to whatever promises or commitments you make in a relationship, whether married or not. For many, many years I did just that. Lived with one woman, and screwed just one woman. After a few years we would split up and after a brief audition period, I'd again move in and be faithful to one partner. Did that 4 times. Seemed natural and when you are madly in love with someone, completely normal.
But I also can understand how someone - both men and women - in a long-term marriage of 20-40+ years might eventually want some outside excitement. And an understanding partner is the difference between a deep, lasting relationship and a train wreck. A businessman goes to a convention in the big city and winds up in a Massage Parlor getting a HJ or BJ. Big deal. This is not a threat to his relationship or family and a "good" wife should understand this. She can use his indiscretion as fodder for improved sex with her naughty hubby or try to break his balls and screw up a good situation. Of course most the of guys on this Forum are well beyond the "occasional fling" point and perhaps need to re-examine just what they want in life.
Again I wish our absent sex worker was here to give the percentages from her experience, (Did she back-channel you, DH? The email addy I had for her is defunct, as is her home page.) but there was a study in England that said it was pretty much a 50/50 split, and about the same estimate in Australia. Given that's pretty much the ratio of married to unmarried in the adult population, I think that basically says that the makeup of mongers is essentially that of the population as a whole.
As far as the age question goes, that tends to be highly secondary to me. I'm attracted to women pretty much regardless of age and have been with women aged from 18 to 60+. I tend not toward to youngest because I prefer someone who knows what they're doing, though youth and enthusiasm also have merits, of course.
Oh she made your fucking cut off all right PK (24/7/76). JZ I have never heard from Rubbie and that is immoral. I do know what became of her but am not at liberty to reveal except to say it is nothing bad.
I've never understood the theory behind paying for an HJ unless you are quadriplegic and I don't agree with PK about no harm from a little BJ. Now if the wife won't do BJs that is another story but I would assume the man was aware of that before he married her.
Of course I guess there are still people getting married who haven't had sex yet but that is just fucking insane rather than merely immoral.
Then there are the women who gave BJs at one point but then quit. In that case the solution is to lie next to them, jack off, and wipe it all over them.
Well, I know her agency ended up closing, which isn't good, so I'm hoping she fell up, as she deserved. Glad to hear it's nothing bad.
Country John
12-12-03, 17:28
Joe Zop:
Again, interesting stuff.
I don't think that our species is as aware of decision making as they could be. I believe we have the capacity and many do seems to be in control of that but in most of my observations, people's decision making seems to be tied more to a sub-concious mechanism than an analytical one.
Most people make decisions based on experiences from previous decision making or the decision making of others - hence the subconcious mind will influence present time decision making more than the concious or analytical mind. Most people (sorry to generalize) are walking around out there with a "fog factor" as I like to call it from 1 to 10 (10 being very dense). Note this is not always a bad thing and we seem to have gotten along somewhat OK over the past several thousand years but reaction-based present time decision making is a problem with most people and most groups.
The more "self aware" a person is the less likely they will be to rely more on the subconcious mechanism aspect and the more able they will be to function with the analytical side. Doing that means decision making on a different level.
You can test any historical example with the above and you will come down on either side of it - sub-concious reaction or analytical.
I think that the shades of grey depend on the level of uncertainty or confidence in analytical decision making. Having sufficient data for decision making is key here. You make bad decisions when you have NO data, INSUFFICIENT data, WRONG data or CORRUPT data.
Tough to have a satisfactory result in the face of this stuff. This "bad" data comes mostly from the subconcious mind or a bad source of information (which can also be attributed to the subconcious mind where experience is stored).
Morals are a code of behaviour that are agreed upon by a group - any group. They have to be agreed upon by grou by definition.
They are not the laws of the land and should not be confused with ethics (the drive to maintain or adhere to the moral standards). If you want that group to accept or keep you as a member "in good standing" then you have to have the ethics to adhere to the moral code of conduct.
"Are you saying it's defined as immoral in the culture (all cultures? American culture? what?)" Yes. The "group" decides this.
"... or that it is inately immoral according to your core values, or what?" No. There is no "inate" moral code.
And what is it that makes it immoral? Is it a specific act, or is there a line that gets crossed? Are there mitigating circumstances, in the same way that we would understand differently the morality of stealing bread to feed your children versus robbing a bank for personal gain, or is it simply always immoral at the same level?
The two levels you descibe above are:
1). Civil legal issues of strong arm robbery etc.
2). Basic moral agreement violation that we don't do anything bad to one another (a golden rule type thing).
The thing that makes it immoral is the fact that the thing existed as an issue declared immoral by the group.
"Are there differences in the morality of the participants -- is a somehow provider more or less culpable than a client, and why?"
There might be provided each participant SUBSCRIBES to the code in the first place. If they do not willingly subscribe to the code, there would be no issue of culpability as far as they are concerned. The group, however will think differently.
You must be WILLING to be bound by the moral code, it's a free will issue. You can't enforce a moral code beyond whatever "punishments" a group will prescribe (differentiating between civil or criminal codes), you might not be allowed in the country club anymore.
There may be a GUILT issue because they might not subscribe to the code themselves but know that maybe most others do and they might wonder about that.
"Are there grays to this immorality, in terms of, say, being a streetwalker being more or less immoral than, say, being a kept woman?"
Depends what side of the moral fence YOU are on. If you subscribe to the morays of the group and if the group defines these positions as immoral then I don't see shades of gray being an issue. Being in either position would therefore be immoral with no differentiation between the two.
Regarding age differences, males have through the ages been attracted to young females mostly because they are "prime candidates" for healthy reproduction as opposed to simply being a good fuck (which most of them are NOT, contrary to popular belief). We've since fallen into a lustful desire for young skin next to our bodies I believe because WE want to experience being youthful again. I'm still working on this one.
I agree that sex with a child is not healthy for the child and hence even among us WSG mongerers. As a "GROUP" we've declared that act immoral, as we should.
The 18yr old group however is certainly enough to stimulate the limpest of dicks and mine is no exception.
I am married (happily for 13 years) and my mongering is to satisfy my need for variety. I actually appreciate sex with my wife more now than before my mongering days, I feel her differently and her sex is better than any sex I get from a half baked provider. The variety aspect is difficult to explain. I don't feel like I am "cheating" even though according to the agreement I have with her I am. How would I feel if she did what I did - well, let's save that for another chapter.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
Well, I'm not saying we're good at decision-making, just that we're fascinated with it. I think, in fact, that we're more interested in non-analytic choices, as we love underdogs, improbable things that work, etc. I also think people very often make the wrong choice with complete awareness it's the wrong choice (I can think of most of my friend's choices in women, for example, LOL!) I'm definitely not convinced that analytical decisions have anything whatsoever to do with sex -- one does not generally run a calculation in order to get an erection, and decisions made on desire have little to do with analysis.
I don't share your definition of morals -- I believe rather than being defined by a group, each person has his/her own set, which are filtered through groups teachings and pressures, but which are ultimately individualized. Laws are defined by groups; differing sets of morals influence that process. Individuals belong to many groups, and those groups often have different definitions -- I can be a citizen of a specific place, a member of a particular religion, part of x or y political party and of this or that race, and each has its moral perspective. How I incorporate those, combined with my own reading, history, predisposition, etc., creates a unique set of morals.
And, ah, you managed to basically duck my questions by saying they are how the group defines them. That's like replying to a question about the weather by saying it's the temperature the thermometer says it is. :) C'est la vie.
Jackson
I visited the WSg Charities site but was surprised to find you only provide funds in Argentina. Maybe you should think about liasing with some NGO's in Thailand or Cambodia to help eradicate the despicable scourge of child prostitution. I'd be more than happy to donate my time and money to that cause.
Hi Plugger,
I appreciate your prespective, but the fact is that I personally only have the spare time to get involved in what's heppening here in Argentina where I live.
Thanks,
Jackson
Country John
12-14-03, 17:43
Joe:
Thanks for your feedback but I think you mis-read my post.
Country John
JZ, you are saying that 50% of the adult population is unmarried? Really?
My feeling truly is that if you want to get married, don't monger, and if you want to monger, don't get married. The exception is if your spouse knows and doesn't care but I think that is rare and even a lot of the ones who say they don't care really do.
I know it's more complicated than that but it is very difficult to deal with nuances and complexities when you are a
Dickhead
The Virgin Terr
12-15-03, 23:49
besides that morality is all subjective, i think the assertion that prostitution is immoral, as sainter says, shows a bias in favor of sexual monogamy, since prostitution more than anything results in sexual promiscuity. why is monagamy more moral than promiscuity? what a narrow minded view, and a hypocritical one for a monger to hold.
Dickhead -- I took another look at the numbers, as I was going from memory, and I was slightly off. Current census figures say that the percentage of adults who are married is 56%. Not really substantially different.
Country John, if you feel I've misread your post, by all means please explain where and why. Upon rereading I don't see anything that strikes me different than when I made my post.
What's the cut off age, JZ? Is that over 18? 21? If you remember?
It's actually 15, which would seem to skew the numbers a bit, though in actuality it does not all that much -- numbers up to 1960 included those 14yrs and older, which probably says a lot, as mentioned earlier in this thread, about attitudes about age and marriage, but in 1950, even with that cut-off, 67% of US men were married, and 26% had never been married, where today the numbers are 57% and 32%. In 1950 65% of women were married and 20% never had, (I presume differences in death rates accounts for the several-million difference between most of the MF samples) and now it's 54% women married and 25% never married. Of course, there are far more couples just cohabitating these days as well.
The percentage of married adults, age 15 and older, who live in a home where their spouse is present is 52%; age 18 and older 56%. This number shifts by age bracket -- 18% age 20-24, 45% age 25-29, 61% age 30-34, rising to a high mark of 71% age 50-54, and then dropping by age as mortality takes its toll.
There are very distinct correlations by income, with men more likely to be married the more money they make, and the opposite generally being true for women. Similarly, the likelihood one is divorced works on a similar inverse scale -- men with more substantial incomes are less likely to be divorced, women moreso.
(All these numbers from Census Bureau compilations.)
OK. It seemed low to me but I think I was forgeting about widowhood. Thanks.
Yes, we always have to remember one other way out of a marriage is simply outlive the cross you're bearing, if you can! :)
The Virgin Terr
12-16-03, 23:22
zop, your knowledge is truly impressive. u must have one hell of a memory, or else you have such an intense interest in sexual relationship/ social topics, u spend much of your free time indulging your passion as an amateur sexologist (i wouldn't be surprised if u turned out to be a professional sexual relationship counselor, perhaps a famous one like dr. drew of the recent mtv show which featured teens and other young adults presenting sex relationship questions to dr. drew and his humorous sidekick.) u appear to me, and i'm naive so subject to error, to be an authoritative source for scientific and pseudo-scientific information on human sexuality.
i sabotage so much of what i try to do, as if i've been programmed to fail, to self destruct whenever i want something from another human being, whether it be respect, companionship, love, or sex, and thus ruin my chances of getting that which i seek. it's terribly frustrating. it's like i'm a porcupine no one can get close to without getting pricked. i'm an ineffectual person. i don't know if i was born to this fate, but i suspect that environment has much to do with development as well, and i suspect i was screwed up as a child by environmental factors which combined with inherent genetic factors made me into the pitiful specimen i am today. actually there's been a gradual deterioration in my mental outlook throughout my adolescence and adulthood, to the point where now i no longer have faith in myself or my ability to connect with others. i've been a very lonely person for almost all of that time period. i've become so accustomed to it that i regard it as a prison sentence, possibly a life sentence. i'm anxious to taste freedom.
dickhead, your comments have deeply alarmed and offended me. i am not a pedophile, i don't prefer little girls to adult women. i do prefer very young women, but we'd better leave it at that as i understand and respect jackson's concern in this area with legal harassment. but i'm also very pleased with attractive older women, including women older than myself, or i would be if i could find one who would love me and accept me for who i am, which is a guy who goes for younger women. in other words, an open relationship. i think that even with a stunningly attractive lover, it is wise to keep an open mind and heart. so many good relationships i believe are unnecessarily destroyed by possessiveness and cultural indocrination in monogamy, and in shaming relationship forms which run counter to monagamy, which prostitution exemplifies.
anyway, i just wanted to say that if it appears i have an unusual interest in youthful sexuality, it is because i was screwed up in my childhood by being made terrified of sex, and i don't know for sure and i can never know for sure, but i suspect it has had a lasting negative effect on me ever since, and i truly believe we aren't doing young people any favors with age of consent laws or attitudes which deny young people the benefit of exposure to adults having positive consensual adult sex. if u believe in evolution, u understand that we evolved from "lower" species which didn't concern themselves with sexual "morality", they pretty much simply did as they pleased whatever they could get away with, meaning whatever consensual and attractive sexual partners they could have, without concern for things like age difference or having to hide their activity from other animals in their group, including infants. it was simply accepted that sex was part of life, certainly a nice part of it, and nothing to be ashamed of. this happened quite recently in evolutionary history that homo sapiens came to develop artificial sexual restrictions and the powerful shame in modern societies for illicit sex. to me, when people argue in favor of their own sexual freedom, for their argument to carry true moral weight, they must also defend sexual freedom for others, regardless of orientation or age. otherwise you're being a hypocrite and opening up yourself to attack by others who argue your desire for sexual freedom is immoral or impractical.
Virgin Terry writes:
"dickhead, your comments have deeply alarmed and offended me. i am not a pedophile, i don't prefer little girls to adult women. i do prefer very young women, but we'd better leave it at that as i understand and respect jackson's concern in this area with legal harassment."
If you prefer females younger than 18, which is Jackson's cut off and the age of consent in many US states, then you have tastes which are not currently socially acceptable in the United States. Before I comment further I have to ask: how old are you?
Many of the comments you have made on this board have come off to me and others more tolerant than I as inappropriate in that regard. DH
Virgin Terry then writes:
"when people argue in favor of their own sexual freedom, for their argument to carry true moral weight, they must also defend sexual freedom for others, regardless of orientation or age."
NO NO NO. Children cannot make major decisions on their own. This paragraph alone makes you seem like you are a pedophile.
Really, I think you have a serious problem with self esteem, and that is what I thought at first before you started pushing the sexual freedom regardless of age type stuff. I think you need to go to Latin America and find a woman close to your own age who will make you feel like the man that you maybe, possibly, probably? are. While you are on your way down there, see if you can also find the "shift" key. That would be another way to grow up.
But you have to quit pushing this agenda of yours about "youthful sexuality." It is a good way to come to a bad end, and we don't need it here on the board.
To clarify: >= 18 = woman, < 18 = GIRL, not a "very young woman." That is the line in the sand we have drawn here in this forum. If you can't respect that, go to another forum (which the FBI is probably watching).
DH
PS: when going to Latin America from Canada, the shift key is located in Odessa, Texas, near the world's largest statue of a jackrabbit. At least that's where I found it (but I was on LSD at the time).
VT, as far as being an authority, I simply prefer to feel like I have some sense of what I'm talking about before I say it. If I have a sense of something, I try to do a bit of research on it before I click the "submit message" button, and I tend to remember where I found it and more or less what it is. I am someone who writes and thinks often about human interactions in a variety of ways, and my work also frequently involves facilitating gatherings of very diverse people, so it's useful for me to try to understand the context of what people bring to the table. Given the way the internet has blossomed in terms of hosting some reasonably authoritative information sources, it's not hard or overly time-consuming to have ideas and then try to check to see if there are some reasonable supporting facts, and it's more or less become a methodology for me. I'm most absolutely not trying to intimidate or quiet anyone by what I write, simply to support my assertions with some verifiable data. I mostly just ascribe to that old Samuel Butler quote: I do not mind lying but I hate inaccuracy.
I must agree wholeheartedly with Dickhead's comments about the ability of children to properly understand and make decisions, and the fact that your arguments on this subject are distinctly where we all disconnect with you. The ability to understand the consequences of one's actions is critical to the ability to make informed decisions, and while it is true, as you have argued in the past, that there are adults who lack this ability, it is also absolutely true that the vast, vast majority of children lack this until their mid-to-later teens, which is one of the reasons society has adopted the concept of an age of consent. Your past insistence that this is not something that should impact an adult's sexual dealings with those who are not of the legally defined age is very precisely the type of argument which is made by a pedophile, and this is why you have received a hostile response. And while you do rule out prepubescents, your definition of puberty as a line of demarcation is still a problem for me. There is simply a big difference between exposure to models of positive adult sexuality and the ability to healthily participate in them.
I also agree with Dickhead's comments on your self-esteem. Really, we almost all have some issues around that; the question is not whether we have but how we deal with our various insecurities. If I may make a comment on your self-description, it seems to me that you are setting yourself up to fail in several ways. First, you are asking for some unknown woman to give love to you in a very specific non-normative way -- the open relationship -- which narrows your chances. I just don't think there's a very great pool of older women who are looking to hook up with some guy who wants them to accept his going off to hook up with younger women. You are basically setting yourself as a kind of hopeless iconoclast in the hope that will attract someone who fits your specific ideal, and by doing so you are essentially making yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. I suggest to you that you are (pardon here the specific and perhaps unfortunate cliche, as it's not meant as a comment other than for its general one) throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Get in a relationship that fills at least some of your needs, and worry about the rest of them once you have that. Monogamy beats all hell out of unwanted chastity.
As far as your other comments -- look, being an "effective person" is mostly a matter of developing good repetitive social skill habits and practicing them. I grew up as an fairly shy person who had a great deal of trouble in social situations. Some of my childhood friends used to joke that I didn't actually say my first words to someone I didn't know until I hit college. I'm still a bit discomfited at times in small-group situations, but because I've spent time working on it, I'm not only reasonably ok with it, but I'm someone who now has absolutely no difficulty getting up in front of a couple hundred or thousand people. That's certainly not something that flows from innate nature; it's learned behavior. And through learned behavior I've become a reasonably socially adept person -- largely because I invested some time watching how those friends of mine who were gregarious managed to do it, and mimiced their approaches until I could make them my own.
In spite of how it might appear here, I spend most of my time listening, asking questions, remembering what people have told me, and, to be honest, doing the same thing I do on this board -- following up such a conversation with a little research. So the next time I see the guy who's been moaning to me about his marriage breaking up and his despair he'll ever marry again, I can quote a couple of stats to make him feel better. Maybe I've helped someone put their resume together, or suggested a web site, or whatever. This means, honestly, that pretty much every time I go to my local bar, I usually get bought a drink by one or more people who spent their last time there pouring out their troubles to me, or for whom I've done something. This in turn leads to more talk, more people, smiles and laughter, etc. And having people want to interact with me in turn naturally helps my self-esteem. But, truly, it just takes practice to get good at it -- people like to be listened to, they like colorful stories that relate to what they're saying, and they (in the same way you're calling out for it) generally appreciate someone paying attention to them. It's one of the thing I learned doing journalism -- people will tell you pretty much anything, even if they shouldn't, because they're simply so grateful to talk to someone who's interested and who will listen.
I suggest you start small to get that "faith" in your ability to connect to people, and then just practice it over and over until it becomes natural. Consider it a process that will take a couple of years, which is certainly less time than you've described being lonely. Try not to emanate your loneliness and need too dramatically, as that tends to frighten people off. Even if what you end up doing to make such a social connection is essentially mindless collection of useless gossip, as my interactions at times end up being, affiliation and human contact is still better than the lack of it.
Finally: while animals may not consider the issue of sexual morality, they certainly do have norms of socially acceptable behavior.
Choosy Guy
12-18-03, 05:31
I’m jumping in after only reading the last couple of pages of this discussion; so if I am off base or get into already discussed and settled topics PLEASE let me know.
It seems to me that morality is a personal thing received through group pressure, whether that group is as small as a marriage or family, or as large as a nation or religion. I think that it is not unreasonable to say that if you think that a behavior is immoral, that you would probably be comfortable with that behavior being illegal.
It seems to me that unless a person has a problem – obsessive-compulsive disorder or sexual addiction (I’ll define addiction as continuing a behavior after repeated negative consequences.) most of us would think that prostitution should be legal and, by my reasoning moral.
Of course it is not as simple as that. I think that providing sex in exchange for anything except sex is prostitution. (I hope that I never get to try to explain that to a judge.)
To me the act that we mongers participate in is one of the most honest between a man and a woman—we want sex, they want money. There is no bullshit in this transaction, no dinners listening to stories about her sick cat and the shoes that didn’t match the outfit when she got them home . . . . A lot of BS and maybe after the third date you get a bj.
Personally, I go on dates with women that I think might be interesting to know. That is, women who have redeeming values besides their ability to have sex with me. In fact I often am in social situations with women that I would never want to see naked. (Some I hesitate to think of naked because I’d probably never get an erection again.)
I go to a prostitute so that my balls don’t distract me during the rest of my life. I don’t want conversation, life history, or to be her friend (unless she will come and fuck me and leave). In fact, I have often said ‘I don’t pay a prostitute for sex, I pay her to leave.’ (Unfortunately not my line.)
To me, the morality has to do with the honesty and willingness of the participants.
I don’t understand marriage so it is from ignorance that I ask Country John how he reconciles mongering and his marriage? Isn’t the deceit deadly to the honesty necessary to the intimacy in that relationship?
I’ve gone on too long,
Choosy
Country John
12-18-03, 12:17
Joe Zop:
Thanks for re-reading my post. I appreciate your courtesy.
Our point of disagreement seems to pivot on the issue of the adoption of a moral code as agreed upon by the "group" and the basic sense of right and wrong (that almost everyone has) being mis-labeled as a moral code.
If I assume your viewpoint that every individual has a morality that is filtered by the group, then your post makes perfect sense (to me). I believe that we can under-cut it further.
A person's basic sense of right and wrong could be (incorrectly) called a moral code but it would be a unilaterial code that by definition would not fit what we are talking about in terms of a moral code. Definitions morals and morality commonly reference a teaching -hence group involvement.
You get a bunch of people together and they AGREE that we will not pay women for sex because it's not nice. OK, that's a "moral" code. But if the guy believed inside that it was "immoral" or wrong or not nice all on his own (without a group influence of any kind), he would not be bowing to any group pressure or external moral code to arrive at that decision. So if we are talking about a moral code we are not talking about what an individual decides what is good or bad unilaterally.
Choosey:
You can't reconcile engaging in mongering or prostitution with marriage so don't even try. Because I have a disagreement with the issues of paying for professional sex being "wrong" I guess I have compartmentalized my mongering activity and do not consider it part of my wifes universe.
Sexual infidelity in my case (according to me in MY little universe) is not an issue. I want to have a sexual experience with a woman other than my wife who has a sensuality different from my wife and who has skills that are beyond my wife's. I like the feel of young (over 18) skin. I love to suck those young nipples and feel my penis penetrating the young (over 18) or professional pussy. It's a great experience and a natural one -no trees or animals are being lost. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a sexy girl and said to my self "..I'd love to get that in the sack.." well, I'm doing it. My duty is to have protection and to protect my wife from any boogers. This I do this faithfully.
The issues of confict in reconciling against a marriage are complicated by definitions and the willingness on the part of the persons seeking to reconcile the issues to be right or wrong.
We are dealing with physcial needs and wants against spiritual needs and wants. You cannot reconcile one to the other, it just doesn't work that way.
My wife has never been treated better, our relationship has not changed and I don't see mongering as a long term thing (jeez - how many times can you 2 pop and then have the wife expecting service the same night - I'm getting too old).
I'm always very interested in this section so please continue the excellent posting.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
Country John:
Ok, that's rather different, as saying that morals are a code of behavior is different from discussing moral code. If you're pinning everything on moral code as opposed to morality per se then you're using a far narrower definition of conduct and belief. Ain't semantics fun?
But one of the key disagreements we still have is the idea that there exists some sort of truly agreed-upon overriding moral code. I don't believe this to be true, particularly in democratic western society, where the nature of that system involves a constant tension between competing moral codes of various groups. We could look at the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, Puritanism, etc. as clearly established moral codes, not all of which agree on everything, and there are of course many, many others. As I said previously, most individuals belong to any number of groups, all of which can have differing definitions of moral conduct, though whether the beliefs of those groups would be defined as a moral code as opposed to codes of ethics would depend on the group. And that is still very different than law.
My point about individualized moral standards and beliefs is that it's a constant and an pervasive influence in a society that adjusts its representatives by individual voting (obviously this latter is a political can of worms, and I suggest we ignore it!) -- there are very few people who absolutely adopt all aspects of a single moral code and only that code. Laws may reflect moral code to some extent, but legal code and moral code are not completely congruent -- perhaps in some cultures, but not in the US and not in most other places. That's part of the process, and we can witness the ongoing tensions over abortion laws as an indication of that tension. Moral code isn't trump, as the ones I list above are in play in, say, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel, France, etc., all of which have legal prostitution.
Country John
12-19-03, 20:05
Joe Zop (and everyone else of course!)
Interesting stuff. My position is that as morals are a code of behavior that is different than civil or criminal law, adoped by the individual and agreed upon by the group (whatever group that may be).
The individual decides whether he agrees to adopt the code or not. The "group" can censure or otherwise punish detractors or violators depending on the gravity of the offense but we might be convoluting the issue by taking it to that level. My purpose was to undercut these levels to the BASIC level.
I agree that the moral code can differ from one group to another. What is morality if it is not of or pertaining to a moral code or morals? If we could have made on a moral code alone, perhaps there would be no need for a civil or criminal code.
Through the ages we've stepped outside enough to give birth to a venue such that certain issues of morality became codified as "civil law" or "criminal law" (and then family law, traffic law etc etc.).
Moral codes may conflict, but this is not the product of Western influence or any influence except the conflicting code - one to the other. I think we walk a fine but clearly defined line here. It's not purely a matter of semantics.
Although we could look at the Ten Commandments, the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, Puritanism, etc. as a sort of moral code, they are not. They are celarly religious laws and codes - again differrent from moral codes.
The strict separation of Church and State is to blame for the diluting of the influence of most moral codes as they are identified with religion. Without saying that one is THE SAME AS the other. There are similarities but there are also important differences and thus could not be the same.
In the US, moral codes are pliable. Most people defer to a moral code only when convenient or popular. They are honest when it is advantageous.
An understanding that the INDIVIDUAL subscribes to whatever moral code he wants brings with it the power to observe the ethical adherance to the code.
Two men meet in a forrest absent any laws, their tendency will be to make agreements as best they can about what is right and what is wrong based upon their experiences, senses and preferences. Their ability to maintain their agreement will dictate whether that agreement should then carry a penalty for violating it.
A question of morality might become a matter of civil or criminal law. It is no less a moral issue but now it is also a civil or criminal issue. Moral laws predate everything else.
Are morals different in other countries? Sure. Just as laws are but the basics are the exact same. Morals are what they are by definition. What we see is the manifestation of the willingness on the part of the individuals in the groups to subscribe or adhere to the code, or not.
Someone can honestly believe that prostitution is OK without breaking any laws. They can honestly disagree with that particular aspect of morality without feeling guilty if they so choose. Society pressures us to adhere , subscribe and belong to the "moral" majority, or to the mrays of the "group." Our choice is to agree or disagree, not to say the code doesn't exist or is otherwise invalid.
The code of "ethics" is confused with morals. The ethics of an individual will determine his ability to adhere to the moral code. There is no separate code of ethics beyond that.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
VT, perhaps as a teenager you were rejected by girls your age. I guess you probably feel like you missed out on a certain part of your life and try to make up for it now by sleeping with young girls. You are just a sad pathetic figure, my friend. And it's damn well obvious to everyone here that you're a pedophile as well.
Country John
12-20-03, 17:32
VT:
Don't take this personally but:
You are totally the effect of your own universe and dysfunctional within it because you apparently have no data on the basics of control, good or bad. (Assuming your post is legit.)
You clearly suffer from confusion and the inability to perceive or conceive or adopt stable data and establish a foundation from which you can make stable decisions. Like driving to New York from LA with no street signs - the best you will do is guess and the results will be disasterous as evidenced by your posts (assuming they are legit).
This is all from your writing, you are probably a decent fellow. You should talk to someone though. If you increase your awareness your communication should become less toxic and more meaningful and then people will have an easier time understanding who you REALLY are, you manners should improve and conditions in your life should improve and we all want that don't we?
Making others responsible for your condition is the ultimate manifestation of the inability to confront and deal with one's own problems. It's the cowards way out. You are not a coward are you?
It's amazing how much you learn about people through their writing. Wow.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
Well, Country John, that may be your position, but I must say you're using a pretty individualized way of looking at moral code, as every single definition or discussion I've ever seen of moral code includes rather than separates the religious examples, and many further define legal code as being a moral code enforced by the state. Given this, I'm completely unsure where your definition begins and ends, as it seems to shift -- you made a very clear distinction in a previous post about morals versus moral code, and this most recent post seems to muddy the issue again. I don't get how you are defining moral code as being defined by a group, and then ruling out examples that were defined by groups such as religions.
If I'm understanding your position properly, you're basically making a distinction between moral code as a concrete or fairly defined thing and as a kind of "meta-code" that exists in some sort of heavenly ether or vaccum. I'm also unsure because I don't know how you're defining a "group" -- two guys in a forest might define a code of behavior, a contract, or even a set of laws governing that forest area, but they do not define a moral code that has pervasive societal influence. (BTW, If you ever want a laugh on another definition of "Code of Morals" look up Kipling's poem of the same name.)
Groups can either punish individuals by expulsion (or by punishment agreed to by the individual to prevent that) or by legal remedy, which means state censure. I agree that individual ethical adherence to a code is implied by the adoption of such a code. But an important bottom line is that moral codes are seen by their believers as applying to all -- not just members of the group, but everyone. It is this aspect that brings constant conflict, as the attempts of believers of one moral code to press their code of belief onto others is part of the tension inherent in law-making and societal attempts to regulate behavior. It is this aspect of belief that also pushes societal tensions, as political and moral aims get mixed together.
There is a clear distinction between moral code and a code of morals -- the former is a codified statement of right and wrong, and the latter is a more fluid, generalized, and generally individualized understanding of those issues. Individual morals or a sense of morality can be and generally are the product of several moral codes. In moral code there is an understood sense that these rules apply to all -- laws don't care whether or not you as an individual believe in them, and moral codes frankly don't really either. In contrast, an ethical code is an agreed-upon set of behaviors defined by a group strictly for the actions of group members -- it is about the behaviors of members of that group or profession and, unlike the moral implications in a moral code, are not seen to apply to members other than that group. To me, the semantics here are important, especially if you're signifying something specific by using such phrases.
I absolutely disagree with you that Western culture has not influenced the conflicts of moral codes, particularly as they manifest in current society, which is what we've been discussing. Yes, part of it is simply about the conflict between different codes, but such codes do not develop in a vacuum, are influenced by culture, and the history of Western culture is one of clear conflict and cross-pollination between codes, as well as how they should be applied. The American separation of Church and State is not only due to a kind of Age of Reason desire to separate the kings from the "king of kings," but an Enlightenment-driven belief that a rational, secular, and scientific approach to social, political, and economic issues was the best way to move man and society forward.
While I agree with you that the moral issues of a situation can predate a law about such an issue (and logically will, since they're the force behind the creation of the law) I again make a distinction between a "question of morality" and a "moral law." You toss them out as though they're the same thing, and they are not. I'm sorry if this seems as if I've really picking on the language here, but you are trying to make very specific points about how things work while using charged language, and when you shift or muddy the distinctions between those words your points lose weight and definition. So, similarly, there is a difference between the ethical code of an individual and a code of ethics, and, again, I not say that "In the US, moral codes are pliable" I would say, "In the US, individual codes of morality are pliable."
Someone like me, who does not as an individual believe that prostitution is immoral, will naturally run in conflict with any number of civil or moral codes -- from the basic legal strictures that apply or do not to whatever locale I happen to be, to the various moral codes I might be seen as "violating," to social group censure based on the ways members of that group filter legal and moral codes into their own belief systems. This doesn't at all mean that I engage because there's a pliable moral code in the US (or that I have one) or that I'm only being honest when it's advantageous. In fact, the opposite can be true -- using Thoreau's model of civil disobedience as being a moral resistance to immoral law (though I'm hardly going to make that case here, much as it would be amusing to do so -- "see, yer honor, getting a blowjob from Miss Kitty in the front seat of my car was in fact an act of protest against a morally unjust construct.") the differing beliefs of the individual are not necessarily a sign of moral laxity.
So I'm not sure I agree with you at all about the dilution of moral codes -- I tend to think instead that as communication and cultural interaction has increased, so has the exposure to multiple moral codes and thereby the complexity of moral choices. If you came from a basically fundamentalist agrarian culture, you were often faced with the need to integrate only a single moral code, whereas today there's far more complexity of choices.
But a fun discussion :)
Country John
12-20-03, 21:55
Joe:
Again, an excellent write up.
Well, I (as you) am an individual and individual viewpoints are what's at play here and these individual viewpoints are what make up the group. Absent any agreements we have a group of individuals plain and simple. Moral CODES are a product of collective thought agreement which is in turn a product of a group.
It takes the individuals in the group to agree to the code individually in order for the individual to have a consideration on the validity of the code for him/herself. Do we agree on that?
A moral code is only as valid as it is agreed upon by the individuals in the group. If the majority of the individuals in the group decide that the moral code is not valid or no longer valid then, poof violations might not be actionable therefore but there still exists some agreement and therefore the code still exists. An individual can opt out of a moral code (and maybe the group as a result).
Let's start there. The issue of moral codes vs other codes and the lines dividing church/state etc are so blurred and the issues convoluted it is no wonder that there is so much confusion out there. Let's not introduce them until we completely discuss the above individual aspects of the group (any group).
Regardless of what they've become, they have a starting point and I think the above starting point is the only valid one. From that eminates the consideration that there should be agreement in the group on issues that concern them. You and I agree more than you think.
Whether an agreement covers the consideration that can be defined as a civil, criminal or other matter is not the point since we are discussing morals and moral codes and ethics. We agree that the former can become part of the latter but let's stick to the former.
Maybe I'm missing the distinction between morals and ethics as you see them. How about a clear statement from you on these so we have a foundation.
Again, excellent writing.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
The Virgin Terr
12-21-03, 10:16
Offhand, 3 things come to mind to explain why articulating thoughts/feelings is difficult: 1) The inherent impreciseness and ambiguity of language, 2) The different speeds at which one thinks vs. the ability to express such ideas, particularly in writing, and 3) The psychological imperative to exercise self-censorship as a defensive measure, pre-empting outside censorship.
The following idea has been with me for a long time, but due to the constraints articulated above, this is the first time I'm presenting it.
There is one basic idea/justification underlying sexual repression in all of it's different manifestations, and it is the following: sex is a predatory desire! Think about it. Whether it's age-based prohibition, or circumstance based such as in the case of prostitution prohibition, the argument in favor of prohibition depends heavily on the sex-negative idea that sex itself is a highly suspect, "predatory" instinct in men, which must be tamed to be socially acceptable. Therefore the key to expanding sexual freedom is to attack this underlying negative assumption, and replace it with a more favorable view of sexual desire and it's satisfaction, one that doesn't view male sex drive as predatory in nature.
You all make a distinction between prostitution laws and age of consent laws, but in my mind they are utterly linked by the idea that men are inherent sexual predators, or more broadly, that sex itself is an inherently predatory instinct.
EDITOR's NOTE: Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions for capitalization and punctuation. To avoid future delays, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. Thanks!
Country John
12-22-03, 12:25
"1) The inherent impreciseness and ambiguity of language,"
Only if you do not use the words needed to convey your message.
" 2) The different speeds at which one thinks vs. the ability to express such ideas, particularly in writing,"
You need to learn how to START, CHANGE, and STOP things. Control is an important part of being able to get from point A to point B.
"3) The psychological imperative to exercise self-censorship as a defensive measure, pre-empting outside censorship."
That's not what this forum is about. Say what you have to say and fuck anyone who flames you for experssing your opinion (as what seems to happen all to often here).
"sex is a predatory desire"
I'm not sure I would characterize it as predatory. There are animal instincts at work here but one argument against that is that we have developed the intelligence and ability to reason and therefore can work out that adultery is taboo. The issue being batted around here is whether or not we AGREE with the consideration that prostitution is taboo or imoral etc.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
Country John:
First, let me be clear that I'm not in any way trying to be combative with you, and I apologize if it has in any way come off as that. I come from the school of argument that believes the best respect one can give to a fellow debater is the full force on one's opinion.
Now, yes, I agree that an individual must agree to a moral code in order to give it personal consideration and validity. That does not, of course, prevent society or another group from imposing punishments or restrictions for violation of the code even if the individual does not agree.
The latter is, I expect, where we differ somewhat. There are many examples where an individual does not agree with a moral code but still finds himself bound by it; a case in point can easily be prostitution. There are also any number of groups an individual can find himself in as much by circumstance as by choice -- the society of a country or place, for example -- and regardless of what thinks of the specific codes of morality or conduct for such groups, the individual may find themselves compelled to at least some degree by said codes.
As far as my definition of the difference between ethics and morals, I'd simply put it this way -- ethics are more spelled out rules for conduct, which can be looked to for guidance in specific situations, whereas morals are more integrated, internalized and individualized, and thereby more clearly applicable to new situations which are not covered by ethical guidelines. I also tend to think of ethics as being coupled with work or professionally-based situations, where morals are more pervasive, more a general way of understanding right and wrong. Or, to put it another way, ethics are standards and morals are principles.
VT, I think understand the basis of your theory as coming from the whole "man is a hunter who seeks prey" school of thought, and it may well be that there's some degree of validity to that, but I hardly think it's something that's at all cut and dried. You might want to do some reading in evolutionary psychology (which actually fits into the discussion here about the origins of various mores and laws in the culture, as well) which speaks in opposition to Country John's argument that we are less controlled by animal instincts -- William James, for example, argued that we probably have more, not fewer insticts, and the complexity of those interactions is what makes us capable of more complicated behaviors than animals. (FWIW, some evolutionary psychologists also have theories about men being attracted to younger women.)
Under your theory, then, would you say than an ovulating woman, who a bunch of studies say will tend to be more sexually receptive, is thereby more predatory? The short skirt and flirty manner acting then as a predatory rather than receptivity signal -- hmmm, well, maybe.
Still, I don't see the connection between this and age of consent laws. That's like saying we have laws against drunk driving because man is inherently a crazed racing drunkard. The issue is in fact the same as the reason we see differences in the ability of children and adults to form criminal intent -- not simply a knowledge of right and wrong, but the ability to properly judge and deal with consequences. A kid who understands what happens when they pull the trigger of a gun and shoots their friend still does not necessarily understand the implications of "being dead" any more than a child who understands the physical act of sex necessarily understands the potential physical and emotional consequences. I've dealt with any number of young teens who understand that having sex can lead to having babies, and who see that as a good thing, because they'd like to have a live doll to play with, not understanding the realities of dealing with a child on an ongoing basis. And having a teen tell you they understand doesn't mean they really do. That's why the core issue is one of the ability to give informed consent.
As far as the self-censorship versus external censorship issue, well, this is Jackson's playground, and he's been pretty clear about defining his ground rules, which are overall fairly loose. We've all gotta play by them.
Country John
12-22-03, 23:03
Joe Z:
Mate, this is one of the most enjoyable exchanges I've had in years. Maybe one day we'll get to do this over a beer. Please don't worry about being offensive in any way. You are a very enlightened individual who has a lot to offer this forum.
I have to disagree with you on your definition of ethics and the relationship of ethics to morals.
If we view the common definition of ethics as:
1 : a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty
We can say that ethics therefore is the discipline of adhering to the code, not the code itself. A person's ethics has to do with their adherance or lack therof to the moral code.
We can say that the individual therefore can voluntarily NOT adhere to a code that he does not agree with and therefore not be guilty of the ethical lapse giving rise to the violation of the moral code. He may have no feeling of guilt and in his universe, not feeling bad about it at all.
A person who does not agree with the code and feels no duty to self discipline on an ethics routine may still feel somewhat upside down because he is simply in the minority (so SOMETHING must be wrong - right?). It would not mean that he must feel he is wrong because the rest of the group thinks they are right, they just agree that he is wrong, that's all. (Peer pressure.)
The group may have a punishment but it would only apply to members of the group or those who impose on the group or fall within the jurisdiction or control of the group.
2 : moral principles or practice
The moral principle is based on the moral code and the practice of the principle takes us back upstairs to definition #1 (as definitions too often do).
The individual has the basic right to his sanity and the right to opt out. You can't enforce a basic moral code. You can enforce codes of conduct, laws and the like but a basic moral code must be subscribed by the individual because it is the individual that gives the code dimension.
A person pays a prostitute for sex and honestly believes in his own heart that there is nothing wrong with it. This person does not subscribe to the moral code demanding avoidance even though he might be breaking a law somewhere. In his own universe, where he lives and is responsible for it's condition he believes that there is no foul. How can we then make him wrong in his universe?
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of informed consent in the issue of minors.
Minors are not capable of experiencing the emotions. pressures, responsibility of life nor are they capable of assuming a viewpoint of responsibility and therefore can't be accountable.
Be Safe and BE NICE
Country John
Ok, I'll agree that when we're talking about ethics we're not talking about the code itself, but adherence to the code (though it can, of course, also be the study of the code.) However, I don't accept your definition as necessarily including moral duty, though it can, as opposed to the primary thrust being principles for correct conduct, which can mean ethical, rather than moral duty. I still believe, as I've stated, that there are some fundamental differences between a code of ethics and a moral code. Each is developed by a group, each is supposed to govern the behavior of members of that group, but they are certainly not the same, and as I always think about it and was trying to say, morals can trump ethics, but it's not often the other way around. Moral codes are broader than are codes of ethics.
For example, a doctor's ethics can tell him/her that it's a duty to provide all aspects of legal medical care in service of a patient. However, that patient may want an abortion, or perhaps wish to be euthanized (say in Oregon) both of which, while ethical, can run counter to a physician's moral beliefs. The physician then has to make some kind of choice between ethical duty and moral belief (a choice which, in the land of Ashcroft, can also potentially lead to legal reverberations.)
I also make a distinction between morals and a moral code. A code is, by its nature, a fairly proscribed thing, whereas morals are rather like virtues in that they are a) a manifestation of behavior, b) something that comes not simply from adherence to a code but from a conscience, and c) something that flows not only from clear demarcations of behavior as may appear in a codified manner but from an innate sense of right and wrong that's been internalized and can thereby be applied to new situations.
Yes, peer pressure and reactions to it are certainly aspects of reactions to a code -- one can also obviously worry or fear the potential outcomes of an act of going against behavioral codes even if one does not believe in them. Again, even if you don't believe prositution is immoral, you can obviously fear the consequences of lawbreaking.
Our understanding of how a moral code can or cannot be enforced diverges on our definition of what such codes are. By my definition, as I've stated, such things as religious tenets and legal scrutcures fall within that construct, so enforcement issues are not necessarily and issue of consent and individual choice. I don't see, for example, that everyone falling under the theocracy of the Taliban necessarily agreed with their particular implementation of Islamic law, but they certainly would still suffer the same consequences for transgression regardless of their belief or assent. So, we may not "make him wrong" but that doesn't mean the consequences of violating a prevailing moral code will not fall upon him.
But yes, this is an enjoyable discussion (though I think we're probably straying a bit too far off track at times) and it's the kind that's a blast to do over a beer, where solving is secondary to experiencing. Perhaps we'll manage it some time. Stay well.
Virgin Terr:
You make a good point, but are you certain that all engagements of prostitution are not “predatory” in nature? Better yet, do you derive all your sexual encounter, prostitution or otherwise, just to tame your physical desires? And can not any of your sexual thoughts be categorized as “predatory” in nature? Just a little bit? Think about it.
A large number of the posters on these boards have more or less came out and suggested that they treasure the hunt much more than the act, perhaps just a little predatory trait in that? But that’s what makes these boards such thrill reads.
There are all kinds of reasons or ways a man would engage a prostitute, and the preying and conquer mindset inherently embedded in the program is not such an overstatement or an assumption. Just take out any porn flick made by any country you’ll see what I mean. Rough sex sells.
However with that being said I do hope some success in expanding sexual freedom since, in my opinion, indeed most carnal desires are not necessarily harmful or beastly in nature. You may have a hard time in achieving that since moral and ethics at this level in a democracy is essentially a popularity contest.
Good luck to all.
The Nice HatTrick.
The Virgin Terr
12-24-03, 11:56
As usual, I'm being misinterpreted, in spite of the clarity of my message. I'm NOT saying sex is a predatory instint, zop, I'm saying it is viewed and treated as such, which serves as a basis for condemning and repressing it. But yuu do make a good point about women also being viewed as sex predators when they engage in prostitution or merely dress too provocatively or act too aggressively. Any bold, shameless sexual behavior is tarred with the accusation of being predatory.
As for hat trick's commentary, sometimes sex is predatory perhaps, but this brings to mind something I've read, which asserts that sexual violence and rape are most prevalent in societies which are the most sexually repressive. It bears keeping in mind that well over 99% of the sexual coercion among humans is coercion NOT to have sex, or to even express interest in it, for fear of being beaten, arrested, or otherwise condemned.
EDITOR's NOTE: Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions to capitalize the word "I". To avoid future delays, please refrain from using "i" instead of a capital "I" to refer to yourself in future reports. Thanks!
You're quite right, VT, and I apologize -- I just went back and reread your message, and I'm not sure how I managed to misread it in the first place, as you're clearly not saying that's your belief, but contending it's a general societal one. Perhaps I got distracted by Jackson's blue editing words at the bottom (and what's up with that -- you never used to post in chat room style?) but I most definitely did misread your message, and I'm very sorry about that.
That said, I don't think it at all invalidates my point about age-of-consent laws and where we differ on that. I don't agree with you that the concept that "sex itself is an inherently predatory instinct" underlies idea of age of consent laws, as opposed to the very basic and far-flung societal concept that children need protection in all areas until they reach a level of adult reasoning and understanding, and until they are capable of making adult-level distinctions and choices. That's the same reasoning that's used in any number of child-protection scenarios, from work laws to the ability to enter into legally binding contracts, as well as my example of criminal liability. By your reasoning, the predatory instinct would also be the reason for rape laws, as opposed to the need to protect victims from violence.
As I recall, you argue the case of individual differences -- that some mature earlier than others and that should be taken into account in age-of-consent laws. I still say it's better to protect the vast majority who are not capable, and to put the line at a level where you do that but don't unduly penalize those on a normal development curve, and I believe that what age of consent laws attempt to do.
The Virgin Terr
12-27-03, 09:53
Jackson,
I'm going to really push my luck with you by defying your ban on "chatroom" style posts. I don't see how using standard capitalization adds one iota of clarity or eloquence to the content of ideas expressed, nor do I see how the failure to use such capitalization detracts from the clarity or effectiveness of written communication. I actually see this restriction as oppressive, a bowing to conventionality which inevitably unconsciously seeps over into the actual content of expression, influencing the mind in the direction of convention and social conformity, which I don't think is really desirable for a forum in which freedom of expression ought to be encouraged. I know that supposedly you threw this topic into open debate prior to deciding as you did, and that in extreme cases, mis-spelling and use of shorthand can confuse some readers, but I didn't participate in this discussion, nor do I agree with it's outcome, or feel that my "chatroom" style qualifies as of the extreme type that confuses the average reader. So if you want to censor my posts on this basis or waste your valuable time changing them, that's your perogative, but if you so choose I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and discouraging not only unconventional writing but also the expression of unconventional ideas, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of this forum.
That said, I'm going to continue to push the bounds of this discussion and hope you'll allow me to do so, because I don't think the morality of anything can be properly discussed without a broader discussion of morality in general, and particularly the psychological underpinnings of it. As I've expressed previously, all morality is subjective and must be understood from the perspective of the social background which shapes it. with that introduction, I'm going to now proceed to discuss the psychological and social underpinnings of intolerance, because it is intolerance which is the enemy of freedom.
I'm going to direct this discussion to Joe Zop, since next to me I think he's the most reasonable regular contributor to this discussion, and I'll even grant that sometimes he exceeds me in reasonableness. However now I must criticize him for being too eager to support the unreasonable personal attacks on me coming from the likes of Dickhead.
Before Dickhead ever directed his considerable personal venom my way, his frequent and often unsolicited diatribes against "pimps" were a clear indication of how his mind works: a classic example of intolerance. people like him seem to need a group or groups to dehumanize and demonize. They have a need for scapegoats who they can be violent towards. They are the same folks who carry out atrocities on behalf of sick states like Nazi Germany, which dehumanize and demonize whole groups of people such as the Jews, in order that they may then justify and get away with committing sadistic acts of torture and murder.
As reasonable people, I think it's obvious to us that "johns" or "mongers" or "punters" are victims of dehumanization and demonization by those who wish to make or keep prostitution illegal. Therefore it is in our interest to discuss and criticize this psychological process which forms the basis for all intolerance.
Let me also recognize at this time and apologize for my frequent lack of responsiveness to your responses to my previous posts. Previous experience has been that certain disagreements become quagmires of vituperation if carried on too long, which I now seek to avoid. Obviously it is unfair of me to raise these points if I'm not going to respond to criticism of them, so in the future I'll try not to.
EDITOR's NOTE: Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions for capitalization. To avoid future delays, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. Thanks!
VT, hmm, I just don't get your issue with chatroom style, and I think your approach here typifies some of the personal frustrations you have. Who cares? It just doesn't seem a windmill worthy of tilting! As someone who spends a fair amount of time niggling over using this versus that word because of the differences in shadings and meanings, and who despairs at ever being able to get things I'm saying across precisely in the way I intend, I just don't understand how being non-standard is some sort of moral high ground. At least when e.e. cummings did it eighty years ago he was doing it with a clear intent to force people to reevaluate the forms they use -- chatroom style or lack of capitalization today has nothing to do with that. I have the same objection here that I did with TallNHandsome's argument that he didn't need to use standard sentence structure because that was oppressive -- isn't the core purpose to communicate as effectively as possible? Why must I, as a reader, be put in a position where I have to decipher a code? English is already hard enough! (I've had numerous people here take me to task for my writing style and use of vocabulary, which may be somewhat florid, but at least happen to be standard English and genuinely how I write.)
Saying you didn't participate in a discussion and thereby don't feel bound by the outcome is like saying Bush isn't President because you didn't vote (or didn't vote for him.) It has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral question. If you get on a bus you don't have much say about where it's going -- either ride it according to the rules of being there, get off, or accept that the driver is going to yell at you to sit down and turn down the damn music, and may at some point decide to make you leave. The bottom line is very simple -- this is Jackson's bus. I, for one, consider him to be generally far more reasonable than I am, though I thank you for the compliment; I've done the thing he's doing, moderating a community full of diverse personalities, and it's a major pain and I think he does a generally brilliant job. (I don't necessarily have to be reasonable, as it's not in my job description here simply as a participant, so I can just more or less be me. There have definitely been times when I'm not all that reasonable.)
As far as Dickhead's pokes at you, well, first of all, look at his nom de plume! You expect reasonableness out of a guy who has a great deal of fun with that persona? He is doing the same thing that Samus Aram does in the Thailand section -- playing a part, and some of the attitude and postings have to be taken with a grain of salt because of that. You don't like him painting you with a broad brush, but at the same time you are unerringly swift to bring up Nazi's (as you've just done again, tarring him with that) whenever anyone here posts something you don't like. I guess because you're pointing out crimes against humanity that makes it all right, huh? Surely, VT, you, as a purveyor of heavy duty hyperbole, should recognize it when it's being dished out at you as well.
Let's be fair -- Dickhead has been pretty clear about his take on pimps, and his attacks on that subject really haven't simply come out of the blue; they generally came within the context of a discussion regarding them, and he's been pretty good about defining his terms.
I've tried to be pretty clear and open about my disagreements with you when they occur, and my "support" of Dickhead's pokes at you have only to do with the disagreement you and I have about the issue of consensual sexual behavior between adults and teens as manifested by your complaints against age-of-consent laws and your past explanations of how you imagine a better option. I've not participated in labelling you, as that's not my style or belief structure. We can all be pasted with lots of stickers, as we are all pretty infinite in our manifestations. (And probably our infestations...)
Look, I'm willing to be wrong about pretty much anything, though I do my best to spend a bit of time thinking before I post, and I frequently agree with people's points and change my position, and I've apologized for being mistaken at various times in a variety of sections in this board. To me, that's how discussion occurs, and how learning happens. Something that doesn't get followed up on, for whatever reason, has the possibility of getting resurrected later simply because that's how a forum such as this works -- it has a tendency toward circularity, in that there's no such thing as actually solving something and then shutting the door on it, because there are always new players coming to the table.
While I agree with you that stereotyping "punters" or "hookers" or whomever is a way of marginalizing people (I tend to think, depending on the situation, that demonizing can be too strong a term) and that it's something that bears discussion, to me it doesn't follow that we necessarily go to a generalized discussion of intolerance from there. I am wary of such an approach as a default option, because to me it mimics the way that political action turns into ineffective protest against the sun rising in the morning. I'm not agin it, per se, but I feel it's necessary to cast a careful eye lest the subject suddenly become so big as to become invisible and everthing magically becomes connected to everything else, because in my experience that means we'll have a very great deal of discussion and get nowhere at all.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. :D
James D 2004
12-29-03, 22:24
I agree with Joe, for the first time (!??), that chat room style is bad for messages. Written languages evolve in the history of human civilization but chat room style isn't a good idea. There's no point pushing a bad limit when it have to fail. The medium is just different.
A chat is interactive and you seldom read more than a short sentence. Your reading speed is very slow because you have to wait for typing at the other end. Typing is slower than reading anyway. It would be a nightmare if you convert Joe's long paragraph with long winding sentences into chat style.
Often when a speech is quoted on paper, the editor has to insert a lot of [brackets] to make it understandable. A chat log is a lot worse to read.
When you read, you recognize a word not by individual characters, but by the whole group at once, i.e., by the look of it. Period, capitalization and spacing helps you to read. I is never an i so if you don't have good reason, don't deviate from the rest of the literature world.
With the invention of type writer, capitalization was never dropped nor ultra short hands became popular. I don't see that would change because of the popularity of chat rooms.
Chat style is really for bad typist wanting to save time and effort at the expense of readability. However, chat style is not a necessity to achieve that. If you are a bad typist, try the alpha keyboard. You don't need to memorize the keys and that the qwerty keyboard is designed to slow down typing to avoid mechanical crash. As for the 'I', you are hitting two keys almost at the same time so no time is wasted. And that the shift keys are so larger that you can't miss with any hand.
For a decent typist, my experience in a chat room is that the typing is faster than the thought. I pause much longer to think what to type than the time lost due to typing 'you' instead of 'u'. I also enjoy the visual feedback when I type. As my visual habit didn't change, it's hard to change to chat style typing. Typing on a tiny phone is another matter.
Time and time again it's proved that it's much better for new technology to enhance the conventional application than conventional application bending to fit the limitations of technology. I was an experimental, software sort of guy until word processors capable of producing decent mathematic expressions in a short time. I became half a mathematician and added a new equation and a bunch of sub equations to human civilization. Before that I can't read my own mathematical writings.
If you follow the history of mathematical software, a little known late comer who offer nothing but primitive software grew to buy up many of it's competitions or their licenses. The only thing going for the company is they start with offering conventional symbols with very few keystrokes, free to write anywhere on a piece of paper on screen, while the competition all invent new style of input when GUI software is difficult. Not only that this company is financially successful but I'm sure they inspired a whole generation of mathematicians or half mathematicians.
Back to chat style, T9 entry in phones is a good example of good technology. If you want to save typing, there are technologies to do it rather than invent some new writing styles and words. Not that T9 is any good, but it's in the right direction. It's rather easy to adapt grammar and spell checkers to convert chat style to conventional style on the fly.
BTW, I was taught that easy to read writings are those with short sentences and simple structure, plus short paragraph with at most a few sentences. The easier to read, the easier it is to get your ideas across, like mainstream newspapers, not the odd LA Times columnist. My reason not to follow it is pure laziness, what's yours?
Grammar and vocab is another matter. Firstly you can't help if you don't have it. I have it but not in a single pass. Technology doesn't help on the fly either. Speed reading is a mainstream English topic at least in some parts of the world at some time, while grammars are not taught in the majority of even English speaking schools in the world. If you read at speed, the sentence structure and vocab doesn't matter that much. You don't look at all words in a sentence. Indeed you are trying to spot some important sentence in a page, and some important words in a sentence. Chat style destroys everything.
I'm not saying conventional grammar isn't good. Just that I can't proof read my writings because of the speed I read, more so because I already know what I was supposed to write.
Full of sentences with dubious structures doesn't sound too good a trend. But it might just be a trend of style. Try to check out the reading speed of famous men and I'm sure many read at high speeds. At least at a speed that perfect sentence structure won't be noticeable. Also check out how many school in the world teach what is split infinitive, or something sounded similar. There may be a whole generation of writers waiting for the technology to be mature enough like spell checkers is to individual words. The current grammar checkers are too primitive and too much manual work to make a sentence perfect.
Ugggh, TNH, I agree -- the idea of converting my labryinthine sentences into chat style is truly horrifying. Shudder, shudder, shudder! (And I'm someone who's done lots of instant messaging, both on phones and elsewhere -- different medium/different form.)
My reasons for not following mainstream newspaper style (I can write in it, but it takes a lot more work for me) are twofold: first, if I remember correctly, newspaper style articles are written at a US ninth-grade reading level. I presume a far greater education level here, and my experience has been that people generally do understand what I'm saying. Second, I'm someone who loves writing, language, the possibilities of grammar, and the peculiar flavor of words. In the same way that I indulge in sex with multiple partners, positions and possibilities, I indulge in language! :)
As far as grammar, language, spelling and reading speed: I absolutely agree that spelling and grammar checkers are pitiful, by and large. I find them useless and rarely use them. I don't see that reading speed has much to do with writing style, though, as they're two completely different processes. Still, speaking as someone who's taught writing: if you had simply told me that you found it difficult to do things according to standard practice, I'd have utterly no problem or complaint. But you turned it into a kind of philosophical argument which made it fair game for criticism in my book.
(I apologize to all for this being off-topic, but since TNH and I went at it hammer and tong for a while I feel I owe this response.)
Now, RN, you know there's gonna be a long line queing up to spank you... glad to hear from you, and hope you and your kids are all well.
Hey RN,
Welcome back!!! It's been a long time.
Looking forward to hearing about what has been going on in your life. All of the guys have missed you.
Paddy
Jackson, there's an instance where I truly envy you to power of the blue letters :D
RN, please also back-channel me about where things are at, presuming you still have my info.
Hi Rubbie,
I am in the middle of moving now but you can contact me via a private message using the WSG Forum's Private Message service if you want to.
Oh, c'mon, Rubbie, you don't get off that easy! At least regale us with the down and dirty on what happened to your agency!
Still, to sort of summarize in one paragraph, we've been having an (at times fairly abstract) interesting discussion about the nature of moral codes versus personal morality, and how that relates to societal attitudes regarding prostitution. This has manifested itself in the discussion not only as a look at various historical underpinnings but in terms of personal attitudes toward societal mores, the latter of which has come out not only in terms of looking at prostitution but in general attitudes toward sex (whether, as VT has posited, it's viewed in by society as a basically predatory instinct.)
There's more, of course, but I did want to try to actually manage that in one paragraph :) just to be out of character.
Feel free, RN, as always, to lead us forward... and massive virtual hugs and kisses on your return!
Well, you know my take on that latter issue -- neither is immoral in my opinion, per se, and if there is any culpability it's shared by both parties. This is one of those fairly constant issues that seems to come up in various areas, even among punters -- the idea that the woman who's selling is somehow "lower" than the man who's buying. I just don't see it, but I think it has to do with a number of things: 1) the general societal concept that women are somehow supposed to be "clean" until the marriage bed but that's not true for men, 2) the general power issue is society that says boys will be boys, and 3) the strange concept that the receiver is somehow more to blame than the one who sticks it in. This latter, it should be noted, also applies in homosexual relations -- somehow the bottom is definitely gay but the guy doing the fucking or getting the blowjob is not. (Of course, that may simply tie into #2, which has as a basic subpostulate than men will fuck anything that it's possible to fuck, so protect your livestock, furniture, children, spouse, and your own ass.) Or, as it's often said -- gotta get the bad seed out! That is apparently a viable defense, mostly.
As far as WA goes, I thought the law was due to expire -- is that the grey area you refer to? (And, heavens, don't mess up your head on the specifics of the agency -- we just got you back!)
Prostitution is moral if the john treats the hooker with respect and the hooker treats the john with respect. Otherwise perhaps it is not because the disrespectful party may be participating in P4P for the wrong reasons.
I think some guys may participate as a way to dominate women, whom they generally resent. I think some gals may participate as a way to manipulate men, whom they generally resent. Personally, I would not want to be some gal's very first trick and I think that probably makes me a hypocrite; if it's not immoral, why would it be immoral the first time? But then, I've never fucked a virgin before either and don't really want to.
In an ideal world maybe prostitution would not exist. Tahiti provides an instructive example. When Captain Cook first landed there, he found a society unashamed of nudity, with very few sexual taboos. Everyone was getting laid with no problem. The English and French proceeded to introduce VD there, impregnating many women and then absconding. That was the islanders' first experience with abandonment. The mutineers from The Bounty then kidnapped a dozen or so Tahitian women and took them to their refuge on Pitcairn's Island. A few eventually escaped and returned to Tahiti. Theres's some historical evidence that these escapees became the first prostitutes on Tahiti; by the mid 19th century prostitution was well established according to most accounts.
Comments?
Hey RN,
I'ts great to have you and your "rapier-like" wit back. Glad that things have worked out for the SW's in WA although matters still sound rather hazy and poorly defined.
In response to your assertion of the girl being arrested and the guy being given a free pass by the law in many places around the world, that's certainly true but not in the city where I live in the states. Get this. Both the man and the women are arrested and fined and if the guy used his car to pick the girl up or even drive to the date, his car is impounded and put up for auction by the police. They also publish his name in the major newspaper along with the type of offense. How's that for sticking it to the guy???
Given this type of oppressive environment, you and others might understand why I'm jetting off to Prague, Edinburgh, Manchester, etc. all of the time. I have no real options here as do many other American guys.
DH, I very much like your delineation -- morality is tied to intent, and if the intent is good the act cannot be bad, and vice versa.
Your Tahiti example provides, I think, an all-too-familiar example of one culture being invaded by another where the isolated one has its context changed. As long as one is part of the "tribe" there is an understood symbiosis -- Europeans were welcomed into the tribe, and didn't understand/accept/care about the full implications and responsibilities of such membership, coming at things via their economic model of gaining advantage as opposed to the gift-exchange economies prevalent in the region.
A move toward prostitution in the region was in fact a recognition that the only way to retain anything from the exchange was monetarily, as the Europeans were not interested in joining the tribe. Since sex was given freely in any event there would be no real taboo against prostitution.
mongering in thailand was a exceptional eye-opener for me. before this, my previous experience was limited to australia, singapore, uk, malaysia and southern thailand. in western countries i'd have to say that 99% of the women who work in the industry are there out of choice. it pays well. some may like the extravagent livestyle they lead. others may do so due to a drug dependence. in other words, they make a conscious decision to do that sort of work.
in thailand, many do not have such luxuries. a month or so ago, i took a trip up to chiang mai. feeling horny one night i eventually found myself at a mp. the mamasan in charge quickly welcomed me and proceeded to call upon the girls to do a parade. what followed was no parade, it was more like lambs being led to a slaughter. the look in the faces of those girls said it all. they did not want to be there. in fact, i think they were probabaly forced to be there. some were probably ****. how could i continue? it was indeed a wake up call for me. i made my excuses and left.
on reflection i think it's fair to say that a lot of these thai wg's do not wish to be in that profession. sure not everyone is forced into it. but is it more morally acceptable that a girl has to sell her body so that her family back home has something to eat? i know each wg has her own story but, this is just something i'm not used to. i can see in some bars that the girls detest the very customers that they could eventually spend the night with. this is the dilemna in which i left thailand with.
would you guys if, confronted with the same situation in chiang mai as me, have done the same thing? if yes, i must conclude that you are heartless and cruel beyond words. and i sincerely hope that there are no proponents of child prostitution here.
sorry for preaching. jz, dickhead, anyone comments?
sainter, i spent about eight weeks in chiang mai about a year ago, and i agree that there are a couple of pretty terrible places there which i wish could be shut down, including ones where the women clearly don't want to be there -- primarily, in that case, the brothels where many of the women come from myanmar. most of the massage parlors there, however, do not operate that way, and i truly never saw anyone **** there during my time -- there's no question that this was a problem in thailand in the past, but things have cleaned up considerably as the authorities have been cracking down for a number of years. i have to say that i just don't have the same perception you do of thai women being forced into it -- that's not usually the case in thailand, certainly not to the degree you find it in myanmar, vietnam, and cambodia. keep in mind, also, that thai women often look younger to western men; i've met a large number who i would swear were in their mid teens who have turned out to be in their late twenties.
i'm not a big fan of the thai massage parlor scene not so much because the women are there under duress, which usually isn't the case (family issues are a different and more complex issue) but because i'm not fond of the meat-market approach, where women are paraded out, the customer makes a choice, and the woman is given utterly no option of refusing as a condition of her employment.
let me suggest a couple other things to you as well. i don't know exactly where you went, but there are several massage places and "love cafes" in chiang mai that cater primarily to thai or japanese customers, and it may also have been the case that the women simply didn't want to go with a farang, which definitely does happen there. the kind of parade you describe suggests this might have been the case, as most of the places catering to farangs use the fishbowl approach. it could also simply that they hated being paraded that way, which i find very understandable and which is difficult for people who come from a culture that is basically pretty modest.
the family issues cannot be underestimated, not can the social ones, but they're very complicated in thailand, and in many cases even if the woman would prefer to be doing something else (heck, like a large number of sex workers anywhere wouldn't!) it's still a choice the woman has made, even if it's made under family pressure. is it somehow better to not go with a sex worker who's not happy with her job in general but who has still made a free-will choice that this is what she is going to do? i'm not sure about that at all, but one level of respect i feel must go to sex workers is respect for their choice of work, as long as it's a conscious and free choice -- i feel i need to respect the choice she's made, and if she chooses to go with me, that's her call, and that's the moral bottom line. it's worth noting that this is not simply a food thing, either -- the last tg i was with in bangkok told me she was in the scene (having quit a decent middle-level job) because she felt it was her duty to put her brother through the university, and that once he was done so was she.
you're absolutely correct that many tgs in the bars simultaneously want nothing to do with some of the men they're courting and do absolutely all they can to spend the night with them. let's face it, that's a damned terrible life, and i don't think it's particular to the thai scene -- i've seen the same thing in sydney, nairobi, new york, etc. but it's still one chosen by the worker. to use a trite comparison, i don't think there are a whole ton of mcdonald's workers (or wherever) who really would prefer to be doing the job they do, who aren't there simply because they need the money as opposed to because they like the work, who really car about the customers, etc.
the woman i spent the majority of my time there with desperately didn't want to be doing what she was doing, but felt she had no choice as she wanted to give a good life to her daughter and help her parents. she hated working in the go-go bar she was in because she was trying to make it through school as well, and was fearful she would get branded as a sex worker, which means that you're at the bottom of the thai social structure with no real way to move up. (she chose the go-go, in fact, because she could stay inside and away from most thai eyes.) but it was still a well thought-out choice and one she made freely. she was extremely pleased, however, to stay with me for the time i was there because it meant she only had to deal with one customer, (who really wasn't all that demanding) didn't have to go to the bar at all, and had a far steadier income than she'd otherwise expect for a lower level of risk.
for me the bottom line is very simple -- i'm not interested in having sexual relations with anyone who's not at least willing to pretend being interested in having them with me. that not only smacks of a bad power equation to me, which is the same recipe present in rape, but in libido terms is something i find a turnoff.
JZ, as usual you make some excellent points. This particular place I went to was on the recommendation of a tuk-tuk driver. I guess I should have expected it considering the shabby layout of the place. However, I'm Asian/Australian so I don't think the farang thing has anything to do with this particular situation. Hey, maybe they wanted a white guy. In any case, I've been mongering long enough to know when a girl/s really don't want to be there.
As for TG's in Bangkok and Pattaya, I guess you're right when you compare the situation to one of a McDonald's worker. I probably like the illusion that the girls are actually interested in more than just the money. But when faced with the harsh reality of it, yes it is just that, an illusion.
This is probably why I enjoy picking up the girls from discos rather than from a MP or a go-go. For one they seem more interested and eager to please. And secondly, they work for themselves thus eliminating the "forced to do it factor".
I guess I'm just thinking too much. I've always been a worrier. If I could, I'd adopt Samus' 3Fs. But I have a sneaky suspicion that I am one of these sad bastards who could easily fall in love with a TG. Sad isn't it?
Sainter, yup, you did end up at one of Chiang Mai's "Love Cafes," which are chiefly used by Thai customers and where many women are there under more duress. Many are making under 100baht ($2.50US) per customer, and some may even be paying off contracts signed by their families. You should congratulate yourself for another reason -- these places are far higher in terms of disease than the freelancers you're going to pick up at a disco, both because they're in the north (where HIV is more prevalent) and because less care is taken. Not anywhere I want to be, that's for sure, and I hope the targetting of such places (and the brothels even more) by some of the human rights organizations has an impact. (Doubt it will, though, as some of these are owned and controlled by the local police.)
I understand what you're saying about the discos, but I don't really think that eliminates the "forced" aspect in family terms, it simply shifts the ground a bit. Women working at beer bars, mainstream MPs, go-gos, etc., have almost always made a choice, no matter how reluctant, to be there, and there are plenty of freelancers who are working to support their families, simply doing it out of the established structure. It's a double-edged sword -- a woman working at one of the go-gos or beer bars can choose who to go with (or not to go) and will be guaranteed a regular income each month from the place she's working in addition to whatever she makes from going with customers. She also gets some recourse and support in case things go wrong, which a freelancer does not. The freelancer, to me, seems more likely to have to go with men she'd not prefer, as that is completely her only source of income and so her options are really more limited.
As far as the whole 3F thing, it's a useful thing to remember, but it doesn't really work for me. It is an important thing to keep in mind, simply because the bottom line is always that you are a customer, not a lover, and falling in love in such circumstances is a good way to get your heart and wallet stomped -- the job of the sex worker, after all, (as is the case for pretty much anyone selling anything) is to get as much money from you as possible. That said, I don't care for the 3F method because I enjoy the company of women as much as I enjoy the sexual aspect (not that the two are separate) and I like the stories, the converation, the minor dramas, the flirting, the sense of closeness that comes from spending more time with someone, etc., as part of the experience. Those aspects are not important to SA et all, because it's all about getting off to them. I like LOS because Thai women are very good at that kind of thing, and at making men feel paid attention to and focused on. That's a danger zone for many, because it's easy to cross the line and get heavily emotionally attached, but I simply don't go there. There's not a single woman with whom I've had such a hook-up that I'd not happily see again, and I do my best to help them out in all ways possible while I'm there, but I'm not out to "save" anyone because it generally can't be done (and is often simply not required or wanted.)
So, no, I don't think it's at all sad -- why lament the fact that you've got a heart? The question is whether you're got the tools to maintain perspective and control of that heart while wandering around. Falling in love with an elephant in a cage (to use a Thai image -- and I apologize for the dehumanizing comparison but I can't think of a better one at the moment) is one thing; thinking you can successfully take that elephant home or live safely in that cage is quite another.
Blind Lust
01-11-04, 15:50
Prostitution has always posed a double-edged sword to feminists (RN, are you reading me?) On one hand, prostitution is seen as the ultimate degradation of women, reducing them to little more than T&A, semen receptacles etc. On the other hand, if a woman truly has dominion over her own body, why shouldn't she be free to rent it for her own profit? Thus, the debate continues to rage in feminist circles.
To me, the issue isn't which is moral and which is not. As JZ so aptly put it, it's partly about power dynamics. To my way of thinking, if a man is "reduced" (Big quotes here) to paying for sex, it seems to me that the woman is exerting more power, ie. he is undesirable, she is desirable. She earns, he pays. She (to a degree) sets limits to the activity, he must abide by these limits. Who has the power in the P4P situation? Obviously, she does more so than the client.
In my opinion, laws which deal with human sexual activity are automatically bad laws, if they attempt to regulate activity between consenting adults. If a woman, whether Stateside or elsewhere is being forced into sex work, then she is obviously not giving consent. Therefore, why not concentrate on anti-pimping laws, and laws against violence toward women?
"Legalizing" prostitution is not the answer either, as such laws are in themselves forms of control which remove the women's option of consent in many areas surrounding the actual P4P transaction. Perhaps the law should simply refuse to consider the act of prostitution at all?
About morality: It is interesting to note that the Christian Bible does not prohibit prostitution. Rather, it warns the would-be monger not to get emotionally involved, warning that a man who tarries with a prostitute will leave a piece of himself with her. And I think the Bible wasn't talking about ejaculated matter.
I say, if human dignity, true and choice and safety are assured for the sex worker, then the governments of the world should get their blue noses out of the issue entirely. Just my opinion. Frankly, I'm hoping that current welfare rules are radically changed in the U.S., thus motivating more women to enter the labor pool. Naw, just kidding.
Blind Lust, I think your comments about "legalizing" prostitution is one of the reason most proponents think in terms of "decriminalizing" instead -- simply remove the issue from legal contention entirely and treat it like any other behavior, which may have some degree of regulation (heck, putting up houses do, and what doesn't?) but where the issue of crime doesn't enter into it.
I'm not sure I completely understand where you stand on the power dynamic because of your "big quotes" -- are you saying you believe men are reduced through paying or that it's the perception that's the case?
Not that, I suppose, it matters in the end, to some degree. If two consenting adults want to do something that doesn't involve anyone else, they should be free to do so, in general. The devil enters in the specifics, as if you extend the argument I guess you could end up saying the German cannibal who hooked up with an allegedly willing victim is just another consenting adult. (A rather different version of oral than we're generally talking about here! :D)
"'warning that a man who tarries with a prostitute will leave a piece of himself with her. And I think the Bible wasn't talking about ejaculated matter . . ."
No, the Bible is referring to your wallet . . .
Hot topic this has always been on all sides by every political party. No matter how you slice the pie, someone isn't happy with thier cut when you are dealing with prostitution.
Now, you can choose to look at it in anyway you want, from the "it's an immoral act" to the " it's just an exchange of goods and services" and no one will agree with you 100%.
Personally, I choose to look at the economic factors in the equation. How many tax dollars are lost to medicare for the diseases spread by prostitution? How many doallars are wasted in the attempted law enforcement of it? How much undeclared income is generated by it?
Keeping he moral objections aside for now lets just look at these factors:
1: STDs and other diseases can be spread, even when using a condom (they aren't 100% effective after all!) and that costs mony to treat.
2: The police efforts to stop prostitution also cost money in the way of police salaries, equipment, paper work, and a host of other things.
3: No Hooker is decaring the money she makes on her tax forms, so there-fore she is not paying any income tax on her illegal earnings.
All that adds up to millions of dollars a year, if not 100s of millions for larger countries. IF prostitution was legalized and regulated you could cut the enforcement costs way down, while generating revenue in the way of taxed dollars for the treatment of the STDs and other diseases.
On the moral side of the coin, as I am sure it has been mentioned here, there are many factors to look at. Some, but not all, include the errosion of family values, the demeaning nature of the act inflicted on the woman, and the dehumanization of prostitiution... Again you will never answer or satify all parties.
As for the errosion of family Values, if the man or woman is seeing an hooker, that tends to hint at a deeper family problems then just needing to get their rocks off. And maybe you should adress THAT problem. Prostitution is merely the outlet, not usually the cause.
As for the way it demeans women.... In a very simple fact, they chose to do the act, I didn't turn a girl on the street and say "you're now a hooker" I simply went to one that was. Sadly, there are some ppl out there that force women and men to sell their bodies,t hat is true and I personally believe that these Pimps are the lowest of the low. The true dreggs of humanity who desirve the worste that can happen to them. Some would also say that society has forced some woment into prostitution and that we are all guilty. Well, I don;t know about that one. After all we are all responsible for the choices we make, and the concequences of those choices even years later. I find this arguement a simple passing of the buck by the ppl who tend to use it. Either they never thought about their actions at the time, or choosed to ignore the concequences of those actions until it was too late.
Some ppl say that the stigma of Prostitution can also dehumanize someone in the eyes of others. And I guess this one is very true. As with many things in this world ones job or profession is a key factor in social peers. However, is prostitution dehumanizing cause of the job? or cause of the way we look at ppl who do the job? If the answer is the second, then it is you who is dehumanizing the hooker, not the job, no matter what you tell yourself, or others. The moment you start looking at the prostitute like a piece of candy or an item to be bought, you have jsut dehumanized him/her. Instead, look at them like a professional doing a service, like your TV repairperson, or your plumber, or autorepairperson. For a set amount of cash, they will all render a service to you. So does that mean any job you take Dehumanizes you?
RX-7
Many nice points, I agree with a lot of what you said although I think your ideas are a little too idealistic to exert in the US.
I agree that no matter how you slice it, someone isn't going to be happy with their cut. So I think it's a little contradictory for you to later propose these regulations when it is impossible to do so.
In addition, legalizing does not necessarily mean regulation. Look at Tokyo, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, or even Nevada where prostitution are in general legalized. How many girls are working independently or underground as oppose to house girls paying taxes? A majority! And as a result the legalization and prevalence of organized prostitution is unlikely to lessen any LE scrutiny or STD transmission anymore than it is today.
The economic truth is that corporate America profit much more from en masse sexual oppression than in a more liberated climate. Over 50% of media contents or advertising today are based on sex or sexual innuendos. Sex sells, everything from books/novels, TV/movies, medicine/drugs, fashion, and even sports and alcohol by some extension, just to name a few. Take away the sexual attraction and allure and you take away the appeals these products would otherwise have had. Quite a lot at stakes here.
Also you seem to trust the individuals to take the responsibilities for the choices they make. What about the age of consent discussions a while back on this board? What is the proper age for a girl to make an informed choice about her body and well-being at which a society can morally hold her responsible for her choices? It will undoubtedly become a big epidemic or a nightmare if smoking is any harbinger for what to expect when trusting the American youth, hip-hop generation, to make such a crucial decision.
It would also be great if we can reasonably compare a sex worker with an auto repairperson or a carpenter like you said. Unfortunately there are many faces of prostitution, many faces to a “John”, and many faces to a human heart. It is easy to draw the distinction between an experience with a sex worker and with your mechanic. When you’re comparing them like that you may avoid “reducing” the girls however instead you are dehumanizing the sexual act, which virtues we inherently value and protect at a greater cost than an oil change. To convince “everyone” otherwise is implausible and wishful thinking.
I’m not trying to and hope I haven’t discouraged your good intentions. My observation is that prostitution scene in the US, dope heads and destitute notwithstanding, is governed by Newton 3rd law of motion which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. On one hand you have a moral obligation to restrain pervasive indecent and corruptive acts that poses a threat to the virtues of a society. On the other hand you have Natural Selection, a principle by which men, and women, are endowed with a trigger mechanism to be sexually active and to reproduce, along with our inalienable right to do what we want with our own bodies in a consensual manner. When these two elementary forces collide, I guess that’s what we have now, a cat and mouse game hovering in a de facto state of repressed but never-ending mongering scene.
A Nice Hat Trick
There are several countries that have legalized prostitution only to later reverse themselves and make it illegal again. They have found that rather than reduce costs for law enforcement, it actually increased costs. This is because where prostitution is legalized, street prostition actually increases. Nevada is a great example. I haven't been there lately, but it used to be a great spot to pick up streetwalkers. A lot get lured there by the thought of a better job in a brothel and end up getting disqualified. They might be addicted to drugs, test positive for herpes, any number of things. Also, the average blue collar working guy can't afford a brothel. A brothel is great for someone with lots of disposable income; someone who mongers once in a blue moon; and someone who wants a very sanitized and covered experience. That doesn't sound like most of the mongers I know.
Also, the rates of disease transmission actually increases with the legalization of prostitution. One problem is that even though the gals may get tested regularly, there is a window where they can not only spread the diseases, but also test negative. Again, the guy who wants a bbbj and doesn't want to spend an arm and a leg will go to the streetwalkers.
If it were just so easy to legalize prostitution and make all societies ills go away. Police freed up to fight more serious crime; STD's getting controlled and checked; taxes collected and spent on disease prevention and social programs. Sounds like a utopian society to me. How come it just doesn't work?
Vancouver has a hands off policy (though it's technically illegal) and has the highest STD/HIV/TB rates in North America as well as the highest percentage of IV drug abuser per capita in N. America. HIV flourishes in Thailand, China, S. Africa, and most other places it is legal. Part of this is due to guys like Opebo (posts on Safe Sex Thailand) who believes that HIV is not transmissable to heterosexual men by their female partners and always refuses to wear protection.
Also the government involvement needed to regulate, inspect, enforce, test, etc sex workers and brothels would cost a kazillion dollars. Heck, just look at the waste in every city and state government; not to mention the feds.
Actually Blind Lust the bible has several passages decrying prostitution, but I think religious discussions are prohibited here so I won't go into specifics.
Now, one would think from reading my post that I am not in favor of legalizing prostitution. I just don't know. As a monger, of course I would like to see it legal with hookers eight deep on every street corner. What monger wouldn't? But if I were president and could legalize prostitution with a stroke of a pen, would I? I don't know that either. I think I would have to weight the pros and cons; consult with a lot of people; and go with my gut.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
Civ2K
Lombardi II
01-20-04, 04:21
This has turned into a very interesting thread, to say the least.
If you reduce prostitution to its principal elements, you have sex and money. The mongerer wants sex (or companionship) and the provider is obviously in need of income. So you have two individuals with disparate needs who are willing to "barter" their assets as a means to satisfy said needs. This is, in essence, the same as countless other business transactions. Some say that it is debasing to purchase or sell sex as if it were simply another commodity, but I am not convinced that the exchange of money necessarily cheapens the experience nor the parties involved. After all, mongerers and providers do not exist in a vacuum. They are "real" people in every sense of the word. I think that society perpetuates some very unfortunate stereotypes about the women who participate in the trade and the type of people who are their clients. Can your family and friends discern that you are a mongerer? On the street, could you tell a "civilian" woman from a professional were the latter not working at the time?
I wonder if the real taboo here is not sex, but rather money.Society is not generally concerned with consenting adults engaging in the sexual activity of their choosing - heck, the Supreme Court has effectively ruled that anti-sodomy legislation is unconstitutional. But as soon as money enters the equation, we're no longer sexual partners. We're john and hooker, and we're not just having intercourse. We're spreading venereal disease like wildfire - despite stats which consistently demonstrate that providers are often "cleaner" than the general population - and we're unwittingly supporting an array of criminal activity that ranges from drug abuse to gang violence.
It is definitely plausible that the income which a SW receives from her trade will be used wholly or in part to purchase drugs. But is this a problem that is created by virute of her decision to walk the streets? Certainly not. I have known substance abusers from all walks of life. I also know professional women whose only vice is the occasional cigarette (of the nicotine variety), and who file with the IRS as entertainers, reporting the bulk (if not all) of their income. In my view, it is neither reasonable nor rational to assume that providers have a greater inclination towards the sort of criminal activity that is often implicated with the trade than does the population at large.
So, we're back to money and sex again. Obviously there is something very dangerous about one, or possibly both, but I just can't see it.
Civ2k
Speaking of legalizing outlaws with a stroke of a pen, I think Bush has done just that with his new immigration reforms. I hasten to say it but the glaring similarities between legalizing illegal farm workers and sex workers will ultimately guarantee the same treatment and fate of one with the other. It is just a bad piece of legislation being rightfully pounded by law makers from all direction, it reeks of Bush’s ingenuity and political wisdom. Certainly it will never see the light of day on the president’s desk or even in congress in its current form, or any form.
I put these two issues on the same footing for comparison when in fact one is more demeaning and more out of play than the other by normal social standards. When doubts and suspicion creep over me whenever I ponder if any politician is ballsy enough to step up and propose to liberalize prostitution laws, it is then I get a sense of what we mongers are up against in such undertaking, if we tried. If the immigration reform is a good enough ploy to woo some Latino votes, I wonder how many monger votes can we reasonably expect to woo on this ticket and I wonder if anyone has done it before, at any level?
Also Lombardi makes a very good point: maybe money is root of all evil, or at least the root of all discontent, and not the sex or the perpetrators after all. Gambling also gets a bad rap with all its inherent evil by-products. But when you remove the money element you’re left with only the game of luck which I guess could be rated PG-13. However, granted, both sinister pastimes are just not the same or even exist without lots and lots of greenbacks. But a interesting angle nonetheless.
Creole Hottie
01-21-04, 22:16
As a provider, I feel obligated to put in my two cents.
In my honest opinion, I see not a single thing wrong with Prostitution in general. The john wants sex and the prostitute needs money, you should get the picture. If I didn't feel this way, I wouldn't be a working woman.
Where my problem lies is with women who honestly don't derive any pleasure from their means of employment. A ho should only become a ho if she so desires it. I mean, it is a good rule of thumb to choose a career that you'd enjoy. So, if a woman feels that Prostitution is degrading, she should find another career that is suited to her skill level or obtain the education to launch her into a better career.
Kaila
Creole Hottie, I absolutely agree with you that women should only be going into prostitution if they want to, as coerced prostitution is immoral as far as I'm concerned, but the question is how far one takes that. There aren't a lot of people who really and truly desire to clean bathrooms or floors for a living, but many make the choice freely to do so nonetheless. Many more will do it because it's the only job available so they feel they have no choice. The reality is that there are tons of people in the workplace who would rather be doing something else, who don't like their jobs, and who feel trapped in or even degraded by them.
Should the same standard apply to prostitution, in that as long as it's a free choice, even if options seem limited, there's no real moral conflict, or does that change the equation? (And great to have a provider posting here -- please continue to share your opinions here! Now all we need is for RN to be back on a regular basis...)
And excellent post and point, Lombardi -- there are certainly many instances, particularly in western society, where the entire issue of money brings its own rules into the equation. By extension, one could look at the issue of property: for a very long time, a wife was considered the "property" of her husband. Rather than being "unattached" by being either unmarried and thereby still potentially belonging to someone, or widowed, and thereby the property of someone who has died (and so are again either potential property for someone else or at least are already designated as having been property) sex workers complicate the equation, as by being available to anyone they "belong" to no one, which muddies the property (and thus the power) equation.
Creole Hottie
01-23-04, 19:50
Joe Zop:
I'm glad that you agree with me on this. However, I personally wouldn't be doing something that I hate as a career, although if I had no other choices, I'd do almost anything.
There are many other working women that I know who are ho's though, and unfortunately quite a few of them tell me on a regular basis that they wouldn't be doing this, except for the fact that they need to support their drug habits and/or kids.
To me that sounds silly!
Hat Trick, Glad you agreed and disgreed with my post.
And I do admit it is mostly ideaist thinnking and there are holes in it (such as enforcement, legislation, and others) but sadly, I am only one man with one mind and I can not plug all the holes myself. Ad to that fact that I am young (relatively) but I am not stupid (but not a rocket scientist) and you get what you usually see in any post, a half thought out idea or belief.
I have met many different professionals in the trade, and have remained firends with a few of them even after they have left the field. And while I am happy Creole that you enjoy your work, I would have to say that many do not. In fact, I would have to say that the majority of them are in it for the "easy" buck. And while a few DO enjoy sex, they may not enjoy the clients who only care about themselves and their pleasure. Lets be honest, there are many levels of professionals, from the street worker to the outcall/incall service to the escort to the "on the sider". And you get various levels of service and quality from all of them. I doubt that the street walker who give blowjobs for $30 a pop to the dozen or so men in a day really enjoys her work. But the $1000 an hour escort who gets to have a little more time and fun with her client just might.
But that MAY be a topic for a different thread as this is supposed to be about the Morality of prostitution. And in that reguards....
Morality is a touchy thing to say the least. Why? cause it changes with every generation (heck something with in a generation) if you want to look back some 2000 years to Rome Italy at the height of the Roman Empire, you find that prostittution was an accepted profession and even one that womena dn men were breed for! Now look at to day's standards. Look back 60 some years and the clothing styles worn by women then. They had bathing suits that covered from upper arm to mid thigh! Now adays, I have seen women with bathing suits that have less fabric then the pack of dental floss in my bathrooom!
AS with what happens people in every generation take the morals and ideals of the generation before them and change them to suit the new generation. And maybe that is what will happen with prostitution. then again, maybe not. As it stands however, I will try to address a few issues that I have heard (and if I repeat myself, sorry)
1: The one I hear most often is that prostitution currpts family values: Well, I doubt it. If I (an unmarried, childless man, who is not in a relationship) visit a prostitute for whatever reasons, explain to me how I am corrupting my family values? I treat my date with respect, I make sure that we have protection, I do not get angry with her when she refuses to do an act I want, I mere thank her for her time and send her away. Personally I see a bigger problem with "the bar scene" where I go in to a bar, try to pick up a woman (usually by having to fake more interest then I have) and then have to "pour on the charm" to get her out of her pants. There I see a corruption of morals. Why? cause in the end I have lied to the bar woman, had to fake more interest in her than I had and usually had to build up a sense of trust that I shatter in the morning.
Now if it is a married man or other wise spoken for (as in with children or in a relationship) that clouds the issue more. For one there is the trust factor that all relationships are built on. The man is breaking an implied oath to stay true to his partner by visiting a prostitute. Now is this Prostitution's fault? No. Why? Cause the man made a choice, he choose to break that trust. This would indicate to me a more deep seated problem that should be adressed outside of prostitution, and maybe with a qualified professional.
2: Prsotitution leads to or has other crimes involved with it: Sadly this seems to be more true then untrue. For every one worker involved in prsotitution for just the money to buy food/shelter/clothing/basics of life, there are 20 who use the money for drugs, or other illegal options. Not to mention the pimps or other hangers on. But this too seems to be a "what came first issue" for the most part. Did the professional get into drugs cause of prostitution? Or into prostitution cause of drugs? DId the professional get a pimp After getting into prostitution? Or did the pimp reruit her for Prostitution? And sadly this issue is a much harder one to sort out cause the truth of the matter is, it could be that the answer could be both! For every worker that got into drugs from working, there is one that got into prostitution to pay for drugs. For every Pimp that recuits for prostitution, there is a worker that get a pimp after she got into the field.
Agian, for me, this is a matter of choice (at least for the drugs issue) and personal resposibility. They choose to use drugs, weither BEFORE or AFTER they got into the profession and have to take account for their actions. It has no real bearing on the morality of Prostitution simply cause it is a side issue. Like drinking and driving. (if drive, you have the responsibility to not to drive. If you choose to drive, then you are punished. Not all the drivers of the world)
AS for pimps. This is more of a case of the strong preying on the weak. It happens everywhere and at every level of society. I don't know how to fix it, or how to stop it, but I do know that it, in it's self, doesn't make prostitution immoral. After all, does one bussiness telling an other what it can or can't sell an item for make the world of all bussinesses Immoral? Does the rules and laws that a government choose to have thier citizens obey and fallow (in principle) make all governments Immoral? No. They (the pimps) are just an ugly side of the equation that should be stoped.
I think this post is long enough at this time and will stop here. It least I hope I have given you some food for thought.
Civ, to respond to a question you asked : ...."why doesn't it work?"
Good question. I don't really have an answer for you, other then the fact that as with everything else int he world change takes time and effort. Nothing comes easily, and nothing comes with out pain. I admit that I do not fallow world politics that much (simply cause since I can not affect them, I would reather focus my attention on the one country I CAN change... my own) But I only knew of Holland as the only country that had legalized prostitution. And to the best of my knowledge, it is still legal. What other countries (and years) did they try to legalized (different than decriminalize) prostitution? and in what years did they then change it back to illegal? With that infomation I could do a little more research and see if I can find some answers to your question.
As for Vancouver. BC, Canada (my own country and province, but not city) I can answer you a few questions there. First the "hands off" dealings ended about 5 years ago whent he police started to get report after report after report of missing street workers. This MAY have gone back into effect recently cause Pinkton (the man charged with the murder of like 13-18 wroking girls) was captured and charged. As for the increase in diseases and drug use.... Vancouver has often been thought of as "North Hollywood" The place you can go to have your dreams come true. Sadly 10 years under an incompetent provincal goverment that caused our debt to quadruple has caused lots of unemployment, and hardship. Add to that the Vancouver Major's office is more interested in spending an extra $75 million on mass transit (even thought the percentage number of people using mass transit has stayed the same for the last 20 years) and not on things like social improvement, city health care, homeless support, and policing you start to get a better picture of the overall problem.
RX-7, The two countries I read about were South Australia and Sweden. Interestingly enough, South Australia voted to decriminalize brothels in 2000, only to reverse itself and make it illegal again in 2001. I pasted in part of the article. Note: the following does not necessarily reflect the views of Civ2000, just posting the article as it was written:
SWEDEN
Following decriminalisation, in 1995 the Swedish government appointed a commission to look at the problems resulting from prostitution in Sweden, and to look at the situation in other countries. As a result Sweden reversed the legislation, making prostitution illegal.
AUSTRALIA
South Australia also legalised prostitution and then reversed the legislation. A summary of the course of events follows.
South Australia experienced 20 years of attempts trying to get prostitution legalised. In July 2000 the house of Assembly narrowly passed legalising brothels. Then, on 17/05/2001 South Australia legislation rejected bill after looking at evidence from other states where similar legislation
caused an increase rather than decrease in prostitution problems. They also looked at exactly who wanted brothels legalised and found it was those who get money from prostitution - pimps, madams & academics (others who support newly fashionable theory of "voluntary prostitution".
In various Australian states legalising or decriminalising results in large numbers of brothels setting up outside the rules, e.g., Victoria State, New South Wales.
They found the following problems were caused by prostitution:
1. Public nuisance. Men loitering and urinating on streets, near brothels, violence.
2. Spread of STD’s / AIDS.
3. Serious depression / drug addiction in prostitutes.
4. Child sexual abuse. A significant percentage of customers prefer very young prostitutes.
5. Other crimes – drugs, weapons, stolen goods.
They found that legalising brothels or prostitutes resulted in a two-tier system or legal and illegal prostitution, with an overall increase in the number of prostitutes, particularly in the illegal sector. This resulted in an increase in all the problems of illegal prostitution that legalising prostitution was supposed to solve.
The argument was put forward, in view of the serious hazards associated with prostitution, that it should be banned, just as the asbestos industry was banned in Australia due to the hazards involved.
Hmm, Creole Hottie, do you think the fellow workers you describe truly mean what they say, or is it a way of not defining themselves as sex workers by intention? In many other countries the situation is simply different, with family pressures contributing to such decisions, as seen in many Asian countries, where the pressure to support parents/siblings is one reason many women go into the trade, a decision which thereby doesn't have quite the stigma that it does in the US, though it certainly doesn't move one up the social ladder, either.)
The whole concept of doing only jobs that you'd prefer doing is one of priviledge, in my opinion, as I've visited many places in the world where the ability to do any job, no matter what it happens to be, is a happy circumstance.
RX-7, why do you make such a distinction between legalized and decriminalized prostitution in your post about different countries?
why the distinction between Decriminalization and legalization?
It's in the word use and in the unmentioned support that is put behind the effort.
Decriminalized just means that it is not arrestable or finable (sp?). Think of it like this.... riding a Quad (you know, those 4 wheeled atv machines) in the outback/woods doesn't require you to have a drivers licence, yet you can be held accountable for accidents in the woods for not fallowing the driving rules for right of way. Basically all decriminalized means is that the police turn a blindeye to your actions and the courts no longer look into cases involving prostitution. They may still hassle a SW for no other reason than she is a SW, but they wouldn;t mention prostitution as the reason why they are doing it, they would call it loitering, or suspicious activity, or whatever.
Basically, decriminatization is a term used by governments for something they still think is wrong and don;t agree with yet have to cow down to public wants.
Legalization on the other hand implies a system in place to deal with the issue. Going back to my ATV theory, now change that to cars.... You need a driver's licence and (usually) insurance to drive a car, if you get into an accident your insurance covers it. And if you don;t have a driver's licence, then you can be charged cause you (in theory) don;t know how to operate a car in proficient level for public safety. If you don't like that example, there are others. Think about booze, or anythiing else you need a permit or licence or even just take for granted.... (but don;t confuse it with a Freedom or Right!)
The best Example I have is Amsterdam. In amsterdam prostitution is legal, they have a set area, police/secuity in effect, drug and STD testing, and a tax system set up to deal with the income generated by prostitution.
In short the difference between the two is the support given to the idea. Decriminalization just means they hate the idea (and expect or WANT it to fail) and will not offer any type of support for it.
While Legalization means that they take the issue seriously (while they may still not like it) and are willing to invest resources into it to see if they can MAKE it work...
Civ2000... Thank for the into I will look into the Sweden one. As for the Austrainlian one.... A year sounds to me a too short period of time for anything really to have happened either way. By that I mean that of course there would be ripples in the water right away from the decriminalization but it was too short a time to tell of those ripples were going to be waves or just die out.
I mean look at Alberta, when they reduced the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 (this was YEARS and YEARS ago) they had a mad influx of young drinkers getting into trouble (DUIs to fights to public damage) yet they stuck to it and now they have around the small amount of problems as any other province (where the drinking age is 19)
RX-7, I'm aware of the differences, and was simply wondering why you were advocating one over the other. I don't at all agree with your take on decriminalization as being something the government simply turns a blind eye to despite disliking -- there are too many examples of other things without criminal penalties that argue otherwise.
It's worth noting that, contrary to your position, most prostitution advocates dislike "legalization" as it first implies some sort of special dispensation for something that's suspect, and next because it is usually accompanied by excessive controls such as registration, which can have a distinctly chilling effect while still imparting a stigma. (Try getting a bank loan, for example, if you're a legal prostitute, regardless of the fact that you may have a great work and credit history.) Decriminalization, on the other hand, means legality is simply not an issue, so that prostitution is treated like any other business enterprise -- subject to some degree of rules or control, but not the specter of state control or being put on some sort of "potentially bad person" list. Imagine how the INS would treat someone who applied for residency or citizenship if they were registered as a prostitute -- regardless of whether or not they met local standards of conduct and were perfectly responsible and respectable according to those norms. Should being a dry cleaner, a newspaper reporter, or a butcher need to be legalized?
To me the bottom line is this: why should any form of having sex between two consenting adults need to be legalized? Having something being decriminalized doesn't imply there are no rules or legal restrictions whatsoever -- there are tons of examples of this, as once something enters into the sphere of public activity rules can be applied, in the same way that public nudity or having sex in public is illegal regardless of whether there's money involved. Smoking cigarettes is legal (not legalized) but regulated, even though we as a society generally acknowledge it's not a great habit to have.
Legalization doesn't at all necessarily mean resources are being expended or invested in some positive way -- exchanging bureaucrats for pimps isn't necessarily an improvement. I'd hardly tout the system in Nevada, where women can only work in licensed brothels and have no control of their working conditions or environment, as a wonderful system that shows the benefits of the legalization approach.
And you very much oversimplify and mischaracterize the Amsterdam situation -- there are escorts, brothels, etc., in addition to the Red Light District, and prostitution has never been illegal in the Netherlands, and prostitution has been defined as a legal profession for a long time. Cities, such as Amsterdam, can regulate prostitution as they see fit, and the RLD is one of those controlled public areas.
Cloud Seeker
01-25-04, 17:14
Hello all,
This isn't exactly prostitution-related, but it's all intertwined, so I thought I would mention it.
Would you like to rent an adult video in Texas? Know that there is a priest in the parking lot photographing your license plate. You'll get a letter in the mail from his church later on.
Read it to believe it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=1&u=/latimes_ts/20040125/ts_latimes/texaschurchcardspeoplewhopatronizeadultstores
I have NEVER seen anything so outrageous.
Cloud9 Seeker
Joe, some good points....
but let me ask you something? Have you heard of a prostitute with a good credit rating in Amsterdam being refused a reasonable bank loan? I haven't either way (approved or not) and based on your correction I doubt it would cause their is most likely less of a social stigma there then here (here being North America) The number one problem with posts and bullitien boards like this is the fact that we get a wide range of ppl from all over the world reading an posting, and we sometimes forget that every country has it's own legal system, socal stigma, ethical and moral codes.
What you say could very well be a problem in N.A (north america) but not so in Europe or parts of Europe.
As for the INS I can't not comment cause I have no idea really what that is :) but I would have to guess that it has something to do with immigration, am I right? And due to the fact that I don;t know what that is, I can only comment on the what I think it is (immigration) and give you an example based on my friend's family experience in coming to Canada. Keep in mind too that this is second hand info:
First, cause they were not "pursicuted" (sp?) in thier own country they had to prove that they (the adults) had an education of at least the grad 12 level, they had to at least a passing understanding of either French or English. They had to prove that they had at LEAST $100,000 cdn in savings and that they had either a working plan to open a bussiness or skills that were in high demand. Even after they proved all that, they had a probationary period of four years in which at any moment the government could come into there home and do a surpirse inspection of thier living and home environment and they had to prove that they were employed or seeking enployment. Now that is ALOT of hoops to jump through and I can not imagine what it is like now that it is post 9-11.
As for the prostitution advocates.... Some of them seem to have solid reasonings and some just seem to be nuttier than a fruitcake. And as for excessive controls... well that could be... just like all doctors are registered, as are nurses (hence "R" in "RN") as are all military personell (sp?) or just about anyone who has a direct level of influence on the public safety. How and why should prostitution be any different? Because of the social stigma? Well, I would hate to say it but sometimes those things do happen... but with most of the things you listed they would have a legal recourse to fall back on ("I'm sorry Miss Doe, I am refusing your loan cause you are a hooker" says the bank manager. "Oh goodie! now I get to sue you and get the money for free!" relies Miss Doe"
Now, lets look at a few examples that you used (dry cleaner, reporter, Butcher) and the need to be legalized:
Well the dry cleaner is going to do what? ruin my suit? big deal. I can buy a new one, or get him to do so.
the Reporter has many legal restrictions on him (not to mention professional and social!) Reporters are required to report the TRUTH. If they make up a story or lie they can be jailed or sued and would/could also be the effective end to thier career as well.
the butcher actually has to goto school to and learn how to butcher an animal to fall into federial guildlines. Can you imagine the world or trouble a butcher would be in if he sold infected meat? Or if he willingly passed off or sold meat he knew was tainted with mad cow disease?
I do however get your drift of what you are saying. And yes their would be growing pains in a legalized system. More so then in a Decriminatized system. But in the long run I truly do believe that a legalized system would be better AND safer of all involved. Also I find yoru comparison of the gov't to a pimp to be humorous! Lets face it, any gov't can be real slime balls, yet I just can't picture the "Gov't Workers for Prostitution" going up to a hooker and beating the crap outta her cause she has only pulled 3 tricks that day. Or kidnapping girls from bus stations and forcing them into prostitution. Or grabbing runaways and hooking them on drugs to turn them into working girls. I CAN however see them having the police stop them and require them to show them a STD card that proves they have had a check up in the last 30 days. I can see them forcing girls who have not had a check up to get one right away. I CAN see them arresting girls infected with HIV and charging them with attempted murder if they are still hooking.
You do raise a good point in the question of "why should sex between 2 concenting adults need to be legalized" And the only answer I have to give is : Cause once, long ago, at the right moment in history, so sexually hung up person or group of ppl spoke out in a loud enough voice and raise enough of a stink that the governemnt listened to them and outlawed some sexual actions between concenting persons based on thier own moral and social beliefs at that time. (hence why a woman giving me a blow job, reguardless of if it is a hooker, my Gf, or my wife! gets 10 lashes with a cane! [B.C. morality law 193-7 era 1877])
the cigarette issue you are slightly askew on. It is legal to possess, and sell smokes to anyome over the age of 21, but it is illegal to buy or sell if you are under 21 (but not to smoke!) at least in B.C. (can;t asnwer that one for you in the US) and by the very term you and I used (legal) points to the fact that it has been legalized to do so.
To "decriminalize" something, it has to against the law to start with and then be stepped down. It can not have strictures on it (like smoking, booze, some other things) A better example would be what is happening in Canada right now with Pot. the senate is trying to decriminalize possession of pot for under 5 grams. It is still illegal to make and sell it. But it is "ok" to have under 5 grams in your pocket. (at least the cops can;t arrest you for it, but they make take you Info down so they can watch you and maybe bust your dealer) IF they (the senate) suceed.
once agaiin I can not speak for the USA but in canada, if there it is legalized and possible bad for you their is federal funding for medical treatments, or support groups (like AA), to help lines, to awareness campaigns (tell me that you haven't seen those! I goto the states once every 3 years or so and I have seen those!)
Basically as well.... For a difference between Legalized and Decriminalized. WOULD be the social stigmas that you speak of. If Prostitution was merely "decriminalized" that would not do anything for the social stigma. And if it did it would be slow to change. Hookers would still be treated like dirt by pimps, cops and clients.
Now IF it was legalized. In time the stigma that is comes with being a prstitute would fall by the way side. Might not (heck, would not!) happen tomorrow, or the next day, or the next year! but in 5 years, or 10 or even 20 there would be less of a down look on it by society.
It has a term that is really fancy... but I just call it "The Sheep Effect": Joe public thinks to himself "Cause the government says it's legal, it can;t really be that bad. If it's not that bad, why should I be upset about it?" And cause the vast majority of folks seems to be sheep and seems to blindly take whatever someone in a postition of power says as the truth they would slowly lessen thier views that it is a really bad thing. Especially as the "die hard bible thumpers" croak off.
And if you thinks that is a load of horse shit I DARE you: goto the supper market, or the mall and listen to people talking. I bet you the cost of your next trick that you will hear SOME moronic woman or some shit for brains guy say SOMETHING along the lines of "Well Oprah said that......" or "The guy in <insert commercial> said this would do....."
P.S: in readin my last couple of posts they seem really disjointed and full of tiny errors... but I am really tired to fix them right now so please forgive them.
Actually, there's a lot of discussion about exactly that loan issue in Amsterdam -- there's considered to be a lot of discrimination by bankers there, and that issue has been an argument against various kinds of registration there in the past. Now, of course bankers don't say, "It's because you're a hooker" in denying a loan, as that's an invitation for lawsuit, but they didn't generally say similar things to blacks in the US when doing the same thing to them in the past (and too often still). But the effect is still the same.
By INS I mean the Immigration and Naturalization Service. And, yes, there are lots of hoops to jump through in a post-911 world, but the main point is that the INS will impose its standards relating to "moral turpitude" as to whether someone is a "desireable" or "undesireable" and that affects everything from a temporary visa app to a residency permit to a citizenship application.
The essence of the registration issue is what is done with the registration information. Sure, professionals are registered in many professions, but that doesn't mean that the government keeps a list of plumbers, for example, or that there's any stigma attached to being on such a list. A list of professional sex workers could end up having the same effect as the sex offender list. Doctors can prescribe narcotics, nurses can administer them, military personnel are actual employees of the government. I really don't think prostitutes rise to the same level of public safety impact -- should all adults be registered and certified if they're at risk for STDs? Non-streetwalkers are responsible for a minimal percentage of overall STD transmission. It's really not the same level of public safety, imho.
There are legal options for just about anything -- the reporter can be sued for slander, for example, or defamation, but those are civil actions about being untruthful. Making prostitution legal should add to, not remove, legal recourse for customers or those harmed by bad sex workers.
As far as the governement pimp comparison, yes, I'm certainly not saying that we're gonna have bureoucrats going into recruitment, but I'm not in favor of them, say, coming up with a process whereby working ladies are required to verify the IDs of their customers, etc. If that sounds strange, well, let's keep in mind that the US government refuses AIDs money to African nations that promote abortion, and to doctors in this country that dare to speak about the same. Check out the working conditions of some of the Nevada brothels -- they're absurdly restrictive.
Regarding cigarettes and prostitution, I'm certainly not saying decriminalization means the end of all restrictions, particularly those regarding age. It's hard to find anyting that doesn't have some kind of legal limits. I'd expect legal limits on age of both customers and workers, of course. The point behind decriminalization is that it's different than saying, "ok, this is now legalized" as it's saying "legality simply isn't an issue here."
Personally, I rather doubt that there would be much of a difference in public perception between legalization and decriminalization -- that sheep effect you mention says that prevailing winds are what affect things, and the bottom line would be that someone could participate on either front and not be arrested. And, unfortunately, I think the USA's bible thumpers are going to manage to outlive us all, as they breed like rats, it seems. True change in fundamental social attitudes takes a fair amount of time to happen, even if Oprah does yap about it over and over -- even sheep tend toward the habitual. But you can look at the general public attitude toward, say, abortion at this point, after several decades of that being legalized: it's an issue still fought over, but the majority of US citizens consistently say they believe it should remain legal, despite the best efforts of religious leaders to tell them otherwise.
Good Post Joe Zop... I actually can't think a reply to anything you have said ATM, but I will work on it. After all... I can't let you end the debate THAT quickly ;)
Nor would I want you to! :D
Sex trafficing NY Times article: (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html?pagewanted=1)
Every once in a while I here a story about how big the sex trafficing industry is in the US. "C.I.A. estimated that between 18,000 and 20,000". Or there was another story about a teen prostitution ring in San Diego. I think sex trafficing is a abomination and those involved should be arrested.
I just don't see the large number of prostitutes they are talking about. There is not huge numbers of sw's on the streets these days. Now there could be a lot girls working as escorts. But the news just doesn't jive with reality.
Hargow, I think those figures could very well be accurate considering the shere size of the US. Many of the trafficked girls be they Chinese, Mexican or any other, are not going to be pushed out onto the street to ply their trade. In many cases, they would operate from safe houses where, only "regular" customers would be welcome. For example, a friend of mine told me that San Francisco has a high number of these places with Chinese women. And, only Chinese men would be allowed in. Thus, it's very easy for other people not to know of their existence. Still, you're right, it is absolutely dispicable.
you guys missed one in the trafficing arena.... the bikers. up here in the frozen north the bikers operate alot of the joy-clubs (gentlemen houses, escort agencies, massauge parlours) and rotate their girls between the bussinesses and the cities.
just cause it says "sex trafficing" doesn't mean it's all ****d girls. there are plenty of "legal" girls that get trafficed too. and not all against their will.
as for the numbers, 18k to 20k sounds kinda low to me.... maybe i'm just a pesimistic in my outlook but when the los angeles area has as many people living in it as my entire country, i would have to think that the numbers would be much higher!
Sex-trafficing:
From a moral perspective one reason I prefer sw's is that there is much less likelyhood she has been trafficed. The other reason is that if they are a victim of the sex trade they have the choice to leave if the trade if they so choose.
Hmm, I dunno about that, as there's a higher probability that SWs have drug problems, AIDs, and pimps. I don't know if that is much more of a moral high ground.
I'm absolutely in favor of all LE efforts to eliminate non-consensual trafficking, but at the same time not all massage parlors or brothels are staffed by the unwilling.
true... their are two parlours where I live (and I have been to both several times) they both advertise in the classifieds, but only one EVER runs a "help wanted" add. And they both have new girls in their every 3 to 4 weeks. I can guess at what is happening.... can you?
Prostitution: Is it a matter of need? Does the woman do it because she has a need for money no matter for what purpose? It could be for drugs or simply food or a better way of life? OR, is it because she is simply forced into it because of sex trafficking?
Really hard to say and just to be able to satisfy each side of the question! But I think mostly, it is the DEMAND for it that makes it flourish!
I completely understand all point of views and everyone's inputs. Greatly appreciated and very informative. There are pro and cons to the fact of legalizing prostitution. And, I think it should be legalized. I know countries who have done it and then reverted back to their old policies of illegalzing it. But, did they take into accounts all the factors? Did they give it enough time to change? Did they try to change people's perspective on the moral issues or what not? You can't expect a miracle and changes in just 1 or 2 years. Not even 5 years!
In my humble opinion, the most important step in legalizing prostitution and protecting the women, is education and justifying it as moral act! That is ALL!. We all have somewhere in our heads, rooted deeply in our sub-conscious or conscious minds, the notion that prostitution is an immoral act! WRONG! It should ONLY be looked at as just a "JOB".
And, I don’t think it really deteriorates the family values! Hell, if the man or woman were satisfied at home, they would hardly look for it somewhere else! Sometimes both couples together take part, just to improve their lives!
It should be legalized. Education should be provided for it. Extreme and strict testing have to be put in place. All sex trafficking and pimpimg should be stopped and abolished. There has to be a consent age set in place. Do research, find out. This is oldest profession on Earth! There is so much information and data, that it can be changed, and it can be improved for the better.
All along, while debates go on, it is the women who suffer during this! While politicians and religious fanatics, all argue for or against prostitution, it is the women who suffer! Time for change, time to re-think all values! Time to educate and re-think old values.
Thank you for giving me the chance to put in my two cents. Sorry to just ramble on! It is an important issue to me, and I would really want it to be changed. Not just for wanting to have sex and loving sex, no, for the sake of the women!
I agree with you Fred... To a point, much like most ppl on the thread will agree with you. The problem being, "how do you make those changes"
While I wouldn't say that Prostitution is immoral.... I also wouldn;t say it is moral. It really depends on the individuals involved. If someone is seeing a pro while they are married or in a serious relationship, then it is immoral... they are betraying a trust and a confidence (both stated and implied). If they are un-involved then I simply (IMHO) see no problem with it.... and in many ways it could be infact more moral then the usual way used to get laid (the lying, BSing, etc)
As for social stigma's (and this is a topic that keeps coming back... me, Civ and JZ have had a few good goes in recent weeks) They are HARD to change.... Indians (native americans) are lazy, Blacks (african Amercians) are thieves, hispanics (latin americans) are gangsters. These are all social stigmas that are also out there and while a SMALL percentage of each population may infact be as stated, the generalization is completely false! Yet those ppl are faced with that stigma everyday and for the most part, it's not going away.
The professionals that we enjoy are also stigmatized.... They are homewreckers, ******, spreaders of disease, and junkies. And while, again, there are a few that are all those things, there are also many that are not.
The question is, how do you change the public's view? I can't tell you. Why? Cause it is so very hard for someone to change MY views in other topics, how can I expect to change theirs in a few words written in a thread? How can I expect others to see and feel what I see and feel with out showing them, or talking to them face to face?
Personally I believe that the answer lies with legalization.... And once Prostitution is legalized the rest would come about slowly (and by slowly I mean generations!) But other people disagree, and I can't say that they are wrong. But I can't say that they are right either.....
Space Ghost
01-30-04, 11:13
RX-7 has a good point. Where do the girls from the AMPs come from? AMPs constantly have new girls and most speak very little English. Are the girls brought here as indentured servants that must work of some sort of debt? What is there immigration status?
RX-7:
Nicely put! You are right on all counts. The first step has to be legalization. And this has to be done from the top (congress and senate!), and with careful studies and considering other countries who have changed their laws (no matter if they changed back!).
I think the biggest obstacle in this process of legalizing it, is MONEY. People make more money from prostitution when it is illegal! How? Think of all the dishonest politicians, crooked police, pimps, sex traffickers, and sorry to say, doctors and insurance companies.
Please don't laugh at the notion of doctors and insurance companies! Do you know how much money is made from research, testing, treating, manufacturing & distributing drugs for STD and AIDS, in this country? It is probably over $100 Billion a year! More than cancer, more than heart attack!
Do you think just by selling licenses (when it is legal!), and collecting taxes, you can ever reach that level of income? NEVER!
As for the part of how do we change it, well, I think the answer is within us and the providers. There must be some of the Ladies out there who know big people and politicians who can start the change!. (Sorry, Ladies, but you have us men by the balls!) And, when was the last time, at the time of voting, did we consider voting for a politician whose agenda is legalizing prostitution? I can’t recall the gentleman’s name, but I think he was from California, and this was actually on his bill! I will do some research on it.
As for changing peoples views and stigmas: Yes, it can be done, and it will take a long time. Not impossible!
Space Ghost:
You are abs. right. Most (maybe 90%) of the Ladies working at MP are brought in by sex traffickers. I know of an escort agency in Washington DC area that brings in 7-10 Latino Ladies every week. They change them every week!
There is no visa status! There is no legal thing! They are all “indentured servants”, or they are supporting a family back home, somewhere.
IT IS A CRYING SHAME!
well to give you an idea of the capital in the Sex Trade.... For Canada the best guess by the RCMP for the 3 western provinces is that the amount spent on illegal sexual favors/items/goods is around 30 billion a year (based on 1993 levels.) I can't remember the source for that info but could probably find it again if someone is interested..
Now when you consider that all of canada only has a population of about 32 million.... how much do you think the US spends on sex?
Capt. Fred, While you have some interesting ideas, I must disagree with some of it.
Way more money is spent on cancer research, treatment, testing, drugs etc in the United States alone than most of the world spends on AIDS. Simple fact is that one out of three people will come down with some sort of cancer in their lifetime -- about one hundred times more likely than AIDS.
Most of the money spent on prostitution in the United States is not going to doctors, insurance companies, polititians, dishonest cops, etc. Actually a very small percentage. Most of the money goes to prostitutes; their pimps; drug dealers; drug trafficers; organized crime, etc. If Canada spends $32 billion a year on prostitution, then we must be over $100 billion. Think of taxing that at 25% or whatever. Way more than is trickling back into the doctors, etc mentioned above.
Despite myself and you guys wanting prostitution to be legal, the fact is it never will be in the United States. At least not in our lifetimes. The vast majority of Americans are against it. Whenever someone tries to get it on the ballet, it gets soundly defeated.
Also, I don't think any major polititian is going to commit career suicide by endorsing legalized prostitution; even if he wants it legalized. Maybe some libertarian candidate, but how many of those actually make public office. And it would still have to be voted in.
And my final point is this: Even if prostitution is legalized there will still be vast amounts of street prostitution, which even in most countries that have legalized prostitution is still illegal. So not only will we get all the tax dollars and license fees from the legalized prostitution; but the polititians, doctors, insurance companies, etc, that you mention will still get their cut. They'll just be double dipping. Although as I stated earlier, I don't think their cut is very much.
Civ2K
ownaford1994
01-31-04, 02:03
Legalization in other country may be OK as LE can still have some control. They don't have ACLU, don't have minority enough to play the minor card, everybody don't sue everybody. In US if you can't write down everything in law, you get into trouble. Basically if you are invisible, you can do whatever you want, including prostitution. Can you write it down in law and enforce it? No. Other countries can enforce some principle without write down in black an white, via some sort of enforcement principle. So they can legalize prostitution, or virtual legal as treated by LE.
In UK, I actually don't know about the exact legal status, but outcall is always a OK. For brothels, one flat/house one woman and LE will leave you alone. Sounds good but there are already problems. London street became laughing stock of the world - those business cards covering every phone booth in every main street and many more side streets. There's not much you can do about it except catching the guy and fine him for littering. You can't trace the card and arrest the women, because then everybody can frame everybody.
I have seen a madam brought a nice 3 bed house in a nice suburb and ran a higher class brothel. Mostly a nice girl is on duty, the price is even less than a London outcall girl, but they can afford the house very well. Extreme normal family with kids are all neighbors. They try to keep it very discreet but in theory they don't need to as they are supposed to be OK. In US it just wouldn't work because if it's not written down, they just don't care about the client traffic and don't care to keep it invisible. Believe me most guys don't want to go to red light district or run down brothel area to get off. A mile from home on the way from work will do nicely.
LE don't want brothels but some area became brothel area. In bad neighborhood, like Soho, whole buildings are occupied by prostitutes working on their own. Moreover, nothing can stop you from using different front men to own all the flats of the building and run a virtual brothel.
Outcall is OK? But what stop you from buying a hotel and turn it into a brothel?
Their principle shift from time to time as LE sees fit. Now they have brothels advertising on the INTERNET. Probably if it's far out of town, they don't bother.
Hong Kong inherited the same principle. If you look at that WSG section for the INTERNET links, no building in any part of the territory is safe, they are everywhere. If you are unlucky enough, you may suddenly find the whole floor of your neighbors are prostitutes.
Mind you in SGV in LA, the density of brothels is already comparable to Hong Kong - many along main streets, and near the freeway. Independents tend to pick tree lined streets with smaller condos. What keep them rather invisible is that it is illegal. US house are that big and most have several girls like a brothel. But when LE is hard at work, everybody keep only one girl or call them in when there is client.
Mister Tee
02-02-04, 19:29
It seems like there is a lot of focus on changing attitudes, and world views with respect to prostitution. Go ahead and try that if you want, but good luck with that. The social stigmas on prostitution (and for that matter, sex in general) are there as part of the "check and balance" that is required in any stable society. I'm not sure that we (you) necessarily want to remove those checks and balances.
Case in point: Screwing your girlfriend. Yes gentlemen, most States (normally at the County level) still have laws making it illegal to have sex with a person that is not your spouse. This law is still in effect in the military, and it is punishable under UCMJ. But, who actually gets taken to task for it. Nobody.
That's my point. It's a pretty useless venture to try to change peoples' viewpoints. But, it may be productive to try to remove incentives for passing and/or enforcing prostitution laws. And they vary, based the location. Anti-prostitution legislation and law enforcement doesn't occur at the national level, it normally works at a State and local level, with the emphasis on "local."
You probably won't change laws. But you might deal with things on a local level to try to remove the incentives the cops have for busting prostitutes and johns. How you do it depends on the motivation.
Most of the prostitution bust programs are political in nature. Mayors, City Councilmembers, District Attorneys, Chiefs of Police and other similar local political figures often use prostitution sting programs as a means of populating their resumes since it's the "perfect vice" for that type of pet program (See some of the posts I've made in other forums.)
I'm attacking this problem now in Sacramento, California. I have a long, uphill battle and my motivations are different from yours but the end result will probably be the same if I'm successful (unimpeded, or tolerated "mongering.")
So look at who stands to benefit from enforcment tactics, and go from there.
actually Mr. Tee, you just proved that you can change the social checks and balances... With your comment ont he fact that many states have laws against sex with your GF (or anyone not your spouce) the simple fact that these laws exsist PROVE that at one time the ruling body of your state/province/country thought it was important enough to waste tax payers money on getting it into the law books.
The fact that they no longer arrest and charge ppl with that offence shows that the social morality has moved away from that area or focus.
Like I mentioned in a previous post, in BC Canada in 1871 it was illegal for women to wear pants, or show more leg then her ankle... the penlty was upto 10 lashes. Nowadays, if a cop tried to arrest some chick and charger her with that it would be an outrage!! yet, it's still a law.....
As for getting the "world" to change thier views..... the world already has... go BACK to 450 BC (as in BEFORE CHIRST) and vist Rome. you would find brothels and bath houses everywhere! Back then there was no social stygma on prostitution. the stygma didn't really come into effect until the rise of christianity and other "one god" religions. (muslum, jewish, etc)
The real question is: how to get them to accept Prostitution enough to allow them to justify legalization or at least decriminalization. And for that I have no clue. The only thing I can think that would do it is plain, old fashioned greed. (Money made through taxes, liecences, etc.)
Mister Tee
02-03-04, 17:24
Perhaps I should have more correctly posted in the category of "LE and Prostitution" since that was where I was really going with my comment. Being that we are talking about the Morality of Prostitution, however...
On a very basic level, I don't believe that prostitution is either moral or immoral in itself, and certainly we have seen evidence that it has prospered at least as far back as recorded history, and I don't thing we'll see it go away.
Understand what I mean by "checks and balances." Too much of a good thing can be bad. Deers are good, but too many of them will eat all the foiliage and they will starve to death. Lions, therefore, are good because they eat enough deer to prevent them from starving themselves as a herd. Too many lions, however, will result in no deer, and then the lions will die off.
This principal applies to sex as well. Don't forget that the thing that compels us to do it is our primal, animal instincts. That primal instinct is there to keep our species going, and our lineage strong - partly by performing sex, and partly by ensuring that others are not compromizing our breeding stock. And we have physical needs too (use it or lose it), so, as male animals, we basically want to procreate exclusively with a few select females, yet we want to screw all of them to keep us functional. Granted, today we rationalize it but we still have thousands of years of preprogrammed instinct.
Scenario: Cave man days
Roving bands of evolving humans stuck together so they could provide for each other, and continue their bloodline, which they did by instinct. The males in these bands fought off other males who were trying to mate with the groups' females, and vice versa. Things back in the cave man days got pretty bloody, few people survived, and those that did survived sucessfully did so because they were best able to remain in a stable group, or they were the strongest and most able to fight off the weaker males.
Scenario: Post Cave Man/Pre-B.C. days
As people were able to speak to each other in languages, and write things, it was eventually found desireable by some to organize large groups of people (i.e. societies) in a manner where they wouldn't constantly kill each other over food and tang. One would have to admit that living a life where you constantly had to club a male to death that was trying to mate with your squeeze or take your food is stressful. Laws were born. Stigmas were born. Rules were born.
Scenario: Enter Organized Religion
Early leaders found that they couldn't control people in large groups like that just by making laws, and telling people that it was a good idea to follow a few simple rules rather than incite bloodshed. To make it work they had to throw fear into the people. The fear of God. That worked with most. This wasn't hard - most primitive people believed in some sort of supernatural presence and performed some sort of rituals. They could be controlled by redirecting that energy into the worship of one God or another.
Scenario: Enter Societal Laws
Eventually, it was found by rulers of most countries that rules and laws could exist without religion, if they were just enforced. The common theme for law was:
1. Don't Kill
2. Don't screw your neighbor's wife or he will kill you
3. Don't steal
Where does prostitution fit in here? It doesn't conflict. The basic concept is screw all the prostitutes you want, but for god's sake keep the unsanctioned sex out of your own community.
What are we squabbling about here? I think all of us (I hope) agree that sex with minors is a bad thing, and I think that most of us agree that there has to be SOME limit to the amount of sex that is shown over the public broadcast network. If you don't put some sort of limitation on the amount of sex that goes on, then some sort of undesireable backlash happens. This can take many forms. In Thailand, eventually there will be no Thais because men come over from nearly all other countries en masse to have sex with the Thai women. In Africa, nearly everyone is dying from Aids. So, there has to be limits. It's all about checks and balances, that's what I'm talking about.
PsyberZombie
02-07-04, 10:35
The Real Question is = Why has the Voting Power of the 'Moral Majority' made prostitution ILLEGAL ??
You guys may not realize this, but Historically there were NO Laws against Prostitution in most jurisdictions here in the U.S.
What Changed ?? The Passage of the XIXth Amendment to the USC in 1920 = often called SUFFERAGE , for a reason
This Amendment gave Women the Right to Vote, and we've all been suffering ever since.
I could [and maybe will some day] write a Book marking 1920 as the High Point of American Civilization. Among the many other disasters that have befallen our Society as a direct result of Sufferage is the out·lawing of Prostitution.
It's only Women who have a direct vested Economic Interest in having it illegal; and since the Majority of Voters [ especially among Senior Voters —— the age group most likely to vote ] are female: Illegal it is, and Illegal it shall always remain
The Illegality of Prostitution in turn gives Moralizing about it a "Bully Pulpit" : If an activity is Legal, [ like wearing fur ] then protests against it are seen as 'Lunatic Fringe' Activity
But moralizing about Illegal Activity [ like prostitution; or use of Drugs ] resonates as Logical within the General Population; and the Illegal and Immoral aspects of the Activity re·inforce each other.
And that pretty much sums up my Opinion on the subject !!
PsyberZombie,
I think women should certainly retain the right to vote, and if we want prostitution to be legalized we must advance convincing arguments for that change. One must think positively and be constructive, otherwise people in power normally don't react positively, which should be the goal. The possibility that this might succeed is proven, e.g., in several industrialized countries where prostitution is legal and women do vote. I must admit I've been too lazy so far to advance such arguments for change, since it would require some effort and the WSG opinion forums are a deluge of quick posts, not a good place for an essay to get noticed.
Why not Randomly capitalize Like every third Word or So?
PsyberZombie
02-08-04, 18:24
To : Snake27
America remains the most Puritan Nation on Earth, and Prostitution will NEVER be Legal here as long as Women have the right to vote.
Please note that I'm NOT suggesting that they *Shouldn't* have that Right; only that it's produced a Series of Social Disasters for us.
You can't really blame the chick Voters =
Prostitution robs of them of a Direct Vested Interest in the Earning Power of the men of this Nation = if men can't pay women directly for Sex, then they have to 'pay' in the form of Marriage ; Mortgages ; child·rearing costs ; and the like.
To : Dickhead
At first, I thought =
YOURS is the Most Appropriate Handle I've ever seen
But then I ran a 'search' on you
Yer actually VERY Informative AND Entertaining !!
TRVTH Be Told =
I'd rather be Kicked in the Ass by some·one like You,
than be Knighted by the Queen of England !!
I agree with Mr Tee, "that too much of a good thing could be bad"and about the primal sexual urges. I believe our society is based on our biology, and culture.
I am a great fan of Freud's ideas regarding sex, and his model of the brain. There are some people who believe Freud's ideas, are dated, and without merit, but not me. Freud believed our mind is like an iceberg, with only a small proportion of it visible above the service.
The "ID"( I am hungry in German) is governed by the "pleasure principle or the notion of hedonism. ( this is the area where I usually operate) The ID wants pleasure now, it doesn't care about anything else.( I want to fuck her)
The "ego" is the surface you show the world, based on the reality principle. ( I want that SW now, if I don't see cops around)
The "superego', conscience is the ideal, sorta like the Angel and Devil on your shouders.( The angel tells me to stay home and be good; the devil tells me go get some hot, young pussy.)
I think our society like our mind is greatly conflicted and laws help put balance back into our lifes. I think if the "ID" won control of our society we might collapse in sexual anarchy.
I think the difference between the U.S., European, and Far East, can be explained by "Nietzche" who proclaimed, "God is dead",
meaning the shared culture belief, Religion has been pushed aside, more so then in the U.S. with other philosophys or ways of thinking, such as perversed Buddhism, Objectivism( living freely)etc.etc.
I think in the end; if you want to find pussy, you can find pussy, no matter what Country your in, but you have to let your little head do the thinking.
Id, Schmid. Freud was just another monger with a degree and a great scam to get tons of pussy. During 'sessions' with patients he was probably "plumbing the depths" of their Ids and getting them to pay him for it. The man was, without a doubt, a god among mongers.
However, to paraphase George Carlin.
Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?
Wolf
PsyberZombie
02-09-04, 18:42
GREAT Reader's Digest Condensed Version of FREUD , Pokey !!
But ID does NOT mean "I am Hungry" in German
" Ich bin hungrig " is how you say that
Lombardi II
02-10-04, 07:20
In my opinion, the assertion that prostitution is now illegal in America as a consequence of sufferage is irrational and has no basis in fact. The theory is predicated on the belief that women as a group are opposed to prostitution, but obviously the "hobby" could not exist without providers. Additionally, recent polls and surveys have shown that close to half of the population is in favor of legalizing or, at the very least, decriminalizing, prostitution. The prevailing attitude would appear to be that consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they please behind closed doors, and this sentiment was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court (Lawrence and Garner v. Texas). To quote Justice Anthony Kennedy in reference to the homosexual couple who petitioned the Court, "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." It is interesting to note that Justice O'Connor (the lone female Justice to sit on this case) agreed with the majority.
If you're attempting to put the issue on the ballot in your community, all you need to do is to collect the requisite number of signatures. Between mongers and providers alone this should be easy to accomplish, and if you present the issue as one of privacy and discretion between adults, then you may even garner support from the public at large. Afterall, very few people appreciate government intrusion into their private lives. Once it's on the ballot, you only need 50% + 1 (I think) to pass the measure. Don't know what "veto power", if any, state officials might have, though. I remember well what happened with medical marijuana here in Northern California...a majority said "fine with us", only to have the State usurp us.
But I think that the political climate in the U.S. is definitely "ripe" right now for this sort of a change. If you read what some analysts had to say about the Supreme Court's ruling (do a google search), most of them commented that the ruling calls into question any law which prohibits or restricts any type of private, consensual sexual activity between adults. Several mentioned prostitution as an example.
(When was pay for play ever legal in the U.S. outside of NV?)
Mister Tee
02-10-04, 19:50
Remember now we are talking about two distinct and separate issues here, and I think the two are being confused. The two issues are:
1. Prostitution
2. Open attitudes toward sex
Bear with me, I'm not trying to be puritanical. I think that you can win the argument with most people that prostitution should be legalized (actually de-criminalized) as long as you don't also argue that society should have more of an open attitude about sex in general as well, otherwise you will offend a much larger group of people. I believe that you can change public opinion on #1, but I'm arguing that you can't really change public opinion on #2, nor would you necessarily want or need to.
The biggest fear that our, how can I term them, traditional conservative types have is that their wives will turn into ******, their daughters will turn in to sluts, and their sons will be raped by pedophiles. These same people really could give a damn if other grownups are out there paying for pussy (they may be paying for it too, who knows.)
PZ, regarding the sufferage movement in the 20's I believe the only concern regarding prostitution was that women were not forced into prostitution. I don't think there is much information regarding it either way.
I am familar with the "Flapper's" in the 20's, the women who smoked, drank, danced, voted, and wore their hair short. They also engaged in petting parties, and wore short skirts below the knee. It doesn't seem to me these women would be so much against prostitution. ( I would have loved to fuck a flapper in my Model T, if I lived in that era.)
Lombardi, I think you are over-reaching regarding, Lawrence and Garner vs Texas. This case was about two gay men fucking in their privacy of their bedroom.( what a site cops find them engaging in sodomy, tough job) It was a case about Texas depriving them of their privacy rights, and equal protection of the law. The law was use almost exclusively against gay men.
Because of this case all sodomy laws in the U.S. are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private.
If you read this law narrow, you could still be busted for engaging in sodomy at a MP, or getting caugh in your car.
Most tough laws against prostitution are against the Street Walker, and John( getting their car taken from them.) Are we going to make all forms of prostitution legal?( MP's, SW's, Call girls, strip clubs,high school girls, past the age of 18, with uniforms.)
I don't think the U.S. is ready to make prostitution legal yet. Even if it were, who is going to put up the money to fund the campaign?( maybe WSG can start a fund)
But, I wish you well and will sign your petition
Lombardi II,
I share your optimism that legalization is possible, as I've seen surveys that suggest close to half the population is in favor of it. While there will be a minority that may remain staunchly opposed on moral grounds, they might be persuaded that legalization has some benefits in terms of promoting the labor rights and occupational safety of sex workers, who exist anyway in an illegal climate, and in fairly large numbers in the some cities. I think the proposal needs to be a little more specific about what is allowed, and should address at least three concerns with an aim towards striking a reasonable compromise: 1) what to do about street prostitution ? 2) health issues; 3) zoning to minimize the offensive impact on the community.
I believe these issues are well addressed by the German system, for example, and one can start by simply citing their experience. Unfortunately, I don't think many people want to crusade for legalization since it would generally mean compromising one's anonymity.
The ballot thing has been tried. It always gets soundly defeated. Most people don't think prostitution should be legalized. Even the most liberal of people who think sex should be open and that gays should be allowed to marry are the same ones who believe that prostitution victimizes women and should be illegal. So you've got the liberals claiming that prostitution "victimizes" women and you've got the religious right saying that prostitution undermines family and Christian values.
Nine times out of ten it doesn't even make the ballot. They always fall way short of signatures. My guess is that in the U. S. it doesn't have a chance.
As far as funding a drive to legalize prostitution, if polling data indicated that it had even a remote chance of passing you would get individuals spending mega-millions to get it passed. Legalized prostitution could be a multi-billion dollar business in the U. S. You can't tell me there aren't dozens of people poised to support this cause financially if it had half a chance.
Well if the whole country kicks up such a big fuss over one breast, what chance does this ballot have? Sometimes the hypocrisy of the American people beggars belief. You have such liberal views on guns, pornography and violence on tv yet, there are still some things which are untouchable. It doesn't help that you've got Bush in there either.
PsyberZombie
02-11-04, 08:05
Here's a good article on the history of Prostitution in the U.S. =
http://*******.com/3hxxo
The years leading up to 1920 [ and the subsequent 'Roaring 20's ] were the beginning of the take·over of American society by women. They managed to get the XVIIIth Amendment [ Prohibition] ratified in 1919; followed by Sufferage [ the XIXth ] in 1920.
It is my studied opinion that Our Hobby will NEVER be Legal here.
Heck, even in Nevada it's illegal in Las Vegas; which is kind of like allowing the Sale of Alcohol any·where but in a Bar !!
Sainter, I think you're giving Bush too much credit. To say that a president who's been in office for just three years is responsible for our prostitution laws doesn't make a lot of sense. Although I consider myself a liberal, it is the liberals who are the most against prostitution. The democrat platform is predicated on looking out for the "little guy". The prostitute is made out to be the ultimate "victim" and thus it is governments responsiblity to protect her by passing laws making it illegal. It was Al Gore's wife who worked tirelessly to make it law that CD's containing adult language had warning labels attached. It is the liberals in my state that are pressing for the elimination of tabacco products from all establishments including bowling alleys and taverns. The state and city I live in have been under liberal political control for over twenty years and we have seen them get tougher and tougher on prostitution. They have fully embraced loitering laws (which I believe unconstitutional) and support the towing of cars for people with expired licenses.
Now Texas on the other hand where G. B. was governor the mongering seems to be a lot more prolific. I think Bush would like the wild west with mongers carrying guns and brothels legalized.
Don't take this that I like G. B. I have an "anyone but Bush 2004" bumper sticker on my car. I just don't see how our current mongering difficulties and the nearly impossible task of ever getting prostitution legalized in this country have anything to do with him.
Civ2K
GettingTang
02-11-04, 21:57
Just curios,
How does the divide fall on the percentages who seek out P4P?
I would venture 60% of mongers are very liberal, maybe 20% are moderates and the other 20% are conservatives?
Anyone for a poll on the topic.
Myself, moderate with a tilt towards conservative. However, as I said before, my tilt towards conservatism comes from fiscal issues, not morality. Also, I like the idea of smaller, less intrusive government.
GETTINGTANG~!
GT, I've looked in the past and have never been able to find any concrete info about such a breakdown of P4P customers based on political or moral leanings. It's something that might make a difference given the string conservative and religious nature of US citizens (I cited some figures in the Prostitution and Law Enforcement area) but I'm not really sure about that.
My short primer (for non-US readers) on political views in the US as it relates to social issues such as prostitution is as follows:
Liberal: we believe you should be personally able to do pretty much anything you want to do as long as it doesn't harm someone else. We also believe, however, that the government and everybody else share a responsibility to save people from themselves, including saving those people who don't know they need saving, because they've clearly been so messed over that they can't understand how screwed up they are. We're all for equal social opportunity, which means giving a discriminatory boost to groups who've been screwed in the past by the system. People who've not been screwed over should just feel a bit guilty, be quiet about this, and let someone else have the advantages they've had, so that by discriminating for a while in a good way there can then be a level playing field. We'll let you know when that is, but it's a ways away because there's a lot of fixing to do. Oh, and all have to cough up as much as is necessary to make this happen. Lawyers are good, because they fight for the rights of those without money and because they help broker social change, except where they help fat cats skirt their responsibilities.
Conservative: we believe there are clear standards of allowable and appropriate behavior, except when it comes to money, when the only correct behavior is keep your damn hands off mine. We believe that if you do not follow those standards of behavior (which may have less to do with law than the fact that the US is a Christian nation, gosh darn it, and we don't care whether you're Christian or not, the 10 Commandments still apply to you) then you need to get spanked, imprisoned, put on a watch list, or, worst of all, denied any money until you behave properly. Anything we decide to do along this line is allowable, and if you question it we'll put your ass on the list cause you're clearly not a loyal American. Don't ask about who makes the decisions about who gets on the lists -- are you a commie? Note that these standards of behavior generally extend to individuals as opposed to corporations, though the also apply to liberal NGOs. BTW, anyone ever hear of bootstraps? Pull your own damn self up, and don't mess with the way things are! Lawyers are bad because they find loopholes in the system, get criminals off, and get juries to award ridiculously large settlements. Oh, but they're ok at times when they help good businessmen who just happen to get caught up in a misunderstanding, and really, they're just businessmen trying to make a buck themselves, too.
So the basic problem from a mongering point of view is that either you are oppressing someone by giving them money for sex, or you are violating some basic human moral code which you may or may not subscribe to, which doesn't leave a lot of political room for action.
SeniorCitizen
02-12-04, 15:08
Joe Zop
My take is that the liberal philosophy probably brings a guy into contact with like minded individuals of the female persuation, but that among the conservatives there may well be a dichotomy between the intellectual consideration of the subject and a repressed physical drive (e.g. the fallen evangelists). As many before me have said, is it the big head or the little head that does the thinking?
I have no evidence and it's only my opinion, but I would guess that more Conservatives visit Prostitutes more then Liberals.
Conservatives tend to have more money then Liberals, and our hobby requires a great deal of money.( oh the amount of money I have spent) The higher your income bracket, usually the more conservative you become, and hate taxes. ( Im a Liberal, but love Bush's tax cuts, fuck the social programs; I need the money for my hobby.)
Conservatives tend to be more Religious then Liberals, which forces them to live a straight-laced life.( boring life, work, church, fucking your wife mish sometimes no BJ.) You don't have to be Freud, to know something has to give; the boiling pot on the lid will blow; the devil needs to come out, the "ID" is taking control, etc.
You then get the behavior of such people as Jimmy Swaggart, the fallen Televangelist.( " I have sined") He was caugh with a prostitute. I felt sorry for him, he didn't even fuck her, yet was disgraced.
Conservatives, I would think also suffer from the Madonna/****** complex more so then Liberals. They think of their wife as a non-sexual love object, so they seek out ****** to satisfy their lust from the perversions of sex. It could be just a BJ, or anal sex, things their wife's won't do. ( they don't want their wife to do)
CBGBConnisur
02-12-04, 21:22
Prostitution is legal in virtually every developed country except for the US and recently Sweden. Sweden's law only prosecutes the customer and not the prostitute but elsewhere in Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia, prostitution in some shape or form is legal. In France street solicitation is legal but brothels where more than one prostitute work are not. In Germany prostitution is legal as long as it is indoors. Brothels in Australia can advertise but not display pictures of women. In Canada both brothels and street prostitution are illegal but escort services legal in most provinces. Japan has many bar club type brothels which are legal. Whether it is legal or not the trade exists everywhere including the US, in these countries the trade is looked down upon but it is tolerated because most lawmakers in these countries know it is futile to fight human nature.
Lombardi II
02-13-04, 01:29
Pokey:
When I proposed that Lawrence and Garner v. Texas could be extended to prostitution, I must have had massage parlors and escorts in mind. Obviously, street walkers do not have the luxury of discretion and their presence can literally ruin a community. Here in San Francisco the SW mecca is a historically depressed neighborhood sandwiched between a residential area and downtown SF. Virtually everyone who has the misfortune of calling the 'Tenderloin' home lives at or below the poverty line and many receive public assistance. But it is well known that this is THE place to go if you are after a high. So where does the money come from? You guessed right. I would imagine that this is the case in cities and towns across the United States.
I'm not sure how this problem would be best resolved if P4P were legalized. Require all providers to register with the city as either "free agents" (e.g. escorts) or as employees of a brothel or MP, and prosecute those who transact business on the street? SF vice presently takes a similar approach in that escorts are rarely pursued and MPs are usually left to their own devices with the exception of an occasional bust. Street walkers, on the other hand, are actively pursued (they are a 'publc nuisance' after all) but LE presence is inconsistent. There seems to be an understanding here that so long as P4P is done behind closed doors LE will look the other way. Almost makes legalization seem unnecessary, but as an otherwise law abiding citizen it bothers me that I am committing a criminal offense each and every time that I patronize an MP or visit my favorite independent. I think that legalization would go a long way towards dissolving the social stigma as well.
Civ 2000: Legalized or not, prostitution is already a multi-million (billion?) dollar business in the U.S. Not sure that I understand your point about people backing a legalization measure if they believed said measure was viable. If P4P were legalized, the people who are making the most from P4P would only stand to lose money in the form of taxes and fees assessed by cities. Can you imagine a Hookers' Union and the financial implications that it would have for MP/Brothel owners! Seems to me that these folks might have a vested interest in preventing legalization.
James D 2004
02-13-04, 03:26
In the beginning, prostitution is legal. In the East, high end brothels in China developed into an art, making it acceptable and appeared in literature. That tradition carried on in Japan today. In the wild wild west, the women are seen as providing a vital service, building the only superpower in the world today.
Illegal is only recent history. I'm not an historian but prostitutions is legal in Victorian times which is only recent history. The wild wild west is allowed to keep it's tradition in sparsely populated areas where there's not enough women for men to have a healthy sex life. I guess illegal comes with the right for women to vote, just a guess, which would be very recent history, and the laws are rather experimental since.
Some countries try to make sure that the laws are enforceable. While others try to make sure that the laws give LE enough power when they need it, ignoring the practicality of enforcement, and leave it to locals. In LA, LE maintain that they only deal with escorts when they get complains. It's very true as 99% of the escorts advertise in ******** and the like are real and no LE hassle them. While most advertise in the next neighbor, OC, are rip-offs, with the famous real ones taken off one by one. Many are forced from 714/949 area code to 909 code. Many moved to LA, although too many providers there already but it's better than waiting for the few phone calls in OC, or travelling to LA most of the time. USA in a way reflects different practice in different countries of the world.
Don't know what to say about LA/OC areas... All I can tell you about is British Columbia, Canada....
In B.C: prostitution is illegal and extends to all it's forms (brothels, escorts, street walkers, massauge parlours, etc) but from there the issue gets cloudy.
In Canada, we have something called a "living constitution" which means that while our constitution says what we can and can not do, it is also not written in stone! In fact, every Surpreme court case we have has a direct effect on our constitutional rights (or could have) And one of those effects is that what ever happens behind closed doors is private (unless there is extreme circumstances)
which means for us mongers that: 1) you don't talk shop till you get behind a closed door and you are safe. 2) massauge parlours that don't mention the words "give me cash I give you sex" in "public" are safe 3) an escort is paid for her company in a professional manner, what you to do behind closed doors is up to you!
So, in effect, you have the laws saying that prostitution is BAD, but then you have the constitution saying "if it happnes where no one can see... AWESOME!" side note for you: Prostitution is NOT a crime in canada! "Solicitation for the purposes of sexual contact" is! the difference? you get caught by the cops, you get screwed, the girl basically walks away.
however, for the ease of the world wide audience here, Prostitution is the basic crime you would be charged with, it's just very long worded :)
James D 2004
02-13-04, 15:05
In USA, sex for money even behind closed doors is illegal. (except for some remote area with few woman). To enforce it you have to set up undercover stings. It is all up to LE and local polictians. Escorts, time for money, is perfectly legal and you need a liscense for it. But even if you don't have a license the fine is minimal. What happen behind closed doors is grey area. A very famous case recently involve a strip club client got caught in a VIP room haveing sex with a stripper. It's famous because the client want to put up a defence, saying that both got carried away.
CBGBConnisur
02-15-04, 22:15
Despite the fact that you can find prostitutes in the US since the business is underground, the prices are high and the service is terrible. In other parts of the world where it is tolerated, the opposite occurs. Also most other countries are more open with regards to sex so its not a big deal like it is in America. I have found absolutely gorgeous working ladies in Sydney that will give you a good session for A$80 which during better times came out to $50 bucks with someone who is a 9-10 in good looks. The same quality will be difficult to find in the US and the prices will be ten times higher.
RN,
Your point of view is very interesting and refreshingly liberal. I think that in Germany, for example, a main reason for the "registration" is to control the health status. I can imagine one arguing that sex workers do not need the government to tell them to safeguard and check their health status, but many street workers (who are illegal in Germany) are drug addicts and probably dangerous. So, the registration is a way of formalizing the requirement and reassuring the consumer, I believe. Also, regarding your point about legalization, while it would be ideal (to a very liberal mind) if sex workers could set up shop next to any church or school, and nobody would think anything wrong about it, total freedom is just not realistic. I think legalization, with its associated controls, is in large part a political compromise. The thing to do is to help formulate the compromise.
Welcome back to the board.
Scary Bald Guy
02-17-04, 00:37
Seems to me that all the negatives associated with prostitution are not inherent to the practice, rather, they're side effects caused by driving it underground.
Of course, I'm a wild-eyed radical libertarian (or rational anarchist, if you prefer), so my rantings are automatically disregarded by the "normals." Insert eye-rolling emoticon as appropriate.
Those negatives side effects, such as violence, official corruption, etc were seen in another industry in the US about 70 years ago. Anyone remember what happened then, and what finally ended them? If you said "prohibition," you get a gold star.
I just wish someone could explain to me how mongering is any different from indirectly dropping cash on a woman I'm hoping to entice into my bed (aside from guaranteed results). No one's been able to yet, they just go all red and spluttery. Of course, I enjoy screwing with peoples' heads, heh-heh-heh.
No point to this ramble, other than to point out the already well-known hypocrisy of the sheeple, and to thank the ladies in the profession for their efforts.
Well, we all look forward to having you practice again, Rubbie! Welcome back.
Actually RN, I think most of what you said was directed at me:) And I agree with you on some issues. Cherry, a working girl that I often visit is very concerned about her health, and her family's health. She uses condoms, and spermicides, and gets tested every 6 months. Her main drug of choice is pot, and never uses anthing stronger. The reason she hooks is that it affords her fast income so she can goto school and spend time with her 2 kids.
However, in my city, for every Cherry there are 10 girls that don't take care of themselves. There are girls who are infected and will not use condoms if the john asks. There are girls who have open sores on there arms from intro drug use. And the List goes on.
The hardest part is something you touched on, (as well as others) and that is regionalization. I have no idea where you are, but As I have stated I'm in Canada. I wonder what a European sexworker would add to our debate. Or a Asian. Or a South American. (Just guessing you are from the Us... sorry if you are not) The point I am trying to make is that EVERYONE guesses. you say that 75% like thier work, I say that 75% hate it. Who is right? Well, unless we ask everyone in the bussiness, we'll never know for sure.
One thing that we all seem to be dead one the spot about however, is the fact that it is the governments that have made (either cause of good intentions or cause of external pressure) Prostitution illegal. They claim they have done so for a vast array of reasons from "it's immoral" to "it's a heath concern" to just about any other reason you cna think of. The questionn remains however, is how to get the public of a given country to change it's views. And I doubt that any of us have that answer.
James D 2004
02-17-04, 12:13
Those who can do some role play, fetish, bring their only natural lubricant, and can orgasm, enjoy it. That will certainly not be 75%.
In LA, young Asian girls are a dollar a dime, 25 will be too old. Many are new comers who want money to enjoy the American dream. A nice house a nice car MBZ or BMW. Some just want money to party. Some are even brand named college students. At their age sex is not a big deal and they have plenty to sell.
I have seen with my own eyes some new girls are clueless. Just for the looks department, getting a grand a day or half a grand a pop is no problem. However these clients are rare because these girls don't advertise. If they go on the open market they will be torn into pieces in no time. They rather work in brothels where there is the keeper there just in case. And that the clients are all known to the keepers.
Since they don't get big clients, they are being taught the Asian arithmetic. If you want a few hundred, for $80 each you can do five in a roll and you can have a few hundred in a few hours. These Asian girls brought it! Some just work a day a week or when they need to.
I'm certain that 99% of these girls don't enjoy it. Thanks to the Asian arithmetic, most of the clients use sizable amount of their pay check to get off with these young tight girls. To them it's fair game to get the most out of their $80 plus room rate. Even with Viagra and the other things, god knows what some Asian men rub on their penis to enhance their performance. Therefore shower before is a house rule in these brothels.
Most of the girls just lie there, detached. Especially for the young and tight, and the young and beautiful. For that price clients don't expect much other than fuck the hell out of them and go home. It doesn't matter what they do or what they don't, clients just line up. Unless they are so bad to the clients that the clients complain and the keepers don't want them anymore.
BTW I'm going to see one first thing this morning. I'm sure what she said is 'true' that she doesn't do that too much anymore. But 1st client of the day can't be that bad. I gave her good tips everytime, got her private number and now only sees her in 3 star hotels. I done too much motels and I hate that. I increased her rate gradually to 3 times what she got, but still a bargain. She liked to be on top because that way she wouldn't be hurt. It used to hurt me and finish in 3 minutes but now somehow it turned to a proper Korean style missionary with proper muscle control and timing. And she's only 21, like a Barbe doll. On the difficulty scale that's about the top, on top of Asian cowgirl. She's not there yet but few do that and the only proper one I got is from a 30 year old Korean woman. She's hot and slim and I always prefer that to clueless young girls. But these MP's are not there anymore.
Pussey Lover
02-17-04, 19:20
RN
Welcome back!
I have see alot of your's comants, and now also, it is very good, I learned a lot from you.
You provided us with so much information, it is unbelievable!
Thank YOU!
I especially like the quotes:
"What makes sex work "bad"? Why are sex workers vilified and maligned?
In my opinion, it's the law"
Thnks, and keep on to coman.
her555
RN,
I may be willing to concede the point, but can you first please explain why mandatory testing is, as you put it, "dangerous and foolish and only the most irresponsible of Governments would dare institute it, as it causes more problems than if fixes". Why is it dangerous ? What other problems does it cause ? I can understand why it might be insulting, but superficially it seems that being required to show evidence of periodic trips to a doctor is not a big hardship, and would convince some skeptics that the "product" is safe. I believe this is almost universally required (not legally, but as a self-policing action) in the American porn industry, for example. Admittedly it could be self-policing among prostitutes as well, and clients could demand to see evidence (as an aside, this raises the issue of faked evidence, perhaps a solvable technical problem and hence irrelevant). In any case, please clarify your statement.
As a monger of long experience, most of the girls I actually had sex with and even some that gave me oral sex, enjoyed it. In fact, many managed to have nice orgasms. These were not the dramatic "Oh god fuck me!" orgasms of a faker, but nice, quivering orgasms. Are you telling me they did not enjoy my attentions? I performed oral sex on several, much to their pleasure and manually stimulated others to orgasm as they please me. Frankly, I really enjoyed pleasing them sexually and seeing them enjoy themselves and would almost rather do that than get off myself!!
As for Asians and other countries, some of what I have read on this board tells me that there is a group of mongers out there that like to use women, whether they be sex workers or others, and that mongering has little to do with sex, but power. They are basically paying to rape the woman. OK, that is not literal, OK, but that is the affect. In parts of the world women are still little more than animals for the slaughter.
I have taken care of more than one girl, from picking up a girl who was in the hospital and taking her shopping for new clothes to buying her food, no sex involved. Most of my old regulars genuinely liked seeing me and spending time with me, as I treated them like people. They reciprocated in most cases.
Sex workers provide a valuable service and I think it should be legalized everywhere. I am in a very conservative place and there are no providers here at all, though I am certain there are women who would, given the chance, become providers. It is just too small a town.
So, I support protection and health care for sex workers as well as legalization. If it were there would be a lot less domestic violence and other problems between men and women in many places!
RN, 75% of the prostitutes love their work! Dam, thats such a high number. I usually hear something like less then 1/2 the regular workers tolerate their job, and only about 1/4 actually love their job, but thats in America where we only get two weeks vacation to start.
The way you make prostitution sound I think we should offer it as a vocational study in our schools, or at least a certificated program like massage therapists get. Maybe on career day we can have guess speakers such as yourself come to local high school, and talk to girls, on an alternative to a college education, or better yet, how to put yourself through college, by hooking on the side.
I want to thank you for enlightening me, because prior to this I always felt prostitution was a career choice like selling drugs. It paid well, but no one really grew up wanting to be a prostitute( Like that commerical in the U.S something about not wanting to grow up being a drug dealer/Junkie)
I don't want you to get me wrong; I love prostitutes, especially fucking them, yes some of them are "experts" in the art of lovemaking, but I also feel most of them crossed a line.( in the U.S. and Mexico where Im familar with) The line I'm talking about could be a moral, religious, family, or criminal line.
They can still be nice people, but our society doesn't treat prostitutes very good, men only want sex from them, and women don't like them. I think prostitutes become isolated, which leads to Psychology problems, self esteem problems, drug problems, and criminal problems. I realize they're a few " Self Actualizing" Prostitutes out in the world that would make Maslow proud, but I feel its very low number.
Oh one more thing: I may love prostitutes, but I don't trust them.
I don't know how many times they stolen from my wallet, or didn't give me the service I was promised.( One time in TJ, a Street girl(SG) after promising me a BJ, refused, her novel excuse was that I was too big( "no muy grande") Another time in South Cental LA, a black hooker, threatened me with a knife, I forgot why, but I didn't get any service.
Maybe, I just need a vacation in Australia, those guys from that part of the world are always saying how great it is.
GettingTang
02-18-04, 06:13
Great recent posts. How about some story telling?
What would be your worst ever P4P experience? I'm talking worst of the worst.
I will post mine tomorrow, it will be a dandy.
GETTINGTANG~!
CBGBConnisur
02-18-04, 13:40
I one time asked a really dumb question to a hooker, I asked "Do you like to fuck?" She was laughing hysterically. "If I didn't like to fuck I wouldn't be in this business." Still I think in other parts of the world women have a different attitude. If you work in some parts of Europe and don't try to compliment a woman on her looks she gets offended. In the US, if a male coworker comments on a female worker's looks they sue for sexual harrassment. Australian women are like most foreign women in this respect, they like compliments and those who give them get rewards. There is too much feminism in America these days.
Can prostitutes enjoy their job? I am living in Germany and I have gathered my experiences here. If one watches the media reports and comments, you will find, that they mostly stress the exploitative character: Prostitutes are either forced by their pimps or by adverse circumstances into their jobs, and therefore they can't possibly like it.
To be sure, there is here in Europe a lot of forced prostitution, a good number of mostly Eastern European Women are smuggled into Western European countries and forced into that kind of activities. One doesn't need to comment about that, this is modern slavery and deeply repulsive.
But this of course is only part of the picture.
I have met a number of ladies, who obviously have chosen this kind of activity by themselves.
Some have regular work and work during holidays as prostitutes to augment their salaries. Others have chosen this job instead of alternatives. So, it can't be that bad for them.
Whether they actually enjoy their job, one can't really be sure. These encounters do not lead easily to a free and open exchange of opinions, but I found often, that they really want to please, or to put it differently: they find some pride in providing good service to their customer.
From my experiences there are differences between different ethnic groups: My early experiences were with German ladies and were mostly rather disappointing, their service was sometimes rather cold and lifeless, one often got the impression, that for them it was an unpleasant duty to be fulfilled as quickly as possible. Later I have lived for some time abroad where I learnt, that there are places where they have a much more relaxed attitude towards sex, not burdened with all the moral baggage like us here in the 'civilized' West. My best experiences have been with Latin American women, were I experienced this relaxed attitude. In most cases did not have to prod them to strip naked, they did it themselves. I did not have to ask for BJs, that came as part of the service and so on. I also had some nice encounters with African and Asian ladies.
So, in the meantime I have come to know some ladies, where I can feel comfortable, because they give me the feeling, that they are actually glad to see me and to make me feeling good.
Now, now, RN, relax. The nature of such a discussion forum is that conversations have a degree of circularity, as someone is always entering into the process anew.
(Feel free to save some time by going back and cutting and pasting some of your previous eloquent responses. No one really reads the archives, and I promise not to tell... :D)
RN,
There's nothing wrong with your tone. Your frustration tolerance levels are fine. You're just out of practice girl. You've been away too long.
I, too, have always wondered about this almost universally negative view that many people have toward SW's. Not only are these views rather universal, they have persisted for centuries it seems going back to biblical times.
I once "read" that historically certain people felt that SW's could threaten the institution of marriage and this could lead to a disruption of the prevailing social order. I have little or no doubt that wives, in particular, have felt threatened by prostitutes. Laws and sanctions ultimately followed and here we are today.
Isn't it odd that we arrest and punish people for doing something which is an instinctual and natural biological feature of our species ??? Sex amongst our species existed long, long before all of our silly laws and Victorian ethics. I know that I'm getting into DH's territory now. Hey, where is DH and what has he been up to?
In any event, I'd like to know your thoughts and welcome back.
xxx,
Paddy
James D 2004
02-19-04, 02:35
I'm a bit amused about who's the expert on percentages. RN, you are ONE woman. You talk to a lot of women but we actually fuck these women.
I don't want to involve too much in arguing the absolute percentage. I only said 99% of 'these' women don't enjoy their work. By 'these' I meant a particular group of women in some geography location. But then a very specific group may just out number all of the escorts in all of the internet malls in that geo location, many times.
We have to be clear what these women enjoy. I'm sure most enjoy the lifestyle or the money. Enjoying the sex is a different thing. Some can do a very satisfying job for the client, the women apparently like the job but it doesn't mean the women enjoy the sex. Enjoying work is a little vague.
If a client ask, the women will usually said yes. Because for some women you don't need to ask and know that the answer is no. Many rules, many don't do list. For the women who said yes, they may go further as to say how many clients they have done before you and how they can't get enough of it. Could be true but more of a way to get you excited. For the women who said no, some play into that and fake a very disgusting reaction when you cum. It's the total opposite of faking an orgasm, but the effect is the same, make the client excited.
Those who can orgasm can't deny the truth. But the fact is that the statistics contribution of these women in my area is relatively rare. Firstly, the average client isn't that great. If you have got yourself a name, it's hard to resist rolling in hundreds and hundreds of dollars a day. It's hard to deliver that much orgasm. It's very hard to keep a low volume unless you charge a lot.
Some women can do an excellent blow job, but very different from one with an oral fixation. The latter is obvious, even they don't enjoy sucking your cock, it shows. It's also hard for a woman without oral fixation to understand another woman with it.
Many Korean style massage parlor girls do a convincing job of enjoying the work - moaning when kissing you all over. Not that it's real, but you can forget about that it's fake from time to time. Compare with some who give your penis a lick here or there because they know that it feels good for you, no continuation of thought or feeling. I met a fruitcake who exploded when I kissed on her face. It must take a long time to resurface that nice looking face. She doesn't fake anything when I cum, but obviously she's very disgusted when the fluid gusted into the condom, and she can't wait for me to get off her. You tend to meet all sort of women.
I agree something like that prostitution is also about power, ego. Some recent Asian routine include blow job with alternating warm water and ice in the mouth. Alternating between BBBJ and rimming. (Surprising the sex is rather safe as there's no kissing, no cum in mouth, shower before rimming, and lot's of mouth wash between sessions.) Can't imagine the women would enjoy that sort of thing. Can't say that's the main stream but if all the Australian men came to LA at the same time, probably all can be served the same day.
RN, It's been extremely interesting reading your reports. You especially hit the nail on the head with your points about mandatory testing. Anytime the government makes anything mandatory -- look out. I think it's for precisely the same reasons that HIV testing isn't mandatory in the U. S.
I believe you when you say that 75% of the prostitutes in Australia enjoy their work. If I remember correctly prostitution is legal in some aspects in Australia? I think this is a huge factor in job satisfaction. In an area such as this with legalized prostitution the sex workers health is checked frequently; safe sex is the norm; and those with heroin and crack cocaine problems are probably weeded out of the system. For the most part of course, I know there are no absolutes. The working conditions are probably good and it's probably rare that one gets severely beat up, robbed, or killed as is all too often the case in the United States. Since there are some forms of prostitution illegal in Australia, I would wonder if you had any personal statistics if the gals engaged in the illegal form had a 75% job approval rating as well?
A lot of us here live in the prudish United States where prostitution in all forms is illegal except in certain parts of Nevada. Our prostitutes have extremely high rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, STD's, death and injury at the hands of John's and Pimp's, high arrest rates and on and on.
I have worked in the health care field as well as in addiction services. I have come in contact with many prostitutes on both a professional as well as a personal level. I get my opinions not from the latest Law and Order but from actually talking to and listening to the SW's. Most are battling addictions and have long since lost custody of their kids. Most of the john's who pick up drug addicted SW's are not interested in safe sex. They usually have numerous diseases that would go unchecked except for the fact they get tested every time they get arrested and go to jail. Hardly a glamorous occupation and very low job satisfaction.
My point is that although in Australia the gals may love their work; it seems that way in Germany as well where they get pension plans and health insurance, it's certainly not that way in most of the world, especially those areas where rigid laws have driven it underground. Be thankful you live where you do.
I think the differences in you and Pokey's perceptions are merely geographical in nature. I certainly am looking forward to another trip down under. I hear the girls are wonderful. The only other time I was there I was ten years old and didn't get to partake of any mongering, though I was a horny little bastard at that age.
Keep up the great reports. Its wonderful to hear first hand experiences rather than merely opinion and conjecture.
Civ2K
Obviously, geography matters to some extent, as it affects the specifics of the situation -- sex workers who are in an area where they are not constantly or potentially harrassed by police, for example, may well understandably be happier with their job, as it entails a lesser degree of worry and stress. As CBGB has been so happily pointing out, Aussie women are so unbelieveably nicer than American ones :D so that must go to explaining some degree of the happiness disparity, given that RN is part of and connecting with that far happier breed.
Still, the word of someone who not only was in the industry and thereby privy to the shop talk when clients weren't there but who also worked for a number of years with the field as an educator surely must count for something more than simply anecdotal evidence from mongers who have vested interests on several different levels, including monetary. If I thought telling you I was happy with my job would get me more money, I'd do it. If I was in a trade where part of the name of the game is illusion and I thought telling you I hated it and would desperately like to get out would generate a larger tip, I'd do that. My bet is that most mongers would and do respond more generously to the latter.
Hmm, Civ, I guess we're posting over top of each other making some of the same points, though not exactly...
As they say Joe, "brilliant minds think alike".
On the subject of percentages, I'm sure T & H has his percentages correct: 99% of all prostitutes don't enjoy sex - when it's with him.
Paddy, I am here and reading this discussion but I haven't come up with anything new to say on it. Prostitution is 100% moral although I don't believe pimping is, and I don't think married guys should monger. Nothing has changed. Buenos Aires in three weeks. England sucks, right out loud.
RN, good to see you're back (again).
James D 2004
02-19-04, 15:12
Dickhead, you are getting silly and I'm not going to response to your personal attacks any more than this. I already said:
Those who can orgasm can't deny the truth. But the fact is that the statistics contribution of these women in my area is relatively rare. Firstly, the average client isn't that great. If you have got yourself a name, it's hard to resist rolling in hundreds and hundreds of dollars a day. It's hard to deliver that much orgasm. It's very hard to keep a low volume unless you charge a lot.
If you go to Santa Fe 1707 Burenos Aires, how many of these gorgeous women can deliver orgasm? Even not, they may still be enjoying the sex, or maybe not. If you pick Marie that sort of ultra low volume women, I'm sure she enjoys the rare sex 100% of the time.
What I'm talking about is a very different thing. Showing emotions and affections is a no no. So nobody even tried. Otherwise, you will encourage the clients stalking you. I have said some girls are pretty young at college. They made sure they give out signal that everything is strictly business. If you like her, she will work harder, like suck you harder next time, but no affections. For that sort of money, you don't get that. But if you pay them an relatively absurb amount, they forget what affection or GFE is. Once I asked a girl for her private number, just for better coordination of time. She must be fairly new. She said she already have a boyfriend. And showed me his picture on her camera phone!
There's also no complements. I felt rather good about myself lately, you know what I mean. The other day my friend finally complained that the condom is too tight to put on me. I'm surprised that she finally said it, and so complain like, even thought it can't be taken as such.
BTW, it's true. I heard it so many times before, and the day after that. Some said it with their eyes fixed on it. My Latina coach said 'You are not big, just thick'. So my opinion is honest and I'm not too proud of it. Long is better than thick. But you can't always get it all. It's easier to fuck their brains out if you are longer, but some girls did said 'it's very comfortable' when I jammed it in their pussy. One even moan that phrase all the way.
Once in a while I did produce some stellar performance. When I pull out with a smile of satisfaction, my friend said 'Why are you smiling?' She thinks that I think that she enjoys it. Whatever the truth, she won't let me think that way. Like I will ask for a date next. I said, 'Why can't I smile when I feel happy?'.
DH,
You're alive and well. Loved your quip about T&H. You haven't lost your rapier-like wit.
Was intrigued by your dislike of England. Have been to Edinburgh and recently returned from Manchester and Liverpool. I thought that the punting in both places was about as good as I've ever experienced. BBBJ's the norm, 69, DFK, etc. The people were also super friendly and met many non-pros in the clubs. Only downside is the awful exchange rate. It's pushing $2 for 1 Quid there. Weather is also pretty bad. Still, many fond memories.
For the purposes of information, why do you dislike England? I'm actually planning a return trip but may now cancel. I have a lot of respect for you opinions and observations.
Welcome back!
Pussey Lover
02-19-04, 17:22
Just my Opinion, based From my experience.
In general:
Woman wants her brains to .... out. So in fact they want sex.
Much of what women want is the same thing thet men want. In fact Women are a lot closer to the reproductive instincts than men are. They get horny and they have to get it out. Although there is a lot of women's sexual desires, women are very sexual creatures and they want hardly to get fucked. plus Women have the advantage that they can usually come more times than men can. So wone you have the time to meke her have orgasms, then she enjoy it ! (of course All women are different, but I say in general).
But, manly a SW does not enjoy sex at all, the do not even have the time to enjoy it, the need only to get some mony from the jan, as quickly as possible, and period.
But, a escort agency, specially if you go with Independent escort, you will find alot of them enjoy very much their job, I try that alot.
The first ting is: When I want to see a girl enjoying sex, I will go to a girl who knows me, once I go with her, not the first time - because the first time by a independent escort is not good for enjoyment, she will not like you - but the fifth time I have see a independent escort, shes like seeing you, and likes spending time with you, since she feels comfortable with me. Somtime's enjoying herself like grazy! I did not have to ask for french kiss, she did it themselves, ect.
Ones I have a independent escort, and after a hour I lick her clit, she say's to me "coman, harder, harder!", and after a will she say's to me "fuck me hard, fuck me, fast", and then she told me to slow down, and when I was done she ask me "damn baby! Where did you learn to fuck so good?".
So if you do the sex good she will enjoy it.
Bottom line: I will say, when it is come to enjoying sex, it is a big different bit. A SW, and a Independent escort the second or the fifth time.
And I am sure RN is a expert more of escort not a regular USA SW.
her555
EDITOR's NOTE: This report was edited to meet the Forum's Posting Guidelines (http://www.wsgforum.com/postingguidelines.html).
RN says
"The only time...and I mean the ONLY time...I feel ashamed and humiliated and degraded, is when I read posts like yours."
RN, I sorry if I came off so negative regarding Prostitutes, that was not my intention. When I see a post like yours designed to get a response, well guess what? I'll take the bate and response.
I just felt your " anecdotal" evidence 75% of the Hookers enjoy their job was just too high. It just flies in the face of the research out there, that says," most people don't like their job", and I'm just talking about the regular 9-5 jobs. I'm sorry I don't have the evidence to cite,( I can't find it now) this is a forum about sharing information on "pussy" not citing research ( I know we have lots of intellectuals on this forum but fuck them, hey they really only care about pussy anyway, those slimy fuckers.)
RN, you know what; I do usually do a little research before I response to a post, or sometimes before I post.Regarding your post I searched Google, I put something like, Prostitution and job satifaction in the search engine. I know its not much, but I learned a lot, such as the average hooker only works for about 5 years, her peak years, low 20's, when she is young and hot. You know most of what I read supported your position, and cited evidence.
The rest of my information came from my own anecdotal evidence in the field, 25 years fucking, sucking, and tasting women. I tend to ask a lot of question getting to know the women.
James D 2004
02-19-04, 17:34
Paddy, Edinburgh is in Scotland, Liverpool in Wales. Manchester is in England but branded North of England, which is a different world.
Liverpool in Wales? :D
You need a atlas my friend. ;)
TND, England is shocked to hear that Liverpool has defected to Wales.
James D 2004
02-19-04, 22:32
I always thought Liverpool was in England until I went there. The teenager in the fast food joint near the train station hated my English accent. The local English haters must have told me that Liverpool is in Wales and I brought into it. Physically, the border is somewhere there. More importantly, human geography is the key. Liverpool is dominanted my waves of migration from Wales, say industrial revolution or others. If you allow them, they will deflect.
Manchester and Liverpool are in England. Liverpool is close to Wales but still in England. Yes, I know that Edinburgh is in Scotland. I've been there and we do have schools in America.
Punting in England and Scotland are similar in set-up and cost so I lumped them together.
James D 2004
02-20-04, 00:04
England and North of England is a different world Paddy my friend. And Scotland is further north historically discriminated by the English.
Amazing the lengths you'll go to, TNH, to avoid saying you were mistaken! :)
James D 2004
02-20-04, 00:44
JZ, those who don't brought that are those who never listen to the Liverpool accent. Nothing like it in the North of England.
Four posts later and on and on it goes. Give it up TND.
T&H,
You state that "Scotland is further north and historically discriminated against by the English." We all know that.
OK, so how is the above statement related to the specific issue of punting or 'The Morality of Prostitution' in general??? What's your point???
James D 2004
02-20-04, 03:00
Paddy, since you ask, I have to do the obvious. Even punting in South England and North England is very different, Scotland is even more different. This is directly against your idea that price and setup is similar. In times of economic downturn, North England is much harder hit. You can find streets of full brothels in a small area. Technically more than one girl in each house is illegal but even though the whole street are full of houses with working women, there are more than one women in each house. On top of that regular raids were taken to caught the under age. Prostitution is never that obvious in South England. SW are never tolerated in South England, except once in a blue moon. I don't mean you cannot find SW, but like King's Cross the police and locals work hard to get rid of them. But SW is rather tolerated in North England. Say in Manchester the downtown triangle between the University, train station (?) and something else, you can reliably find SW for say in a 10 year span.
As for the number of my posts and the length of it, I have to keep at giving good evidence to support my arguments rather than finger pointing. I find it surprising that some one just asked or hinted me to shut up but never dispute my arguments. Am I that good?
As for Liverpool, I can do better than that. Americans may not know that in the football (soccer to Americans) world, that's anywhere except America, everybody knows Liverpool when they are old enough to watch TV. And nobody will think that Liverpool is not in England, I'm no exception.
I learned to respect human geography since I came to USA. Whenever I submit some British address there's always some trouble. The official Great Britain seldom get through. It always came back as England (or Scotland or Wales), where nobody in Britain would write England (or Scotland or Wales) on the address. United Kingdom get through sometimes, but often came back as England. GB and UK get through more often then their full forms. There must be some historically and politically correct hands at work in the federal level or corporate world.
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/lecreview/legacies/brothel.html
http://www.eros.com.au/sexinoz.php?articleid=7
Liverpool is in Sydney, Australia and it is infamous for sex
Don't let any conman persuade you otherwise.
James D 2004
02-20-04, 04:19
Would that Liverpool in Wales, New South Wales?
If you thought people from Liverpool are hard to understand, you should head over to Newcastle. I spent more than a year there and I still can't understand the Geordies.
T & H, If it were your intent to compare "punting" in North and South England, you would have done so in your first post. Instead you were trying to prove yourself smarter than Paddy by letting him know that Liverpool was indeed in Wales. When your mistake was pointed out you responded by making five posts defending yourself. A big, self-confident person would just admit having made a mistake and let it go. You obviously have some emotional need to look smart. Maybe compensating for the fact that you're not tall and handsome and that the working girls don't enjoy having sex with you.
Civ2K
Civ, you're one funny bastard. :D
TH, :) just admit you got it wrong.
I haven't mongered in England. It's too expensive and I don't have a car and I'm way out in the middle of nowhere. That's probably why I hate it here so much. Also the weather is unbearable and the food is dreadful and the women are ugly and everyone has bad teeth. The bars close way too early. Gasoline is over $5 a gallon. A five mile cab ride is $20 US. Just making money and working out every day. Some women in BA are really going to have hell to pay in three more weeks. Get laid there for the price of a gallon gas here; makes sense to me.
None of which has jack to do with the Morality of Prostitution so I will now crawl back in my hole.
T&H,
Sounds like Civ, Sainter, DH, RN and others have your number. Also, tall and handsome guys are characteristically self-confident in their own quiet way and don't feel the need to project themselves as such. As one guy here said, you're probably neither tall nor handsome although you'd like to be. If you truly were, you wouldn't need to present yourself as such.
One last thing. As a published author and college professor with an MBA and PhD, I've always taken a pass on your long, tedious, poorly written and incoherent diatribes. This is the last that I have to say to you.
As I said in my last posting, let's get back to 'The Morality of Prostitution' issue.
DH,
I'm compelled to agree with your views of punting in England. You're right. Thanks for reminding me.
Am checking out fares to BA and Rio.
James D 2004
02-20-04, 13:28
Paddy they are obviously all have a number on me. Edingburgh is many miles north of the English Scottish border while Liverpool is only at the English Wales border. Since they all pick on me I have to defend myself. Don't you guys know why a trial took so long?
Looking through the recent posts I have nothing further to reply, especially the uncivil personal comments by Civ.
But Paddy, you are wise to pass on my posts. Otherwise JZ and I can teach you a thing or two about English. But that's a really long story.
I thought nowadays people would be proud to say that "I'm a PhD" ... "But I'm not teaching?"
OK, lets come out of the closet. I also have a PhD. Don't you think I'm teaching?
Well, you're certainly not teaching writing, that's for dead certain. Nor psych, based on your various profile analyses. One can only hope your communication is clearer ftf.
But what does any of this have to do with the Morality of Prostitution? Please return, RN, and get us back on topic!
Guys, I thought I might just ask your opinions on a topic that's been doing the rounds lately. As all of you well know, the Traveller and Skinless have been having a pretty massive brawl over on the Thai board. This has nothing to do with them but, their recent stoush has got me thinking. Do you think it's wrong to monger with a 17 year old girl eventhough it is legal under a country's law? I notice that some African nations have very low standards/age requirements when dealing with prostitution. Just because they allow it, isn't it still immoral? What if the country involved has extremely low age barriers? Do we draw the line on a legal basis or on a moral one?
For my part, even if it's legal to monger with a under 18 girl, I'd never do it. There's a certain maturity level that I don't think girls that age have reached. Any thoughts?
Quote: "As for the number of my posts and the length of it, I have to keep at giving good evidence to support my arguments rather than finger pointing. I find it surprising that some one just asked or hinted me to shut up but never dispute my arguments. Am I that good".
Actually the whole argument was that you said Liverpool was in Wales. All you had to say was "oops made a mistake". End of discussion. All the rest of your seven posts were explaining why you made the mistake. No need.
I am not personally attacking you. I just want to stay on topic. You continually avoid questions you don't want to answer by being extremely verbose.
You've been asked a couple of times what this has to do with the morality of prostitution. No answer.
You've been asked to admit you were wrong. No answer.
In the American Women section I asked you three or four times what the price of real estate in England had to do with American women being the way they are. No answer. No answer. No answer.
But you did repond numerous times talking about everything else.
Stay on topic.
I don't like to criticize anyone's writing but when you and that other guy (I forget his name now -- not JZ) claim to be Phd's and have high IQ's, but don't know how to use spell check, punctuation, proper sentence structure, the proper use of words such as to, too, two; your claim to genius is extremely suspect. Paddy could teach you a thing or two about writing.
So buddy, admit you were wrong. I've done it. I've seen JZ do it. We all make mistakes frequently. But don't waste our time by making seven more posts defending yourself over something as insignificant as this.
Civ2K
I was right that we have lot of "Intellectuals" on this forum, and I was right they are slimy, and really only care about pussy.( maybe not) You guys really need to fuck a few female students. It should be easy, when they come and visit you concerned about their grades, lift their shirt, play with their tits, and say you will take away all the problems they have. After you have sex with the students, write about it here. I like a good story, not this shit about English, Wales, crap.
Let Tall get the last word, because he won't stop, just like a 5 year old in Kindergarden won't.
Sainter, why are you always the Saint? You need to go into sales or some schooling to understand life. Most people, all people, do things accrording to their wants, and needs.
If the age limit is 16 in a certain country, then do what they do in the country, especially if you won't be throwed in jail. If you feel that strongly against, having sex with a 16 year old, you should also keep away from 18 year olds . Age is only an arbitary number, so just because a girl is 18 doesn't mean she is ready for sex. ( I don't have the stats in front of me but I believe over 50% of 16 years old are not virgins, but I guess its another thing to have sex with an older monger)
Different country's have different moral views regarding prostitution, and sex. For example, when I was 16, if a female age under 40 paid me for sex, it would not have harmed me psychological. I would have enjoyed that. I think we have the same thing going on in some parts of the world. Oh by the way, I don't go after 16 year olds, but I do like them young 25 and younger, and sometimes even older.
Sainter, Quote: "Civ, you're one funny bastard."
Thanks, I think.
I agree with you that I draw the line at age eighteen, regardless of the laws or the age of consent of the place I'm visiting. I agree with Jackson and believe that it is our duty as adult men to protect women and children and I believe a child is someone under the age of eighteen, or someone over the age of eighteen who may have the mentality of a child.
So, yes I would draw the line on a moral basis rather than a legal basis. But on the other side of the equation I believe that as an American citizen I am required to obey the laws of my country whether I am inside my borders or not, at least as it applies to sex crimes.
Civ2K
James D 2004
02-20-04, 22:35
Civ, now that you stopped finger pointing, you are ready to get your answers.
Actually the whole argument was that you said Liverpool was in Wales. All you had to say was "oops made a mistake". End of discussion. All the rest of your seven posts were explaining why you made the mistake. No need.
You can ask Paddy about this. He never said he 'made a mistake'. He said I know because he went to school but just lumped Scotland and England together into England because they are similar. Really two posts are about why I considered Liverpool is in Wales. The rest are just responding to comments on my points. The rest of the rest are about why Edin is so far away from England, and that Liverpool is basically on the border, why I receive so many negative comments, while no body bother about Paddy's lumping. Believe me if you let go on this I don't need to counter any negative comments.
As to the length it depends on the ability of writing. And that the need does not depend on you. If you make me feel I have the need to express myself more clearly, I have to do it.
I am not personally attacking you. I just want to stay on topic. You continually avoid questions you don't want to answer by being extremely verbose.
You can find in your post many personal attacks against me, nothing to do with whether Liverpool is in England, Edinburgh is in England, Prostitution is Moral. That's the fact. If you want to stay on topic, don't mention Liverpool will do very nicely. Say in your last post you mention it again, and that's nothing to do with the morality of prostitution.
You've been asked a couple of times what this has to do with the morality of prostitution. No answer.
This is a silly question. Answering it takes a bit of effort and words. I wouldn't do it if you are not behaving.
I think anyone can answer the question, why ask me? So I don't bother to reply.
If you count the post with Liverpool on it, I think half of it is mind and half of it the others. Half positive and half negative, very fair and balanced. We are all in it together.
I don't think you are the discussion police, so I ignore you. You can also consider me taking the right to remain silence if you think you are somebody.
I have mentioned that why a court trial took so long. If someone attack my credibility, I have the right to present my cases.
You've been asked to admit you were wrong. No answer.
Paddy, did you admit that you made a mistake? What's your race, age, sex and all that? 'cause I smell some discrimination here.
In the American Women section I asked you three or four times what the price of real estate in England had to do with American women being the way they are. No answer. No answer. No answer.
Same reasons that I didn't answer you here. Bottom-line is that for all the post that have real estate as a thread there, at least half are not by me, including your last post. It's not up to me and I have my reasons. BTW I also like to see people jumping like ants on the wok.
I don't like to criticize anyone's writing but when you and that other guy (I forget his name now -- not JZ) claim to be Phd's and have high IQ's, but don't know how to use spell check, punctuation, proper sentence structure, the proper use of words such as to, too, two; your claim to genius is extremely suspect. Paddy could teach you a thing or two about writing.
Civ, obviously you don't have a PhD. It's not about IQ or genius. It doesn't take a genius to know how to use spell checker. I did and I have perfect spelling here. Your spelling must be awful not to recognize that.
Unfortunately, the topic of English is not relevant here, so I rather not go into that. But you can find my discussion with JZ. If you look at 1% of that and decided that you can handle it and have more to offer, let me know.
So buddy, admit you were wrong. I've done it. I've seen JZ do it. We all make mistakes frequently. But don't waste our time by making seven more posts defending yourself over something as insignificant as this.
I must admit that PhD's don't see things as simply right and wrong, black or white. Right Paddy? I wouldn't have talk to myself alone using 7 posts, otherwise somebody must have complained about my sanity.
James D 2004
02-20-04, 23:58
Pokey, I couldn't stop if you mention me all the time while doubting my PhD level of education.
I must admit that PhD's don't see things as simply right and wrong, black or white.
Which is a good argument, when combined with the inability to stick to a topic or come to a point in under ten minutes, for spaying at least half the PhD's I know, including some very dear friends. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many Phd's don't actually see things at all, as that would require believing that a world exists beyond themselves.
Sainter, to take a whack at your blessed and welcome attempt to actually stay on topic, most of us are innately creatures of our cultures, and that affects our viewpoints on the age of availability. I grew up with eighteen as the line, and so it's there for me somewhere inside whether I want to intellectualize it in some other fashion or not. If I were to go someplace where sixteen or seventeen was the legal age and partake, I'd feel, deep down, that I'd done something wrong whether it was legal or not.
Besides, as I said in that thankfully ended Thailand thread, I'm basically not really interested in teenagers as sex partners regardless -- I prefer someone who knows what they're doing, and, heavens, if they can actually carry on a decent conversation so much the better. Give me someone who already knows all where a man's buttons are and how to push them in a variety of ways as opposed to someone who's still figuring them out.
Pokey, what does this have to do with his question?
Sainter, why are you always the Saint? You need to go into sales or some schooling to understand life. Most people, all people, do things accrording to their wants, and needs.
Why the flame? He may not be a Phd, but he is a double degree holder. So stop stirring. It was just a question he posed.
In Melbourne, Sainter/s is a term used to describe supporters of a particular football club. It has nothing to do with being moral.
Plugger, thanks for the infomation regarding the football club. Why I said what I did regarding Saint, well lets just say I have my reasons, and it doesn't concern you.
I didn't doubt anyone who said they had a PH'D, thats great if they do, it doesn't matter one way or another to me. I always felt there were lot of people here who work in the educational field, High School and College. The only thing I really said, was they are slimy, and they should go after some nice coed girl and fuck them.( the college ones, not high school, and Im only really just kidding.)
TNH, I didn't understand your last post to me, but if you live in Southern California like me, then I feel you should chill out. I don't want these people from other parts of the world to think we are strange or something worst.
Plugger, some weeks ago Pokey decided to call me a "winnie"(whatever that means). Let's just say he's got some sort of personal agenda with me.
I couldn't care less what he says, suffice to say, :p.
Actually it is "PhDs" and not "PhD's." The former is plural while the latter is possessive.
And no, I don't have one.
James D 2004
02-21-04, 17:27
JZ, your observation is valid to some extend. If you put any person through some alternative training, he will get into another parallel universe. That's professional symptom.
For example, it's well know that the military doesn't fit well into civilian life. Furthermore, that depends on whether they see any action, and what the action is. I can make up bad jokes about professionals at an instant. Say the doctor always examine the escort's pussy first, and the lawyer always make her to sign something off her rights before touching and saying anything.
Returning to your observations, many return to normal after they got something that couldn't be taken away ever. Many like an assassin, once after the first kill, they can't stop. Content to stay in their parallel universe.
That could be worse than any profession as the work by definition is always alone, unlike Nobel price that you can share. The degree of action is very varied. If a good professor take you on board, you can just do his laundry and you may share a Nobel price with him, or co-found a company. Some offer to feed you and get your cheap brain labor in return, the rest is up to you. If you are unlucky enough, you don't even know your enemies from your friends. Once an administer ask me to see him. He said if you accept that funding, you can be out of the office and out of the county with a week's notice. What am I to do? Obviously he's a good guy sitting in a tiny office who has commander as title. Obviously I have some rights and can do a little better if I refuse. But knowing that my professor would know all the tricks about getting money, I go with the flow, don't know who is doing the dirty on me. I wasn't kicked out. I met the commander some years afterward. He walking to the train station and I was driving my lux car to work. We smiled. He was actually happy as it all works out at the end. But I wasn't so sure at the time. I wished I can take a salary cut and go back to my own parallel universe.
To qualify, you have to make some contribution to human civilization. Anything from trivial pursuit to instant fame and fortune. In this frame of mind, it's just natural that if the current conversation doesn't lead to anywhere about new form of human civilization, the attention isn't just there. Or there's something in the conversation that drift the guy into a parallel universal and never return.
As for not having the ability to get your idea across, it's also down to professional symptoms. You do one thing for a few years. You tend to deal with complex things and in the level of details nobody else will touch. After a while your professor won't even be able or bother to keep up with the inner workings. Just talk about results. Otherwise, it's like telling my girlfriend how to do the plumbing.
My girlfriend only ask for my directions as a last resort. 'cause I always give her a custom map print off from the INTERNET. But her brain just doesn't work that way. If she insist I can give her directions with North turn, go East that sort thing but not left turn, right turn. But that doesn't mean that I'm not able to do that, I don't bother. If she can read maps then she is a better person, at least don't need to bother me anymore. Just the other day, I gave my professional girlfriend precise directions from her house to the hotel, nothing North or South, all left and right. That is the last resort and I was quite successful. A few times before she drive around and around finding the hotels. I tend to use different hotels all the time because of the best rates from INTERNET booking. She's always late for an hour or so. Not only that, she complained big time about wasting her time and hurried me. Asked me on her cell to do the shower first. When she got there and I wasn't finished, she was crossed.
Mention a suit, and someone always says, "I fit into that," even if it's the ugliest damn suit in the universe. Regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the topic at hand. Sigh.
And thanks for the correction, DH, quite right -- my brain was obviously fudge for simply taking TNH's spelling of anything and not thinking about it. Whatever was I doing? I'll just blame the end of a long day and slink away...
James D 2004
02-21-04, 23:50
What? Suit? My girlfriend always said that the suits I brought for myself was too old too ugly. I cannot say anything about the suits that she brought me. But I never wear them to see my friends.
GettingTang
02-22-04, 06:30
I thought of a topic that some here might finding interesting. I figured this thread might be the best location to post it.
Now don't be shy, step right up and speak your peace! Please no stereotypical responses.
WHAT ORIGINALLY GOT YOU HOOKED ON HOOKERS?
Okay it might be a touchy topic for some. The end conclusion might vary widely. I figured it could make an interesting topic.
My story:
Being the hopeless romantic, I feel in love early in life. I planned to marry my HS sweetheart. To make a long story short, she and I had more sex then probably thought humanly possible. We had sex of all types, kinky sex, sex just to get off, oral sex, public sex, you name it we did it all and did it frequently. I truly planned to spend my life with this girl. Well, she dumped me, lol. As so often happens at that age. She being 17-19 and myself just a year older.
We move on, I got a nice girl pregnant. Not even close to the wild sexual experiences I had with my ex. She was sexual, but also pregnant, I married her. I was in my early 20's. I craved sex like there was no tomorrow and the now, "old wife" was not giving it up. She would not even give up the occasional BJ.
So one night while living in San Diego, I ventured down to TJ. Yep, I got drunk and stupid, but managed to meet up with a nice young girl offering services. I had not gotten off in over 4 weeks and took her up on her offer. She was crazy wild into sex. She sucked and fucked me dry! 3 hours of intense sex. She was young and into it. Had she had been some worn old hooker with a bad attitude, it might have changed my future? However, I was hooked. When the old lady would not obliged, I would just pay.
True not all dates turned out like my first, but since, I have found many from time to time. Girls who take $ and like their work, and or are just into me. I would have much preferred to have married a sexually compatible girl to myself, but it did not happen. My old lady has significant values I cherish outside of sex. I would never leave her, but sex, as a male, we all know I must have. I tried the affair thing twice, both times she found out, it broke her heart and messed things up real bad. Paying for pussy is so much easier. She does not get hurt and I get what I need. So now I'm hooked!
I always practice safe sex and use condoms for almost everything, including oral, but do take the occasional BJ bareback. I have never caught anything at this game. I seriously do not see much harm in this. For me it is just sex, nothing more. I have no hang-ups of fetishes. Just getting my rocks off. I would venture a guess, that most of you mongers have old ladies at home who just are not giving it up? Once you P4P, most will never go back, the variety, the excitement is just to great!
Moral of the story, to the little women out there: "if your man aint getting it from you, trust me, he is getting it from somewhere" !
So that's my story. I'm hooked on P4P.
What's your story?
GETTINGTANG~!
GT, do you expect us to take your posts seriously? After all, you freely admit to making up 99% of your posts.
Your latest story is probably another one of your imaginery encounters. Don't waste our time.
GettingTang
02-22-04, 06:38
plugger, many of us state we make up our reports, probably for legal reasons. I don't know. But hey, as ripley says, believe it or not!
GT, my story was similar to yours regarding hookers. I started right after high school. I had a girl friend who loved sex, but we broke up. I also had a friend a little older then me who was a real pervert, who use to go to Hollywood CA, and even TJ for sex with SW's and SG's. I was horny one night so I went crusing to Hollywood, Sunset Bl, picked up a 22 years older girl, who showed me the time of my life in my Chevy truck with Shell. I have been hooked ever since, girl friend, wife, it doesn't matter. I also needed a Prostitute for added fun.
Whats a "weenie" thats a hard one to define if your not from the U.S. but I'll try: 1. is a hot dog, 2. nice way of calling someone a dick or ass. Here is a post from the internet to help:
________________________________________________
"
Weenie is a very sensitive guy, and it angers him that everyone isn't as sensitive as he. A soi-disant male feminist, he not only cares deeply about women's issues, he's concerned about poverty, people of color, gay rights and sea turtles. Weenie strives to be politically correct at all times and is ever vigilant against anti progressive attitudes. Weenie is always solicitous towards the oppressed classes, but will lash out viciously at retrograde brutes such as people on WSG Forum."
__________________________________________________
In other words, Sainter, (now that it's spelled correctly) it's the opposite of an asshole. :D Thank the nice man for the compliment.
Cash Works
02-28-04, 20:13
GT,
I'd have to say my story is more along the lines of convenience. Right out of University, I took a job that required nearly constant travel all over the world. I was rarely in any one place long enough to attempt to start a relationship and being "honest to a fault" I wasn't about to lie to a straight girl by telling her that I would "be back soon to continue our relationship". But, being in my mid twenties at the time, I had a virtual constant need for sex (as Eddie Murphy said in 48 hours "when the wind blows, my dick gets hard") and just about everywhere I travelled, I was able to find an abundance of providers, generally bar girls or semi-pro's who just wanted to have a good time with a foreigner and get a little extra cash. As an added incentive, this pursuit was accepted, if not encouraged by the "establishment" in my industry, not just by my company, but by the clients as well ("Send the boy out to have a night of getting his rocks off so that he can get back to concentrating on the business at hand"). Occasionally, I would hook up with non-pro's (straight girls) who weren't interested in anything long term, just fun with a foreigner, but I generally preferred the convenience and "guarantee of service" that comes with a profesional provider.
I have to admit though, in the last couple of years that I've been back in the USA, I've not been able to get into the SW scene here. I've gone on excursions to check out the action, but have found most SW's that I've come across to be down right skanky - When in the USA, I've generally gone to Jack Shacks and AMPs. Jack Shacks are generally a let down, as I definitely prefer FS, AMP's however, IMHO, are about the best thing since sliced bread, unfortunately, in my state & actually the whole region of the country I'm in now, they seem to be the prime target of the LEO's to shut down. I suppose I should try the escort services.
CW
Here is an article from Reuters indicating that NATO forces should be banned from brothels since some of the sex workers there have been forced into prostitution against their will.
This type of story forces one to think as to what dire situations some of the women out there are in:
NATO Urged to Ban Troops from Brothels
By John Chalmers
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Western troops abroad should be banned from brothels and sex clubs that fuel an illegal trade in women forced into prostitution, the United States and Norway urged their NATO allies Thursday.
The two nations urged the Western defense alliance to mount a coordinated clampdown on the human trafficking that sends women to work as "modern-day slaves" in bars frequented by troops on missions overseas.
"Trafficking in human beings is part of the dark side of globalization," said U.S. ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns. "We don't have the luxury of turning away from this problem because tens of thousands of lives are being ruined."
"We want NATO to have a common policy to combat trafficking...by April," he told a news conference with his Norwegian counterpart, Kai Eide.
The envoys were speaking on the sidelines of a one-day conference on NATO's potential role in tackling what they described as a "dark and shameful" crime that could destabilize emerging democracies, especially in the Western Balkans.
The United States estimates that each year as many as 800,000 men, women and children are bought, sold, transported across national borders and held against their will for sexual exploitation or forced labor.
It has taken the issue seriously since an undercover investigation in South Korea two years ago exposed the involvement of U.S. troops in paying for sex with women who had been trafficked from the Philippines and former Soviet states into forced prostitution in bars near a military installation.
President Bush has since set a zero-tolerance policy with respect to human trafficking for all American military personnel, including peacekeepers in the Balkans.
PASSPORTS TAKEN AWAY
Burns, quoting a U.N. estimate, said that up to 90 percent of sex workers in Bosnia were acting against their will.
"They would typically be told they were going to be a waitress or a dancer, taken down to Bosnia, their passports taken away and then sold from one guy to the next," he said.
Eide, whose country has prohibited government employees and military personnel abroad from purchasing or accepting sexual services, said traffickers are so sophisticated they move in tandem with concentrations of international security forces.
The ambassadors said it was now time for a NATO-wide policy to coordinate the efforts of the 46 countries in the alliance's Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, whose reach stretches from Canada to Central Asia.
"NATO has a special responsibility to ensure that our forces do not contribute to this problem," they wrote in the International Herald Tribune, calling on partnership members to:
-- educate military personnel overseas about trafficking;
-- step up efforts to pursue evidence of trafficking in persons in clubs and other places frequented by NATO military personnel, placing them off-limits, and help host countries to investigate human trafficking;
-- incorporate provisions in overseas civilian service contracts that prohibit participation in activities supporting or promoting human trafficking, and impose penalties on contractors who fail to monitor their employees' conduct.
Chuponalgas
03-06-04, 01:48
HAHAHAHA!
Alameda Judge Arrested for Soliciting Prostitution
Jahna Berry
The Recorder
03-08-2004
OAKLAND -- Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jackson Gifford was charged with soliciting prostitution on Friday after his arrest in a police sting Wednesday.
Gifford will be arraigned on the misdemeanor charge March 19, court documents say.
According to police reports from the videotaped sting operation, the 76-year-old judge, who presides in the Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse in Oakland, was driving on San Pablo Avenue in his gold Cadillac Northstar on Wednesday evening. He pulled up to a female police decoy standing on the corner of San Pablo and Brockhurst St.
"Do you want a date?" she asked, according to the report.
"Yeah," Gifford replied.
"You got a place to go?"
"Yeah. My house."
"Okay. Where's that?"
"Over by Lake Merritt."
"What do you want? A blow job?" she asked.
"Half and half," the judge said, referring to the street parlance for half oral sex and half regular sex.
The decoy said that it would cost the judge $40 and directed him to meet her at the corner of San Pablo and 33rd Street. That's where authorities arrested Gifford, the police report said.
Gifford could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.
The Oakland jurist was appointed to the municipal court in 1981 by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, and was elevated when the superior and municipal courts unified in 1998. He was in private practice in Oakland from 1959 to 1981, handling criminal and civil cases as a solo practitioner.
Gifford did not hear cases on Friday and will be on vacation until the end of the month, said Assistant Court Executive Officer Joanne Lederman.
Although court documents say Gifford will be arraigned in Dept. 107, the courthouse where he presides, Lederman said it's likely that the hearing will be transferred to another courthouse.
District Attorney Thomas Orloff said that a prosecutor had not been assigned to the case yet. He declined to comment further on the case.
The case is People v. Gifford, 496589.
Chuponalgas, I personally don't find it funny when anyone gets busted for solicitation. I think people from all walks of life frequent prostitutes, including police officers and judges. Just because they are ordered by their superiors to enforce prostitution laws doesn't mean they agree with or support these laws. Just as I wouldn't laugh at you if you got busted, nor would I laugh at a judge who after a tough day in court picked up a little nookie on the way home.
Civ2000
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.