PDA

View Full Version : What to do with prostitutes


Pages : [1] 2 3

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 04:17 AM
Prostitutes must have a special place in Heaven.

Prostitutes. male or female, are products of abuse by our societies. These young people come out of homes where physical, mental and sexual abuse has occurred. They are basically forced from their environment to the streets.
The societal response to these abused people is rather strange. We create them and then use our police and laws to further abuse our sons and daughters legally. We do provide social services on occasion but most of our response is negative. We drive them to a lifestyle of drugs and slavery under pimps and use police to try to hide our own shame in a forgotten jail cell.
What should people do. Having created this trade, should we now use them and abuse them more or should we let them starve or find some other criminal activity in order to live.
Are we paying them for our gratification or is the payment to ease our conscience for creating them.
Do some of us use them with compassion because we recognize that they are our creation? Or am I trying to justify their existence. In countries where poverty is rampant and children are sold by their own parents, can it be said that this is good in order to maintain a family structure. Is it OK to go to some of these places of poverty and contribute to their economy. Not availing ourselves of this product do we help the country to stay poor.
The same weird situation exists where child labor occurs. If we do not buy the carpet woven by the eight year old, does his family then go hungry.
There is good and evil in everything, can we clear up the view of this problem and know the best course of action?
Does survival of the fittest include the ability to use and abuse our own children. We tend to continue with these unsightly customs regardless of the wealth of a given nation. Would wealth and education put an end to these practices? It appears not.
Question for debate.
Is it better to avail one’s self of the services of a prostitute to help them survive, or is there a better way.
Please do not say things like ending poverty without telling us how.
Impossible solutions are not solutions.


Regards
DL

Lothian
21st May 2007, 04:29 AM
Is it better to avail one’s self of the services of a prostitute to help them survive, or is there a better way.
You could just give them money without using the service.

largeprimenumber
21st May 2007, 04:40 AM
I think you are wrong in assuming prostitutes to be victims, young, and junkies. Certainly, some are. Certainly, not all are.

Prostitution is a job, just like making clothes. You don't assume that all workers who make clothes are child laborers in sweatshops, do you?

A prostitute is essentially no different from any other laborer. They are exchanging the service of their minds and bodies for a wage. It is a virtue under most systems of morals to work hard for your pay. Unfortunately, under the dominant systems of morals, sex is a sin.

You do have a point in that society compounds its ill-treatment of them and takes advantage of them.

Freethinker
21st May 2007, 09:48 AM
The only real abuse of prostitutes in general is the way they are treated because what they do is condemed by the dominant religions. That is religion's forte; Creating a category of sin that allows its members to cluck their tongues at others who don't share their beliefs. It's fine for women to marry wealthy men without love, but "god forbid" the transaction be boiled down to its basic form as a cash for sex exchange.

fuelair
21st May 2007, 10:19 AM
Prostitutes must have a special place in Heaven.

Prostitutes. male or female, are products of abuse by our societies. These young people come out of homes where physical, mental and sexual abuse has occurred. They are basically forced from their environment to the streets.
The societal response to these abused people is rather strange. We create them and then use our police and laws to further abuse our sons and daughters legally. We do provide social services on occasion but most of our response is negative. We drive them to a lifestyle of drugs and slavery under pimps and use police to try to hide our own shame in a forgotten jail cell.
What should people do. Having created this trade, should we now use them and abuse them more or should we let them starve or find some other criminal activity in order to live.
Are we paying them for our gratification or is the payment to ease our conscience for creating them.
Do some of us use them with compassion because we recognize that they are our creation? Or am I trying to justify their existence. In countries where poverty is rampant and children are sold by their own parents, can it be said that this is good in order to maintain a family structure. Is it OK to go to some of these places of poverty and contribute to their economy. Not availing ourselves of this product do we help the country to stay poor.
The same weird situation exists where child labor occurs. If we do not buy the carpet woven by the eight year old, does his family then go hungry.
There is good and evil in everything, can we clear up the view of this problem and know the best course of action?
Does survival of the fittest include the ability to use and abuse our own children. We tend to continue with these unsightly customs regardless of the wealth of a given nation. Would wealth and education put an end to these practices? It appears not.
Question for debate.
Is it better to avail one’s self of the services of a prostitute to help them survive, or is there a better way.
Please do not say things like ending poverty without telling us how.
Impossible solutions are not solutions.


Regards
DL

Who is this we you continually refer to?

Arkan_Wolfshade
21st May 2007, 10:22 AM
Bunny Ranch

Orangutan
21st May 2007, 10:33 AM
Prostitutes must have a special place in Heaven.[+]

Prostitutes. male or female, are products of abuse by our societies . These young people come out of homes where physical, mental and sexual abuse has occurred . They are basically forced from their environment to the streets.
The societal response to these abused people is rather strange. We create them and then use our police and laws to further abuse our sons and daughters legally . We do provide social services on occasion but most of our response is negative . We drive them to a lifestyle of drugs and slavery under pimps and use police to try to hide our own shame in a forgotten jail cell.


+ Speculation
* Citations Needed.

slingblade
21st May 2007, 11:18 AM
Bunny Ranch

Nah, Dennis is a jerk. Go to the White Horse instead.

toddjh
21st May 2007, 02:09 PM
Legalize it. Sure, it won't solve everything, and your average streetwalker will still exist as a "discount" hooker for desperate men, but I can think of no better way to help prostitutes than to decouple them from the drug trade and other forms of organized crime.

So legalize it, and make it licensed and monitored by the local health department.

Z
21st May 2007, 02:15 PM
Amen to that.

I saw the OP title, and thought, "if you don't know what to do with a prostitute by now, you probably don't need to know yet."

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:35 PM
You could just give them money without using the service.

Many would just smoke it away.
Further charity would be a further abuse adding to their feelings of worthlessness.

Not the answer but thanks.

Regards
DL

Piscivore
21st May 2007, 02:40 PM
Does it make a difference what their skin colour is?

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:41 PM
I think you are wrong in assuming prostitutes to be victims, young, and junkies. Certainly, some are. Certainly, not all are.

Prostitution is a job, just like making clothes. You don't assume that all workers who make clothes are child laborers in sweatshops, do you?

A prostitute is essentially no different from any other laborer.

GIA wrote
Not to insult but if your child is a dentist you would likely avail yourself of his or her services. Is your cavalier thinking saying that you wold avail yourself as easily if your child turned to prostitution.

They are exchanging the service of their minds and bodies for a wage. It is a virtue under most systems of morals to work hard for your pay. Unfortunately, under the dominant systems of morals, sex is a sin.

You do have a point in that society compounds its ill-treatment of them and takes advantage of them.

No insult meant but I have already heard some quick reversals of your comments.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:44 PM
The only real abuse of prostitutes in general is the way they are treated because what they do is condemned by the dominant religions. That is religion's forte; Creating a category of sin that allows its members to cluck their tongues at others who don't share their beliefs. It's fine for women to marry wealthy men without love, but "god forbid" the transaction be boiled down to its basic form as a cash for sex exchange.

The last statistics I saw showed 40% of prostitutes were abused in the home. Fathers only slightly less than stepfathers.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:46 PM
Who is this we you continually refer to?

All of us are part of the problem. Except of course you and I.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:49 PM
+ Speculation
* Citations Needed.

The numbers change in different countries as well as the conditions of the problem.

If you do not see a problem, enjoy.

Regards
DL

Lothian
21st May 2007, 02:50 PM
Many would just smoke it away.
Further charity would be a further abuse adding to their feelings of worthlessness.

Not the answer but thanks.

Regards
DLYou asked if there was a better way to help them than using their services.

I suggested that giving them the money and not using their services is better than the option you gave. You disagree. Please explain why having sex with them for money is better.


Note: I never said I had the answer I just suggested a better way

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:51 PM
Legalize it. Sure, it won't solve everything, and your average streetwalker will still exist as a "discount" hooker for desperate men, but I can think of no better way to help prostitutes than to decouple them from the drug trade and other forms of organized crime.

So legalize it, and make it licensed and monitored by the local health department.

I am beginning to agree but that does not stop the abuse at home.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
21st May 2007, 02:55 PM
You asked if there was a better way to help them than using their services.

I suggested that giving them the money and not using their services is better than the option you gave. You disagree. Please explain why having sex with them for money is better.


Note: I never said I had the answer I just suggested a better way

I am not saying that using their services is better, I am saying that your way would not work.
Just looking for insight.

Regards
DL

Quinn
21st May 2007, 03:04 PM
I am beginning to agree but that does not stop the abuse at home.

Then are you changing the question to "What can we do about child abuse?"

gtc
21st May 2007, 03:12 PM
Does it make a difference what their skin colour is?

I suspect so. A couple of telephone calls to your nearest "houses of ill-repute" should let you know what the going rates are for the various races. Of course, you need to account for looks and experience before you can isolate the effects of skin colour.

Am I wilfully misinterpreting your post? I hate it when I do that.

Lothian
21st May 2007, 03:13 PM
I am not saying that using their services is better, I am saying that your way would not work.
Just looking for insight.

Regards
DLThat is changing the original question. Question for debate.
Is it better to avail one’s self of the services of a prostitute to help them survive, or is there a better way.My way is a better way but it won't solve the problems you are now bringing up.

Tanstaafl
21st May 2007, 03:19 PM
The only real abuse of prostitutes in general is the way they are treated because what they do is condemed by the dominant religions. That is religion's forte; Creating a category of sin that allows its members to cluck their tongues at others who don't share their beliefs. It's fine for women to marry wealthy men without love, but "god forbid" the transaction be boiled down to its basic form as a cash for sex exchange.

Yes, I've often said that marrying for money is simply prostitution with a long-term contract.

Piscivore
21st May 2007, 03:45 PM
I suspect so. A couple of telephone calls to your nearest "houses of ill-repute" should let you know what the going rates are for the various races. Of course, you need to account for looks and experience before you can isolate the effects of skin colour.

Am I wilfully misinterpreting your post? I hate it when I do that.

The last thread of GIA's I saw he was throwing people of mixed ethnicity off a spaceship. I just wondered if this was going to turn out to be more of the same.

largeprimenumber
21st May 2007, 03:46 PM
No insult meant but I have already heard some quick reversals of your comments.

Regards
DL
"Reversals"? What?

Not to insult but if your child is a dentist you would likely avail yourself of his or her services. Is your cavalier thinking saying that you wold avail yourself as easily if your child turned to prostitution.
What does this have to do with anything?

You say that you're looking for "insight", but your assumptions about prostitution are not held by all and are stifling discussion. Nor does it help that you haven't said more than a couple of lines in response to anyone.

Piscivore
21st May 2007, 03:56 PM
Is it better to avail one’s self of the services of a prostitute to help them survive, or is there a better way.

There's always Gary's way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_river_killer).

MelBrooksfan
21st May 2007, 04:09 PM
The last thread of GIA's I saw he was throwing people of mixed ethnicity off a spaceship. I just wondered if this was going to turn out to be more of the same.

He'd have a tough time. New prostitutes could just spring up.

Hokulele
21st May 2007, 04:10 PM
The last thread of GIA's I saw he was throwing people of mixed ethnicity off a spaceship. I just wondered if this was going to turn out to be more of the same.


What? Someone would lose a little skin and blood trying to throw me out of anything.

Piscivore
21st May 2007, 04:18 PM
He'd have a tough time. New prostitutes could just spring up.

And the robotic ones wouldn't be phased all that much.

What? Someone would lose a little skin and blood trying to throw me out of anything.

I perhaps could have better said "people of differing ethnicities". Further, you're on the short list of people I would get out of my chair to stop from being thrown off a spaceship, if that helps.

And one naturally wonders if your statement includes bed. Rowr. ;)

MelBrooksfan
21st May 2007, 04:21 PM
And the robotic ones wouldn't be phased all that much.

We have Roboprostitutes? Why not Robocops?

Darth Rotor
21st May 2007, 04:23 PM
If you do not see a problem, enjoy.

I make love with my wife. I enjoy.

Back to your OP, the answer for me of "what do do with prostitutes" is

Leave them alone.

DR

Piscivore
21st May 2007, 04:26 PM
We have Roboprostitutes? Why not Robocops?

Priorities.

Hokulele
21st May 2007, 05:02 PM
I perhaps could have better said "people of differing ethnicities". Further, you're on the short list of people I would get out of my chair to stop from being thrown off a spaceship, if that helps.


Gee, thanks. :blush:

And one naturally wonders if your statement includes bed. Rowr. ;)


That is assuming anyone would want to throw me out of their bed. :cool:


Just for the record, I agree with DR. The best thing to do with prostitutes is to leave them alone. If they want counseling or other types of job skills training, it should be made available, but not forced on anyone.

DangerousBeliefs
21st May 2007, 05:18 PM
I think just like marijuana, we should legalize it and regulate it.

This greatly reduces the drug, pregnancy, disease, pimp, abuse, underage, etc. problems with prostitution.

Loss Leader
21st May 2007, 06:03 PM
+ Speculation
* Citations Needed.



That's pretty much par for the course with a GIA post. He should come with a warning label.

Wheezebucket
21st May 2007, 07:02 PM
I know a couple prostitutes who would take issue with your portrayal of them in that first post. It's not a good idea to assume that just because somebody ****s for money that it's because of some past child abuse. Could it be? Sure. Is it always? Not hardly.

The Great Hairy One
21st May 2007, 07:18 PM
The last statistics I saw showed 40% of prostitutes were abused in the home. Fathers only slightly less than stepfathers.

Regards
DL


40% is a minority. So 60% of prostitutes were not abused, and yet became prostitutes anyway.

Cheers,
TGHO

arthwollipot
21st May 2007, 08:44 PM
40% may be a minority, but it's probably still higher than the general population. Without seeing specific statistics it would be hard to determine whether there is a genuine correlation.

In particular, I'd like to see statistics on the percentage of, say, Catholic priests who were abused in the home. Or health care workers. Or general practicioners.

I feel that legalisation is the way to go. Not only would it give prostitutes better access to health care (which in many cases is desparately needed) but it would give them legitimacy, self-esteem, and better conditions, wages and awards.

There's obviously a societal need for prostitutes - there's a reason why it's known as "the oldest profession". Why stigmatise them for that?

Darth Rotor
22nd May 2007, 04:47 PM
Just for the record, I agree with DR.
Garsh. I feel all warm and happy. :)

DR

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
22nd May 2007, 04:58 PM
A prostitute is essentially no different from any other laborer. They are exchanging the service of their minds and bodies for a wage. It is a virtue under most systems of morals to work hard for your pay. Unfortunately, under the dominant systems of morals, sex is a sin.
In fact, one might arguing that selling your mind for money is more prostitutive than selling your body for money.

~~ Paul

The Great Hairy One
22nd May 2007, 04:59 PM
40% may be a minority, but it's probably still higher than the general population. Without seeing specific statistics it would be hard to determine whether there is a genuine correlation.


Agreed, but I would note that obtaining genuine statistics detailing exactly how many people have suffered from sexual abuse is extremely difficult. Firstly, it's very highly dependent upon which researcher you ask - if you ask some radical feminist such as Andrea Dworkin, she will supply a percentage close to 100%. If you ask a more moderate researcher they may still supply a percentage around 50-60%.

Secondly, isolating an exact definition of "sexual abuse" is also extremely dependent upon which particular researcher you are talking to. There is no consensus amongst the specialists to what actually consists of sexual abuse - some say physical contact is required, others say sexual abuse can come from viewing images, or even simply in conversation.

It's a very murky area, and I'm always suspicious when someone spouts figures in this area.

Cheers,
TGHO

Loss Leader
22nd May 2007, 08:39 PM
Agreed, but I would note that obtaining genuine statistics detailing exactly how many people have suffered from sexual abuse is extremely difficult. Firstly, it's very highly dependent upon which researcher you ask - if you ask some radical feminist such as Andrea Dworkin, she will supply a percentage close to 100%. If you ask a more moderate researcher they may still supply a percentage around 50-60%.

Secondly, isolating an exact definition of "sexual abuse" is also extremely dependent upon which particular researcher you are talking to. There is no consensus amongst the specialists to what actually consists of sexual abuse - some say physical contact is required, others say sexual abuse can come from viewing images, or even simply in conversation.



I think your first point and your second are pretty much identical. If the researcher's definitions and methodologies are not scrupulously cleansed of bias, the resulting statistics will be meaningless.

(Or, at least, the meaning of the resulting statistics will be a measure of nothing other than the quality of the research).

strathmeyer
22nd May 2007, 11:03 PM
Getting people to pay to have sex with you is hard.

toddjh
23rd May 2007, 12:50 AM
Is a prostitute selling her body any more than, say, a construction worker?

Piscivore
23rd May 2007, 06:17 AM
Is a prostitute selling her body any more than, say, a construction worker?

I don't know- is the construction worker is driving nails with his member or wielding a saw with her vajayjay?

pgwenthold
23rd May 2007, 06:39 AM
The last statistics I saw showed 40% of prostitutes were abused in the home. Fathers only slightly less than stepfathers.

Regards
DL


Not a surprise. Living in a home where you are abused consistently is a terrible situation, and one that you will want to get out of. So a 16 year old girl who is tired of being abused at home leaves home and goes anywhere, because it has to be better.

Unfortunately, a 16 year old does not have a lot of marketable skills, so she ends up doing whatever she needs to do.

As has been noted, the problem here is not prostitution, it is abuse at home. "Doing something about prostitution" will not address that problem.

Hokulele
23rd May 2007, 07:14 AM
Garsh. I feel all warm and happy. :)

DR


Oops, sorry. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. ;)

Beerina
23rd May 2007, 08:46 AM
If prostitution were legal and safe, I wonder how many men would find release there rather than abusing their (step)children?

knot
23rd May 2007, 08:59 AM
There are prostitutes, then there are hos. Old school, new shcool.

J. Arthur Hastur
23rd May 2007, 09:03 AM
Well, whatever you do with a prostitute, make you sure you pay her for it.

Loss Leader
23rd May 2007, 09:39 AM
If prostitution were legal and safe, I wonder how many men would find release there rather than abusing their (step)children?


My guess is almost none. Pedophelia isn't about sexual gratification per se. It is about a person who finds sexual gratification in control over children. The abuser sees the child as a person who cannot harm him, reject him or make him feel bad about himself. He has long ago and unknowingly transferred his natural sexual feelings to children. Once transferred, they are almost impossible to get back. Adult prostitutes do not hold his interest.

Piscivore
23rd May 2007, 09:39 AM
Well, whatever you do with a prostitute, make you sure you pay her for it.

Damn straight, fool, or I will cut you, know what I'm saying? :mad:

Crazy mofo messing with my b[rule 8]s.

Greatest I am
23rd May 2007, 10:31 AM
Then are you changing the question to "What can we do about child abuse?"

Not yet but a good idea.

Even without child abuse prostitution would still exist.
The ultimate solution seems to be combining anti child abuse with legalization but to me the main causes seem to be poverty and education.

Eliminating these I think would reduce it greatly or possibly eliminate it all together. That would also reduce other social irritants.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
23rd May 2007, 10:33 AM
Does it make a difference what their skin colour is?

Yes.
Depending on the country. Minority colors I would think suffer more problems than the majority color.

Regards
DL

Piscivore
23rd May 2007, 10:35 AM
Yes.
Depending on the country. Minority colors I would think suffer more problems than the majority color.

Regards
DL

So we should throw them out of a spaceship?

Tanstaafl
23rd May 2007, 10:39 AM
Pisci, why yo be throwin' out perfecly good hos?

Greatest I am
23rd May 2007, 10:45 AM
Is a prostitute selling her body any more than, say, a construction worker?

You would allow your construction child to fix your porch.
Would you allow your prostitute child to service you?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
23rd May 2007, 11:02 AM
A thanks to all poster to date.
I view the problem from a number of directions and have brought up the topic because it may be bigger than any of us think.

Let me give some anecdotal stories that I have. Not the full detail for the sake of brevity.

My wife abused sexually as a child by a priest and also by an uncle.
My sister by my father.
My mother by her father.
A friend who went into prostitution to save her two sisters from a sexually abusive father.
Two instances of wives closing their eyes to what was happening to daughters.
Personal knowledge of two men who admit that the age of children does not mater for sex.

I have travelled much and have little opportunity for close ties to many people. This is compiled from a small date pool.

If my experience is as above then anyone with a more gregarious nature must have horror stories by the bushel compared to me.

Individually we can all help by being benevolent to all but socially if nothing is done either on the streets or in the home I cannot see improvement.

The purpose of the post was to gain insight into solutions that I might have missed.

Regards
DL

Loss Leader
23rd May 2007, 11:09 AM
You would allow your construction child to fix your porch.
Would you allow your prostitute child to service you?

Regards
DL


What? Are the prostitutes children now? Because I thought they just used to be children who were abused. Now they are the children?

Also, what is a "construction child"?

And if you mean to say that I would allow a child to come over and do construction at my house, the answer is that of course I would not. I don't know anybody who would.

Loss Leader
23rd May 2007, 11:10 AM
So we should throw them out of a spaceship?

No, no, no. We just shouldn't save them if we happen to see a white guy who needs saving at the same time.

strathmeyer
23rd May 2007, 11:18 AM
Well, whatever you do with a prostitute, make you sure you pay her for it.

What if I don't like to pretend that my prostitutes are female? Do I still have to pay them?

Piscivore
23rd May 2007, 11:32 AM
Pisci, why yo be throwin' out perfecly good hos?

Yo, Tan my man- they aliens be wantin' some freaky ol' s[rule 8], but brother do they pay.

My wife abused sexually as a child by a priest and also by an uncle.
My sister by my father.
My mother by her father.
A friend who went into prostitution to save her two sisters from a sexually abusive father.
Two instances of wives closing their eyes to what was happening to daughters.
Personal knowledge of two men who admit that the age of children does not mater for sex.

If my experience is as above then anyone with a more gregarious nature must have horror stories by the bushel compared to me.
That, or your social circle is just that f[rule 8]d up.

The purpose of the post was to gain insight into solutions that I might have missed.
I think sometimes we gave up on eugenics a little too quickly. Of course, since most people are fixated on trivialities like melanin levels or accidents of natal location that's probably for the best.

ETA: Or what an adult chooses to do with their own body, for that matter.

ponderingturtle
23rd May 2007, 11:36 AM
My guess is almost none. Pedophelia isn't about sexual gratification per se. It is about a person who finds sexual gratification in control over children. The abuser sees the child as a person who cannot harm him, reject him or make him feel bad about himself. He has long ago and unknowingly transferred his natural sexual feelings to children. Once transferred, they are almost impossible to get back. Adult prostitutes do not hold his interest.

Why do people concider all child abusers pedophiles? If the child is say 15 that is very different than 8.

toddjh
23rd May 2007, 12:01 PM
The ultimate solution seems to be combining anti child abuse with legalization but to me the main causes seem to be poverty and education.

Eliminating these I think would reduce it greatly or possibly eliminate it all together.

Very unlikely. Prostitution has existed for thousands, possibly millions, of years. We even see it in other primates.

I'm all for attempting to address economic and social factors that lead people to feel forced into prostitution (and the same for any other job they would find distasteful). But demand for the oldest profession is definitely not going to go away. If the number of prostitutes drops, it just means that prices will increase until more women start to consider it worthwhile and equilibrium is restored.

In fact, I don't think it's a good idea to make elimination of prostitution your goal. It's pretty much universal in human cultures, so I think that it clearly serves an important purpose. I think the best thing we could do for the safety and happiness of pretty much everyone involved is to make it a legal and legitimate business.

Loss Leader
23rd May 2007, 12:26 PM
If the child is say 15 that is very different than 8.


How so?

Jeremy
23rd May 2007, 12:31 PM
"What to do with prostitutes..."

How has no one made this joke yet?

ponderingturtle
23rd May 2007, 01:22 PM
How so?

It is a difference between being atracted to a pubecent and pre pubecent individual. Also there are certainly 15 year olds who are more developed than those of age.

So being atracted to teens is not at all compariable to being atracted to prepubecents.

Z
23rd May 2007, 01:27 PM
It is a difference between being atracted to a pubecent and pre pubecent individual. Also there are certainly 15 year olds who are more developed than those of age.

So being atracted to teens is not at all compariable to being atracted to prepubecents.

Technically, they are considered different disorders - I can't recall off the top of my head the name for the other condition (is it ebraphilia or something like that???). Somewhat different pathologies involved, too... so someone attracted to teens might be so for entirely different reasons.

But there's no particular difference to some people - attraction to anyone under legal age (or, should we say, expression of that attraction) is morally wrong.

Then again, for some people, expression of any attraction is wrong...

Loss Leader
23rd May 2007, 01:52 PM
Why do people concider all child abusers pedophiles? If the child is say 15 that is very different than 8.

It is a difference between being atracted to a pubecent and pre pubecent individual. Also there are certainly 15 year olds who are more developed than those of age.

So being atracted to teens is not at all compariable to being atracted to prepubecents.


But the original question wasn't just about pedophilia. It was about incest:

If prostitution were legal and safe, I wonder how many men would find release there rather than abusing their (step)children?


For that purpose, I cannot see the difference between a child of 8 and a child of 15. In both instances, the abuser is using his position of power to exert control over someone in his life who cannot escape him.

In those instances, whether the child is 8 or 15, I doubt the abuser will be satisfied with a prostitute. Not being a fixture in his life, the prostitute's sexual compliance does not meet his ego's needs.

Lothian
23rd May 2007, 02:15 PM
A thanks to all poster to date.
I view the problem from a number of directions and have brought up the topic because it may be bigger than any of us think.

Let me give some anecdotal stories that I have. Not the full detail for the sake of brevity.

My wife abused sexually as a child by a priest and also by an uncle.
My sister by my father.
My mother by her father.
A friend who went into prostitution to save her two sisters from a sexually abusive father.
Two instances of wives closing their eyes to what was happening to daughters.
Personal knowledge of two men who admit that the age of children does not mater for sex.

I have travelled much and have little opportunity for close ties to many people. This is compiled from a small date pool.

If my experience is as above then anyone with a more gregarious nature must have horror stories by the bushel compared to me.

Individually we can all help by being benevolent to all but socially if nothing is done either on the streets or in the home I cannot see improvement.

The purpose of the post was to gain insight into solutions that I might have missed.

Regards
DLWhat you have missed is that your O. P asked what can we do about prostitution? You refer to the problem of prostitution. You then give 6 anecdotes.

Anecdote 1 – nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 2 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 3 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 4 – prostitution being the solution not the problem
Anecdote 5 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 6 - nothing to do with prostitution

You then say that if nothing is done on the streets you can’t see improvement and talk about posting to gain insight into solutions (of prostitution).

I think you are trolling

Regards
L

Tanstaafl
23rd May 2007, 02:42 PM
...Let me give some anecdotal stories that I have. Not the full detail for the sake of brevity.

My wife abused sexually as a child by a priest and also by an uncle.
My sister by my father.
My mother by her father.
A friend who went into prostitution to save her two sisters from a sexually abusive father.
Two instances of wives closing their eyes to what was happening to daughters.
Personal knowledge of two men who admit that the age of children does not mater for sex.

I have travelled much and have little opportunity for close ties to many people. This is compiled from a small date pool.

If my experience is as above then anyone with a more gregarious nature must have horror stories by the bushel compared to me...


I think your experiences are very non-typical. I certainly hope so, and they're nothing like mine.

Lothian
23rd May 2007, 02:46 PM
I think your experiences are very non-typical. I certainly hope so, and they're nothing like mine.I think they are made up.

SoBitter
23rd May 2007, 03:05 PM
While I agree that this poster is trollish, I have to say that I don't think there's a problem with prostitution, I think there's a problem with streetwalkers.

High class hookers don't cause a lot of problems, 5 dollar handjob crack addicts do. So the problem is how to get all prostitutes to charge more and be classier. Most likely it goes back to drugs.

ponderingturtle
23rd May 2007, 03:07 PM
Technically, they are considered different disorders - I can't recall off the top of my head the name for the other condition (is it ebraphilia or something like that???). Somewhat different pathologies involved, too... so someone attracted to teens might be so for entirely different reasons.

But there's no particular difference to some people - attraction to anyone under legal age (or, should we say, expression of that attraction) is morally wrong.

Then again, for some people, expression of any attraction is wrong...

The problem with this statement is it means that the same action is moral and immoral depending on what state you are in. As age of consent is not uniform.

Madalch
23rd May 2007, 03:28 PM
My wife...My sister...My mother ...
A friend who went into prostitution..

This is compiled from a small date pool.
If that's your date pool, you need to get out more.

Wheezebucket
23rd May 2007, 03:37 PM
A thanks to all poster to date.
I view the problem from a number of directions and have brought up the topic because it may be bigger than any of us think.

Let me give some anecdotal stories that I have. Not the full detail for the sake of brevity.

My wife abused sexually as a child by a priest and also by an uncle.
My sister by my father.
My mother by her father.
A friend who went into prostitution to save her two sisters from a sexually abusive father.
Two instances of wives closing their eyes to what was happening to daughters.
Personal knowledge of two men who admit that the age of children does not mater for sex.

I have travelled much and have little opportunity for close ties to many people. This is compiled from a small date pool.

If my experience is as above then anyone with a more gregarious nature must have horror stories by the bushel compared to me.

Individually we can all help by being benevolent to all but socially if nothing is done either on the streets or in the home I cannot see improvement.

The purpose of the post was to gain insight into solutions that I might have missed.

Regards
DL

As has already been pointed out, very little of that has to do with prostitution. Also, you seem to keep forgetting that these prostitutes you're so keen on 'saving' are individual people, who may or may not want you to save them - heck, they might not even need 'saving'! Your unrelated stories (true or not) are completely besides the point and take away from any actual discussion we could be having about prostitution on the whole.

Z
23rd May 2007, 03:57 PM
The problem with this statement is it means that the same action is moral and immoral depending on what state you are in. As age of consent is not uniform.


And all that shows is that morality is relative, not absolute. In fact, it pretty much proves that 'morality' is purely user-defined.

And I'd say all it means is that the same action is legal or illegal - not moral or immoral - depending on location.

And this bothers you why? Every action is either moral or immoral, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical - depending on what context, what society, you choose to place the action within.

The Romans, I've read, saw children as reasonable objects of sexual attention - they weren't even human until they were nearly adults. Some cultures thought a child's first sexual experience was supposed to be with a parent or close relative. We call that 'incest' and get nauseated merely thinking about it. Meanwhile, other cultures would have each and every one of us stoned, who ever had sex with someone other than our spouse, only after marriage, and only for procreation.

Morality is entirely relative, and is hardly the issue here.

ponderingturtle
23rd May 2007, 04:14 PM
And all that shows is that morality is relative, not absolute. In fact, it pretty much proves that 'morality' is purely user-defined.

And I'd say all it means is that the same action is legal or illegal - not moral or immoral - depending on location.
You specificaly cited age of consent. This can be as low as 14 in some places.

And this bothers you why? Every action is either moral or immoral, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical - depending on what context, what society, you choose to place the action within.

I don't agree with that. This works out that basicly any action can be condoned. I remember hearing about a religious cult that concidered it normal for girls to be initiated into sex by their father. This would be moral then as it was with in the bounds of their society. Pitcairn Island is also a data point on this.

The Romans, I've read, saw children as reasonable objects of sexual attention - they weren't even human until they were nearly adults. Some cultures thought a child's first sexual experience was supposed to be with a parent or close relative. We call that 'incest' and get nauseated merely thinking about it. Meanwhile, other cultures would have each and every one of us stoned, who ever had sex with someone other than our spouse, only after marriage, and only for procreation.

Morality is entirely relative, and is hardly the issue here.

So forcing your daughter to have sex with you is fine if you have the right background? Good to know it is not abuse then. Takes a load off my mind.

Piscivore
23rd May 2007, 04:28 PM
While I agree that this poster is trollish, I have to say that I don't think there's a problem with prostitution, I think there's a problem with streetwalkers.

High class hookers don't cause a lot of problems, 5 dollar handjob crack addicts do. So the problem is how to get all prostitutes to charge more and be classier.

We need a machine that turns all hookers into Julia Roberts.

Or just turn out Julia Roberts. C'mon, she owes us for "Mona Lisa Smile".

Z
23rd May 2007, 04:30 PM
You specificaly cited age of consent. This can be as low as 14 in some places.

It was 12 in Florida for a while... something about pressure from the Seminoles to keep it low, IIRC.

I don't agree with that. This works out that basicly any action can be condoned. I remember hearing about a religious cult that concidered it normal for girls to be initiated into sex by their father. This would be moral then as it was with in the bounds of their society. Pitcairn Island is also a data point on this.

But their cult lay within the bounds of a greater society, so no, it would still be considered 'wrong'.

One thing to consider - and I think you're overlooking this point - is that the society we live in, as it expands and globalizes, is also beginning to establish a universal/global ethical code, one which will eventually overwrite any local culture's moral codes.

So forcing your daughter to have sex with you is fine if you have the right background? Good to know it is not abuse then. Takes a load off my mind.

IF you live in a culture that condones incestual sex between father and daughter, and that culture is the predominant authority under which you exist, then yes, it's fine... within that culture. But in the U.S., the general cultural status is that incest is wrong, up to (and occasionally including) cousins. And that cultural more overrides most local cultures, so in our society, there isn't any (legal and socially accepted) culture that accepts incest.

But, yes, that does mean that any action can be condoned - IF it is placed in such a context where the cultural and sociological conditions are such that such actions are condoned anyway. If, for example, extreme overpopulation and lack of resources so cheapens human life that murder is considered a good thing (to reduce population), then murder becomes good. And so forth.

But no action exists in a vacuum, and the culture which controls law and enforcement resources is the culture which defines morality for a given system. In our country, where law and enforcement resources are meted out from state to state in differing fashions, the definition of morality does change from state to state.

Where I used to live, in Oklahoma, the law stated that it was wrong (immoral, somehow) to get a tattoo; but body piercing was considered OK, while masseuses working second-shift as prostitutes was 'wrong' but tolerated. In North Carolina, tats and piercings were OK, even desirable, but prostitution was strongly enforced against. Now that I'm here in Cincinnati, no one gives a damn about piercings or tats, and I have no idea what the local culture regarding prostitution is like, since the whores are more low-key and less obvious about their trade. I haven't heard of any major busts or anything of that nature in the few years I've been here, for sure - maybe it's another of those 'blind eye' things.

But that's the true nature of morality - it is NEVER absolute, and it ALWAYS changes with society.

Heck, if Tragic Monkey gets his way, clothes will be immoral on beautiful people, while folks like me will have to enter the public view wearing a heavy covering of horsehair and canvas...

ponderingturtle
23rd May 2007, 04:41 PM
IF you live in a culture that condones incestual sex between father and daughter, and that culture is the predominant authority under which you exist, then yes, it's fine... within that culture. But in the U.S., the general cultural status is that incest is wrong, up to (and occasionally including) cousins. And that cultural more overrides most local cultures, so in our society, there isn't any (legal and socially accepted) culture that accepts incest.

SO there was nothing wrong with slavery and raping slaves? How does this fit into ideas of say a state committing crimes against humanity? The state makes the laws and enforces them.

But, yes, that does mean that any action can be condoned - IF it is placed in such a context where the cultural and sociological conditions are such that such actions are condoned anyway. If, for example, extreme overpopulation and lack of resources so cheapens human life that murder is considered a good thing (to reduce population), then murder becomes good. And so forth.

So you would accept that case in australia who had the argument that he did not know it was illegal to rape a young girl because he had already purchased her as a wife? He should have been informed that his actions where not legal but as they fit into his society it was moral?


Good to know that any action can be condoned and is fundamentally laudable. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with genocide for example.

Z
23rd May 2007, 05:28 PM
SO there was nothing wrong with slavery and raping slaves? How does this fit into ideas of say a state committing crimes against humanity? The state makes the laws and enforces them.

In this case, you're talking about the state (an entity) which exists in the greater context of a global society (a culture), so 'crimes against humanity' is covered quite well.

As far as your questions re: slavery, in the cultural context in which these events occured, there was nothing wrong within that culture with slavery - though I can't speak about slave rape, as I don't know what the cultural situation was.

But as the culture changed, slavery became immoral.

So you would accept that case in australia who had the argument that he did not know it was illegal to rape a young girl because he had already purchased her as a wife? He should have been informed that his actions where not legal but as they fit into his society it was moral?

Is raping your wife legal in Australia?

I don't know the case.

Good to know that any action can be condoned and is fundamentally laudable. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with genocide for example.

Depends on the context. I admit, due to my own cultural bias, I can't think of any good example to make murder of every man, woman, and child of a race agreeable, but if there were some widespread culture that called for the total extermination of another culture - and again, if these cultures didn't exist in a yet-larger context (such as the global community) - then, sure, genocide would be fine.

But genocide and crimes against humanity are covered by the fact we have a global society that considers these things taboo.

That's not difficult to understand, is it?

Meanwhile, no such society taboos exist for age of consent; only for pedophilia. And even as such, that's not yet global.

So, yes, morality is flexible and relative.

Why is this such a problem for you?

For example, do you want the current taboo against homosexual marriage to remain forever fixed, or are you hoping our society will change so that it's no longer considered wrong? How about the speed limit - should that ever change? Should the breasts of women always be considered to be taboo in public, except in predesignated nudist areas, or is the morality against the exposed female breast something that should change?

Your idea about static morality is, to me, old-fashioned and smacks of x-ianity.

Loss Leader
23rd May 2007, 06:24 PM
We need a machine that turns all hookers into Julia Roberts.

Or just turn out Julia Roberts. C'mon, she owes us for "Mona Lisa Smile".


Forget "Mona Lisa Smile." What about "Ocean's 12"?

SoBitter
24th May 2007, 01:43 AM
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing materieal, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.

Z
24th May 2007, 05:42 AM
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing materieal, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.

Agreed 100%.

And it would necessarily have to be a change in the moral standard, because merely changing the law would lead to a few brave women baring all, only to be surrounded and ruthlessly ogled by the mouth-breathing neanderthal portion of the population.

You know - the 'guys'? :)

And if it's any consolation whatsoever to you, SoBitter, I took a personal vow about ten years ago (when my weight first topped 200) to NOT go topless in public until women could safely too. Which, for someone who used to only get dressed if he was leaving his room, is quite a change, I must say.

Ducky
24th May 2007, 05:45 AM
Hmm. I thought this thread was going to be about what to do with that dead hooker in the trunk of my car.

Well, while we're here, any suggestions?

Taffer
24th May 2007, 05:47 AM
Death has never stopped you before, fowlsound. Just do what comes naturally, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.

Ducky
24th May 2007, 05:48 AM
Death has never stopped you before, fowlsound. Just do what comes naturally, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.

I'm still chaffed from the last rotten c*** that split on me.













Nothing like a dead hooker joke to liven things up.....until a necrophelia joke ruins it.

Taffer
24th May 2007, 05:50 AM
I'm still chaffed from the last rotten c*** that split on me.

The answer is, and always was, duct tape.

Ducky
24th May 2007, 05:52 AM
The answer is, and always was, duct tape.

Hmm. Sticky proposal...

Taffer
24th May 2007, 05:53 AM
Hmm. Sticky proposal...

Naw, you have to use two strips, so you don't get it sticky.

Er, that is to say, "no comment" [/hcmom].

ponderingturtle
24th May 2007, 07:02 AM
In this case, you're talking about the state (an entity) which exists in the greater context of a global society (a culture), so 'crimes against humanity' is covered quite well.

This is just might makes right. Their actions where moral but became immoral when others could enforce it.

Is raping your wife legal in Australia?

I don't know the case.

It was an aboriginal man who married a young girl and then raped her when she refused him sex. SO he raped her. In his culture this was accepted, so he really shouldn't have been punished because he was not aware of Australian law, and so had no way of knowing that raping a young girl was wrong.

found it link (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1441538.htm)

He got one month in prison precisely because of your position here. How can he be punished for something that is condoned by his society? You say it is because his society is inside a larger one, but that is just the result of conquest, by that rational many of the so called war crimes are moral in WWII because they where in conquered territory.


Depends on the context. I admit, due to my own cultural bias, I can't think of any good example to make murder of every man, woman, and child of a race agreeable, but if there were some widespread culture that called for the total extermination of another culture - and again, if these cultures didn't exist in a yet-larger context (such as the global community) - then, sure, genocide would be fine.

But genocide and crimes against humanity are covered by the fact we have a global society that considers these things taboo.

No they are wrong

That's not difficult to understand, is it?
Yes it is. There is nothing that is not permissible just as long as it is legal in your society.

Meanwhile, no such society taboos exist for age of consent; only for pedophilia. And even as such, that's not yet global.

So, yes, morality is flexible and relative.

Why is this such a problem for you?

Because some activities are wrong, period. This is a great way to be an apologist for say the inquisition, nothing immoral or wrong happened, because society sanctioned the torture and burnings, so there is no need to apologize or consider that something bad happened.

For example, do you want the current taboo against homosexual marriage to remain forever fixed, or are you hoping our society will change so that it's no longer considered wrong? How about the speed limit - should that ever change? Should the breasts of women always be considered to be taboo in public, except in predesignated nudist areas, or is the morality against the exposed female breast something that should change?

Your idea about static morality is, to me, old-fashioned and smacks of x-ianity.

I am not arguing for static morality, you have not asked me at all what I would base a moral system on, and that is moral philosophy backed up testing to make sure that you are not making unsupported assumptions, like say about the superiority of men.

You are the one who would not view a static morality as bad because there is no absolute morality so you can not view a moral structure that say treats women as property and burns all homosexuals as any worse than one that does not do these things. So as they are equal why try to change it?

ponderingturtle
24th May 2007, 07:04 AM
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing materieal, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.

But this isn't relativism, relativism is the idea that arresting you for not wearing a shirt and permitting you to not wear a shirt are equal in terms of morality.

There is nothing fundamentaly wrong with say Iran when it publicly exicutes homosexuals because society is in favor of it. That is the relativism that is being promoted here.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 07:57 AM
What? Are the prostitutes children now? Because I thought they just used to be children who were abused. Now they are the children?

Also, what is a "construction child"?

And if you mean to say that I would allow a child to come over and do construction at my house, the answer is that of course I would not. I don't know anybody who would.

My Franglais must get in my way sometimes.
My point was for those with a cavalier position on prostitution.

Some say they would not care if their off spring were in the trade.
I am asking if they would then use their own offspring for gratification.
When I ask this they usually reword their replies.

Regards
DL

toddjh
24th May 2007, 08:07 AM
Some say they would not care if their off spring were in the trade.
I am asking if they would then use their own offspring for gratification.
When I ask this they usually reword their replies.

That's a completely silly thing to say. The fact that there are societal taboos against incest has absolutely nothing to do with whether prostitution should be considered a legitimate profession. If my daughter were a prostitute (in a world where prostitution was socially acceptable), the fact that I wouldn't want to take advantage of her services doesn't necessarily mean I object to her choice of career, it just means that I find the idea of having sex with my own daughter creepy and gross.

If my kid were a doctor, I wouldn't want to be his or her patient because it might be awkward and uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want him or her to be a doctor at all, and it certainly doesn't mean that being a doctor is "bad."

Anyway, you raised this point in response to my question of whether prostitutes are "selling their bodies" any more than manual laborers are, and I still don't see what your reply has to do with what I was asking.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:12 AM
What you have missed is that your O. P asked what can we do about prostitution? You refer to the problem of prostitution. You then give 6 anecdotes.

Anecdote 1 – nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 2 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 3 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 4 – prostitution being the solution not the problem
Anecdote 5 - nothing to do with prostitution
Anecdote 6 - nothing to do with prostitution

You then say that if nothing is done on the streets you can’t see improvement and talk about posting to gain insight into solutions (of prostitution).

I think you are trolling

Regards
L

I was trying to show the prevalence of sexual problems around the home and how it drives people into prostitution.
Statistics are sometimes dry to our minds. If I say that 50% of males abuse someone, it is dry.
If I ask you to stand in line somewhere and look at the man on your right and then look at the man on your left and tell you statistically that they are both abusers then this casts a different light on the statistics.
Half who have responded then are likely abusers. Of course that does not apply here??

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:16 AM
I think your experiences are very non-typical. I certainly hope so, and they're nothing like mine.

I hope you are right but as stated, I am not gregarious. I will wait and see if others who are have different experiences.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:18 AM
I think they are made up.

I gain nothing by lying.

Regards
DL

Tanstaafl
24th May 2007, 08:19 AM
I was trying to show the prevalence of sexual problems around the home and how it drives people into prostitution.
Statistics are sometimes dry to our minds. If I say that 50% of males abuse someone, it is dry.
If I ask you to stand in line somewhere and look at the man on your right and then look at the man on your left and tell you statistically that they are both abusers then this casts a different light on the statistics.
Half who have responded then are likely abusers. Of course that does not apply here??

Regards
DL


It looks like your 50% figure went from a hypothetical to a fact all within one paragraph. I presume that's not what you really meant.

Are you saying there's data that 50% of males sexually abuse someone? Or is this all forms of abuse? Is this from specific studies? I'm not sure you're wrong, but I'd sure like more data before I conclude you're right.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:22 AM
If that's your date pool, you need to get out more.

I indicated that I was not gregarious and would like to compare with someone who was.
He may speak or are you saying that you do get out more and can compare.

Regards
DL

kbm99
24th May 2007, 08:23 AM
It looks like your 50% figure went from a hypothetical to a fact all within one paragraph. I presume that's not what you really meant.

Are you saying there's data that 50% of males sexually abuse someone? Or is this all forms of abuse?

If we include self-abuse then 50% becomes the under-estimation of the century.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:26 AM
As has already been pointed out, very little of that has to do with prostitution. Also, you seem to keep forgetting that these prostitutes you're so keen on 'saving' are individual people, who may or may not want you to save them - heck, they might not even need 'saving'! Your unrelated stories (true or not) are completely besides the point and take away from any actual discussion we could be having about prostitution on the whole.

OK.

How about the young Filipino virgin children going to the highest bidder.
Do they not need our help.

Regards
DL

Tanstaafl
24th May 2007, 08:28 AM
If we include self-abuse then 50% becomes the under-estimation of the century.


:D

GIA, I'm starting to think you meant 50% of the males of your acquiantance. But that's a very, very small sample to draw conclusions from. My sample probably comes out more like 2%, but that's probably way off because I doubt that I know more than a small fraction of what has really gone on in the lives of my acquaintances, and even family members.

toddjh
24th May 2007, 08:35 AM
How about the young Filipino virgin children going to the highest bidder. Do they not need our help.

The prostitution there is incidental; the real issue is slavery and human trafficking, and yes, they really need our help.

The problem with your position is that it you're seeing that a lot of terrible things (poverty, drugs, abuse, slavery) lead to prostitution, and concluding that prostitution itself must therefore be bad and needs to be stopped. That's an unwarranted assumption.

Prostitution would still be alive and well in a world without any of those things. There is constant demand for it, and it's a way for young women to make money very quickly without any other skills.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:36 AM
I second the notion of moral relativism.

And I want the female breast to be accepted as normal viewing material, cause I'm tired of wearing shirts in the summer when guys get to go around without. That is BS, seriously.+

The law here says that women can in public as well as at the beach.
Very few do. I am not sure why, after all, many were vocal and had the old laws changed??

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 08:44 AM
Agreed 100%.

And it would necessarily have to be a change in the moral standard, because merely changing the law would lead to a few brave women baring all, only to be surrounded and ruthlessly ogled by the mouth-breathing neanderthal portion of the population.

You know - the 'guys'? :)

And if it's any consolation whatsoever to you, SoBitter, I took a personal vow about ten years ago (when my weight first topped 200) to NOT go topless in public until women could safely too. Which, for someone who used to only get dressed if he was leaving his room, is quite a change, I must say.

Some philosopher said that to end sexuality except for reproduction all we need to do is go about naked.
He may have been right.
We do not see black native Africans who live in a bra-less existence ogling breasts. He sees them all the time and hold no fascination as breasts do here. Breasts here are for job creation perhaps.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 09:07 AM
That's a completely silly thing to say. The fact that there are societal taboos against incest has absolutely nothing to do with whether prostitution should be considered a legitimate profession. If my daughter were a prostitute (in a world where prostitution was socially acceptable), the fact that I wouldn't want to take advantage of her services doesn't necessarily mean I object to her choice of career, it just means that I find the idea of having sex with my own daughter creepy and gross.

GIA wrote
Yet someone else with your daughter is OK.

If my kid were a doctor, I wouldn't want to be his or her patient because it might be awkward and uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want him or her to be a doctor at all, and it certainly doesn't mean that being a doctor is "bad."

GIA wrote
And if he or she is the only one available then it would be OK be she doctor or hooker?

Anyway, you raised this point in response to my question of whether prostitutes are "selling their bodies" any more than manual laborers are, and I still don't see what your reply has to do with what I was asking.

I wonder if hookers would agree. Perhaps we will be lucky and hear from one.

To your point.
If your system were OK then there should be nothing stopping you from availing yourself of your daughter's or son's services.

If we could all do that then your system might have merit. At present I think that it would be hard for you to find many that could be with their own offspring.

At least I hope not.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 09:15 AM
It looks like your 50% figure went from a hypothetical to a fact all within one paragraph. I presume that's not what you really meant.

Are you saying there's data that 50% of males sexually abuse someone? Or is this all forms of abuse? Is this from specific studies? I'm not sure you're wrong, but I'd sure like more data before I conclude you're right.

I am using numbers that are dated and from memory. I would not know where to get current numbers and imagine that they are all over the board depending on the country you are studying.

Is the true number that important? I hope not. Whatever it is, it is too large for my liking and I hope yours as well.
There is a royal commission report that I will try to access.
I'll let you know when I find it.

Regards
DL

Tanstaafl
24th May 2007, 09:18 AM
I am using numbers that are dated and from memory. I would not know where to get current numbers and imagine that they are all over the board depending on the country you are studying.

Is the true number that important? I hope not. Whatever it is, it is too large for my liking and I hope yours as well.
There is a royal commission report that I will try to access.
I'll let you know when I find it.

Regards
DL


Is accuracy important? Yes.

Is precision important? No.

And of course, any non-zero number is too high for me. No one should be abused.

I was mostly wondering if you had specific studies in mind, or if this was a number you came up with from your personal experiences. Thanks for clearing that up.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 09:19 AM
:D

GIA, I'm starting to think you meant 50% of the males of your acquaintance. But that's a very, very small sample to draw conclusions from. My sample probably comes out more like 2%, but that's probably way off because I doubt that I know more than a small fraction of what has really gone on in the lives of my acquaintances, and even family members.

I do not know what it is about my personality that invites people to tell me some things. Perhaps it is my trusting nature or simply because I ask questions without borders.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 09:28 AM
The prostitution there is incidental; the real issue is slavery and human trafficking, and yes, they really need our help.

The problem with your position is that it you're seeing that a lot of terrible things (poverty, drugs, abuse, slavery) lead to prostitution, and concluding that prostitution itself must therefore be bad and needs to be stopped. That's an unwarranted assumption.

Prostitution would still be alive and well in a world without any of those things. There is constant demand for it, and it's a way for young women to make money very quickly without any other skills.

You may be right. Perhaps that is why some countries legalize the trade to reduce abuse.
In poor countries though this would not help because the laws are ignored anyway.

Things will not likely change until we all become our brothers keeper and try harder as a species to help each other out. Too bad, so sad.

Regards
DL

slingblade
24th May 2007, 10:38 AM
I wonder if hookers would agree. Perhaps we will be lucky and hear from one.

I know one. What exactly do you want to know? I can ask her.

She's a legal sex worker in Nevada, if that makes any difference.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 11:01 AM
I know one. What exactly do you want to know? I can ask her.

She's a legal sex worker in Nevada, if that makes any difference.

She would not fall into the category under discussion but thanks for the offer.

To those interested in the why of my question; I did a lot of research into addiction and prostitution was the focus of one of my interests.
Drugs tend to be an effect of the trade, not the cause.
There are always exceptions to the rule but few.

Poverty and lack of education is number 1-2.

Regards
DL

Loss Leader
24th May 2007, 11:07 AM
Some say they would not care if their off spring were in the trade.


Who says this? Who are these "some" who say anything like this?



If your system were OK then there should be nothing stopping you from availing yourself of your daughter's or son's services.


I'm starting to lose count of your unwarranted assumptions. Why would having a system where prostitution is legal necessarily mean that incest is legal?

Assume that the goal of law is to protect the freedom of choice of adults. Prostitution might be legal because those engaging in it are adults and can decide how they want to earn a living. But incest might still be illegal because of the much greater chance that an incestuous relationship involves force or coercion and does not reflect the free choice of each participant.

Assume that the goal of law is to allow people to maximize their economic opportunities. Prostitution might be legal because it allows people to employ all of their skills and assets to earn money. But incest might still be illegal because of the much greater chance that prostitutes will not be paid as well by family members.

Assume that the goal of law is to enforce a particular group's moral code on people whether they like it or not. Prostitution might be legal for indefinable and illogical reasons related to morality and incest may still be illegal for other illogical reasons.

Loss Leader
24th May 2007, 11:11 AM
She would not fall into the category under discussion but thanks for the offer.


Why not?

Your premises are that: 1. Prostitution is bad; and 2. Prostitution is largely caused by sexual abuse, poverty and lack of education.

Why would the real-world experiences of a prostitute not be a good data point for this discussion?

if we rule out all prostitutes who like their jobs, have other opportunities open to them and weren't abused, we've done nothing but begged the question.

toddjh
24th May 2007, 11:37 AM
I wonder if hookers would agree. Perhaps we will be lucky and hear from one.

Actually, that's the reason I brought it up. I know a prostitute in Nevada (high class, but not legal), and she thinks it's insulting and demeaning when people say she's "selling her body." That makes it sound like all she does is lie there with a glassy look, when in fact what she's doing is providing a service that men want. Most men don't just want to rent the use of a bodily orifice; they want company, affection, and the impression that it was "good for her too."

If your system were OK then there should be nothing stopping you from availing yourself of your daughter's or son's services.

Er...except that incest is creepy and wrong? (Yes, that's a personal opinion). I just don't understand your logic. Why does thinking prostitution should be legitimized automatically mean that you also have to believe incest is just fine and dandy? Why can't you say, "Yeah, prostitution isn't so bad" on the one hand, and then turn around and say, "Eww, I don't want to have sex with my own daughter" on the other? Why are the two incompatible?

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 11:38 AM
Who says this? Who are these "some" who say anything like this?


GIA wrote
Read the postings and you'l pick them out. I also have at least one anecdotal story if you need it.



I'm starting to lose count of your unwarranted assumptions. Why would having a system where prostitution is legal necessarily mean that incest is legal?

GIA wrote
Where did anybody say something so dumb?

Assume that the goal of law is to protect the freedom of choice of adults. Prostitution might be legal because those engaging in it are adults and can decide how they want to earn a living. But incest might still be illegal because of the much greater chance that an incestuous relationship involves force or coercion and does not reflect the free choice of each participant.

GIA wrote
I agree on the incest part. the other is as you say an assumption.

Assume that the goal of law is to allow people to maximize their economic opportunities. Prostitution might be legal because it allows people to employ all of their skills and assets to earn money. But incest might still be illegal because of the much greater chance that prostitutes will not be paid as well by family members.

GIA wrote
Why should a prostitute drop her price for daddy?

Assume that the goal of law is to enforce a particular group's moral code on people whether they like it or not. Prostitution might be legal for indefinable and illogical reasons related to morality and incest may still be illegal for other illogical reasons.


We assume to much here for me to answer.
I note though that you speak of protecting adult but have little to say on protecting children.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 11:43 AM
Why not?

Your premises are that: 1. Prostitution is bad; and 2. Prostitution is largely caused by sexual abuse, poverty and lack of education.

Why would the real-world experiences of a prostitute not be a good data point for this discussion?

GIA wrote
It would be good.

if we rule out all prostitutes who like their jobs, have other opportunities open to them and weren't abused, we've done nothing but begged the question.

You seem to think that most prostitutes like their job. You also do not like my statistics.
How about giving us some statistics on your unlikely premise.

Regards
DL

Piscivore
24th May 2007, 11:46 AM
I just don't understand your logic. Why does thinking prostitution should be legitimized automatically mean that you also have to believe incest is just fine and dandy? Why can't you say, "Yeah, prostitution isn't so bad" on the one hand, and then turn around and say, "Eww, I don't want to have sex with my own daughter" on the other? Why are the two incompatible?

Because the only categories he seems to know are prostitutes, people who were abused as children, and family members. Unfortunately, for him, these are all the same people.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 11:49 AM
Actually, that's the reason I brought it up. I know a prostitute in Nevada (high class, but not legal), and she thinks it's insulting and demeaning when people say she's "selling her body." That makes it sound like all she does is lie there with a glassy look, when in fact what she's doing is providing a service that men want. Most men don't just want to rent the use of a bodily orifice; they want company, affection, and the impression that it was "good for her too."



Er...except that incest is creepy and wrong? (Yes, that's a personal opinion). I just don't understand your logic. Why does thinking prostitution should be legitimized automatically mean that you also have to believe incest is just fine and dandy? Why can't you say, "Yeah, prostitution isn't so bad" on the one hand, and then turn around and say, "Eww, I don't want to have sex with my own daughter" on the other? Why are the two incompatible?

Because I think that people should look out for each others interests.
I cannot say it is good for you to put your daughter out there while hoping and praying that mine does not.

It is as bad for me to do your daughter as to do my own if I have any respect for you.

If we all did this would there be a problem with prostitution.
I think not.

Regards
DL

toddjh
24th May 2007, 11:58 AM
Because I think that people should look out for each others interests. I cannot say it is good for you to put your daughter out there while hoping and praying that mine does not.

But that's not the situation at all. I'm not saying it's okay for your daughter to become a prostitute but not mine, I'm just saying I don't want to have sex with my own daughter. Honestly, I just don't understand why such a simple idea seems so hard for you to grasp.

It is as bad for me to do your daughter as to do my own if I have any respect for you.

What? Why? Is it bad for me to "do" my wife? After all, she's somebody's daughter too...

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 12:19 PM
But that's not the situation at all. I'm not saying it's okay for your daughter to become a prostitute but not mine, I'm just saying I don't want to have sex with my own daughter. Honestly, I just don't understand why such a simple idea seems so hard for you to grasp.



What? Why? Is it bad for me to "do" my wife? After all, she's some body's daughter too...

Neither daughter should be prostitutes.
If this is not apparent, then what can I say.
If people cannot protect each other or feel for each other then what can I say.
If people use double standards what can I say.

How can a man say it is wrong to have his own daughter be a prostitute while going out in search of one for himself.

If we reduce the value of human life then how low will we go.
At one time it was to slavery, why not return to that time then we wont even have to try to protect our young we will be too busy using them. Who will care.


Regards
DL

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 12:25 PM
Because the only categories he seems to know are prostitutes, people who were abused as children, and family members. Unfortunately, for him, these are all the same people.

Why would anybody want to discuss prostitutes that are in it voluntarily.
Big deal. They want money and do not consider prostitution as evil. End of discussion.

Lets go where we might be helpful.

Regards
DL

toddjh
24th May 2007, 12:29 PM
Neither daughter should be prostitutes.
If this is not apparent, then what can I say.

It's not apparent. Somebody is going to be a prostitute, history has shown us that. Seriously, it's called "the oldest profession" for a reason. It's not something we can eliminate; nor, in my opinion, should we try to -- it won't work.

How can a man say it is wrong to have his own daughter be a prostitute while going out in search of one for himself.

In the bizarre hypothetical situation that my daughter told me she wanted to be a prostitute, I wouldn't think it was "wrong." I might think it was stupid, and definitely dangerous in today's society, and I'd probably think it was a waste of her talents (though who knows, maybe my hypothetical daughter is a total airhead), but I think the problems with prostitution are practical and not ethical.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I wouldn't want to have sex with my daughter even if she were a prostitute and I were in the market for one.

If we reduce the value of human life then how low will we go.

So prostitutes aren't people now?

I just don't understand your position. You seem to be starting with the assumption that prostitution is inherently bad because...well, I don't know why. Because a higher-than-average number of abused/addicted/poor people become prostitutes, I suppose, and so you think the link must go both ways.

I disagree with that assumption. Prostitutes are a necessary part of any society. Seriously. They're everywhere, in every culture. The demand for them is undeniable. It would be far better if their business were legalized and legitimized and not pushed to the margins of society where criminals can take control of them.

Loss Leader
24th May 2007, 01:05 PM
You seem to think that most prostitutes like their job. You also do not like my statistics.
How about giving us some statistics on your unlikely premise.



1. I did not say that most prostitutes like their job. I said that hearing the opinions of a prostitute might be an important way to learn what types of thoughts prostitutes have about their childhood and their profession.

2. I did not say that I did not like your statistics. Where you've given statistics (50% of men are abusers, for example), I've asked what your source was. Where you've given no statistics except anecdotal evidence, I've asked why we should believe your anecdotes represent a significant portion of the population.

3. I did not state a premise. I certainly did not state an unlikely premise. As such, I can't produce statistics because I've stated no fact that requires support. What I have done, however, is ask you to provide support. You have stated "facts" and you have done so without explaining your basis.

Loss Leader
24th May 2007, 01:25 PM
Neither daughter should be prostitutes.
If this is not apparent, then what can I say.


So you're argument goes:

1. Prostitution is bad.
2. This is apparent.
3. Therefore, anyone who thinks prostitution is not bad is wrong.

I think your reasoning might need a little tightening up.

pgwenthold
24th May 2007, 01:30 PM
I've been following this thread, and I'll be darned if I can detect a point to it.

We don't want our daughters to be prostitutes. OK, got it. I don't even disagree, I don't want my daughter to be a prostitute, either. OTOH, I don't want my daughter to be a fry chef at McDonalds, either, so I'm not sure what I want my daughter to be has to do with anything.

As for stuff like abuse and whatnot, as I said previously, prostitution is a non-surprising symptom of it, not a cause.

So what's the point of all this?

slingblade
24th May 2007, 02:11 PM
Actually, that's the reason I brought it up. I know a prostitute in Nevada (high class, but not legal), and she thinks it's insulting and demeaning when people say she's "selling her body." That makes it sound like all she does is lie there with a glassy look, when in fact what she's doing is providing a service that men want. Most men don't just want to rent the use of a bodily orifice; they want company, affection, and the impression that it was "good for her too."

My friend would say this, too. She's had parties that were just conversation, or just cuddling. She's been taken on out-dates in which she was a companion, or maybe just arm-candy, but no sex.

I believe, however, she got her start as a "lot-lizard." I may be mistaken, though, so I'd have to ask.

toddjh
24th May 2007, 02:24 PM
I believe, however, she got her start as a "lot-lizard." I may be mistaken, though, so I'd have to ask.

Even then I'm sure there's a lot more to it than just spreading your legs and suppressing a yawn until it's over. I'm sure it's not effortless work, and even if it's strictly physical, it's still a service, not a commodity.

Wheezebucket
24th May 2007, 02:34 PM
OK.

How about the young Filipino virgin children going to the highest bidder.
Do they not need our help.

Regards
DL

Ok, so you're not talking about prostitution, then. You're talking about child sex slavery - which is a very different ball of wax.

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 02:35 PM
It's not apparent. Somebody is going to be a prostitute, history has shown us that. Seriously, it's called "the oldest profession" for a reason. It's not something we can eliminate; nor, in my opinion, should we try to -- it won't work.



In the bizarre hypothetical situation that my daughter told me she wanted to be a prostitute, I wouldn't think it was "wrong." I might think it was stupid, and definitely dangerous in today's society, and I'd probably think it was a waste of her talents (though who knows, maybe my hypothetical daughter is a total airhead), but I think the problems with prostitution are practical and not ethical.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I wouldn't want to have sex with my daughter even if she were a prostitute and I were in the market for one.



So prostitutes aren't people now?

GIA wrote
How the hell do you get that from anything I wrote? Idiot.

I just don't understand your position. You seem to be starting with the assumption that prostitution is inherently bad because...well, I don't know why. Because a higher-than-average number of abused/addicted/poor people become prostitutes, I suppose, and so you think the link must go both ways.

I disagree with that assumption. Prostitutes are a necessary part of any society. Seriously. They're everywhere, in every culture. The demand for them is undeniable. It would be far better if their business were legalized and legitimized and not pushed to the margins of society where criminals can take control of them.

If they are as necessary as you say it would be because of a weakness in men.
Are men so week as to not even attempt to strengthen their character?
Sounds like what you are saying.

The oldest professions were hunting and gathering. Prostitution came later.

So let us all stay week and let our dicks decide on our morality. No wonder women have lost respect for us. We have lost respect for ourselves.

Regards
DL

toddjh
24th May 2007, 02:58 PM
If they are as necessary as you say it would be because of a weakness in men.

Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, but from my perspective the cause is largely biological. A lot of men are simply wired to want to #### anything that moves. Is that a weakness? Maybe, I guess. But as long as they're careful and don't force themselves on anyone, I have no problem with people ####ing as much as they want. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say the world would be a better place if there were more ####ing going on.

And I'm still waiting to hear what's so bad about exchanging sex for money anyway. If both parties are happy with the deal, what's the problem? Especially since many aspects of modern dating are basically "prostitution lite" anyway...

The oldest professions were hunting and gathering. Prostitution came later.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if prostitution predated hunting at least -- we've seen forms of prostitution among other primates, including baboons, gibbons, and various monkeys. It's possible that prostitution goes back millions of years, long before any human ancestors were hunting.

So let us all stay week and let our dicks decide on our morality.

Whoa, hang on. You haven't made a moral argument against prostitution at all, as far as I can tell. All you've done is point out some anecdotes that have almost nothing to do with prostitution, and draw some dubious conclusions. And even if we bought those, it would just mean that prostitution is bad, not wrong. A subtle distinction, maybe, but it's the difference between circumstantial wrong and moral wrong.

No wonder women have lost respect for us. We have lost respect for ourselves.

I really don't know what this means. I don't think there's any shortage of respect on either side of the gender line. Certainly no more than there ever was. In Western society, this is arguably the most enlightened period in history as far as gender and sexuality are concerned.

Hokulele
24th May 2007, 03:00 PM
I think this thread just became what over in CT they were referring to as "goal-posts in a tornado".

Greatest I am
24th May 2007, 03:05 PM
Ok, so you're not talking about prostitution, then. You're talking about child sex slavery - which is a very different ball of wax.

Be it a pimp or be it a father taking the dollars does she really split hairs as to what she will be called.
I may have generalized too much. I just don't see any difference.
Exploitation by any other name is still exploitation.

Regards
DL

Jon.
24th May 2007, 03:29 PM
Be it a pimp or be it a father taking the dollars does she really split hairs as to what she will be called.
I may have generalized too much. I just don't see any difference.
Exploitation by any other name is still exploitation.

Regards
DL

I am a lawyer. I use my ability to reason, to gather and assess evidence and to argue eloquently (I hope) for the benefit of my clients, whether or not I personally believe in their causes. I get paid for this. Nobody is forcing me to work as a lawyer. Am I being exploited?

My friend is an engineer. She uses her facility with math, her ability to design buildings and other abilities of which I know little for the benefit of her clients, whether she likes the buildings or not. She gets paid for this. Nobody is forcing her to be an engineer. Is she being exploited?

Another friend is a professional hockey player*. He uses his ability to stickhandle, to shoot a puck and bodycheck to entertain people, to the benefit of his employer, whether or not he enjoys playing hockey. He gets paid for this. Nobody is forcing him to be a hockey player. Is he being exploited?

Compare us to an adult prostitute. She (I will assume female as you seem to be doing so) uses her ability to give sexual pleasure and to simulate her own sexual desire and pleasure for the benefit of her clients, whether or not she is personally attracted to them. She gets paid for this. Assuming nobody is actually forcing her to work as a prostitute (as others have noted repeatedly, this is an entirely different question), is she being exploited?

You have an annoying habit of confusing issues with one another. Pick an issue and stick to it. You say that exploitation is bad. It certainly is a word with negative connotations. Does that automatically translate into prostitution being wrong? Only if you can show that all prostitution is exploitation. And that will depend on how you define exploitation - and be careful when you draw your definition that you don't capture the lawyer, the engineer and the professional athlete.

*Not really. But I do have a friend who played in the Olympics for Canada's women's hockey team.

Hokulele
24th May 2007, 03:45 PM
Compare us to an adult prostitute. She (I will assume female as you seem to be doing so) uses her ability to give sexual pleasure and to simulate her own sexual desire and pleasure for the benefit of her clients, whether or not she is personally attracted to them. She gets paid for this. Assuming nobody is actually forcing her to work as a prostitute (as others have noted repeatedly, this is an entirely different question), is she being exploited?


This brings up an interesting point, why assume that the prostitute in question is female? This report (http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/203946/contents.html) from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service seems to imply that the juvenile prostitution problem is not at all just an issue affecting females. In particular, please reference the page entitled Variation in the Prostitution of Juveniles (http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/203946/page4.html). On a separate page, they discuss what may have led to the numbers reported, and where bias may have sweked the results. However, it is still quite a bit different than I was expecting.

Z
24th May 2007, 04:14 PM
This is just might makes right. Their actions where moral but became immoral when others could enforce it.

No, you're not paying attention.

There is no such thing as an 'absolute moral'. There is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. Morality is always relative, and always defined by the prevalent and predominant culture in any given area. Yes, might helps by providing enforcement of morality, but it is not the only way that morality is reenforced.

It was an aboriginal man who married a young girl and then raped her when she refused him sex. SO he raped her. In his culture this was accepted, so he really shouldn't have been punished because he was not aware of Australian law, and so had no way of knowing that raping a young girl was wrong.

Ah. I don't know how much exposure aboriginals have to the Australian culture, so I'm going to have to guess that, in general, aborigines are largely unaware of the prevailing culture of Australia itself. But, no, within context of his culture, what he did was right. In context of OUR culture, it was wrong. In context of Australian culture, I assume it was wrong. But was he enmeshed in that culture, or was that culture largely unavailable to him?

found it link (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1441538.htm)

He got one month in prison precisely because of your position here. How can he be punished for something that is condoned by his society?

That sounds a fair judgement to me. Since he was unaware of the greater cultural situation, his punishment was soft enough to serve as education for him. Obviously, the predominant society - the non-native Australian society - has decided that the aboriginal practice of raping unwilling wives is wrong, and is taking steps to change the subordinate culture appropriately.

Sounds good... what's the problem?

You say it is because his society is inside a larger one, but that is just the result of conquest, by that rational many of the so called war crimes are moral in WWII because they where in conquered territory.

And if those territories remained conquered, AND there were no global society to supercede the conquering society - then, yes. Absolutely.

Fortunately, that's not the situation.

The only reason war crimes ARE considered immoral is because we DO have a larger predominant culture that superimposes over local cultures, and THAT culture defines certain crimes as immoral. If the global community didn't exist, there'd be no punishment for 'war crimes'.

Consider, for example, the many very harsh, terrible things done to Native Americans in our past - and there haven't been tribunals assembled to seek reparations for war crimes in our culture. Why? Because the predominant culture here did not see the extermination of entire tribes of Native Americans to be immoral. And, frankly, the world doesn't care much about the Native Americans any more, so that's not likely to change either.

No they are wrong

By whose standards? By what context?

[qutoe]Yes it is. There is nothing that is not permissible just as long as it is legal in your society.[/quote]

As long as it is permissible within the predominant culture under which you live.

Because some activities are wrong, period.

Like what? Can you name any specific activity that never, ever, under any possible circumstances or cultural states, has been considered ok?

This is a great way to be an apologist for say the inquisition, nothing immoral or wrong happened, because society sanctioned the torture and burnings, so there is no need to apologize or consider that something bad happened.

...except for the greater global culture under which we all exist.

As it is, at the time and in those places, there was nothing immoral happening. Only in context of our modern culture do we see the Inquisition as wrong - and not everyone today does, by the way. There are those who think the torturing and murdering of infidels and blasphemers is a GOOD thing, and who long for a modern Inquisition.

But the prevailing, predominant culture of the Global Community considers religious persecution to be wrong.

I am not arguing for static morality, you have not asked me at all what I would base a moral system on, and that is moral philosophy backed up testing to make sure that you are not making unsupported assumptions, like say about the superiority of men.

Actually, you are. You are claiming that some things are 'just plain wrong', without offering evidence as to why. You are arguing for absolute morality, which by definition is also stagnant morality.

Consider what started our argument in the first place, was that you were bothered because age of consent laws differ from state to state. You would have age of consent laws be universal, it seems - in other words, static.

You are the one who would not view a static morality as bad because there is no absolute morality so you can not view a moral structure that say treats women as property and burns all homosexuals as any worse than one that does not do these things.

What? That made no sense. My entire point is that morality is not static, that it is dynamic and cultural-specific.

If the overarching culture of the global community thought women should be property and homosexuals should be burned, then those would be moral actions. Indeed, some think these opinions are VERY moral actions, and that treating women above their stations (as equals) and not murdering homosexuals is immoral.

But - to use a better phrase - there is a metacultural taboo against treating women as property, that is growing and spreading across the globe; and a similar taboo against mistreating gays is also spreading.

As to one being worse than or better than another - I think that's an almost impossible statement to make without referring to some moral framework. IS a society that treats women as property better than one that does not? In the USA today, no. In a strictly conservative Islamic or early Catholic society, yes, it's far better.

But there's no absolute framework to view these issues from. You ALWAYS have to define your framework when discussing issues of morality.

Is it better, economically, to own women? (I don't know, but I'd guess not) Is it better psychologically? As regards population control? Family discipline? Advancement of human knowledge?

Different frameworks, different answers.

It is my personal opinion that women are superior to men, and that men should count themselves lucky to not be the property of women; likewise, it is my opinion that no one's sexual orientation (as long as it's between consenting adults, regardless of number, race, or gender) should ever be an issue for anyone. But that's within my personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with morality.

The culture in which I exist counts men and women, gay, straight, bi, transgender, etc. as all equal. The metaculture of Ohio has less respect for equality based on sexual preference, but the prevailing metaculture of the United States is growing towards considering sexual-orientation equality to be moral. Globally, I'd venture to say that the metaculture is similarly warming to treating all sexual orientations as equal. So, of course, I feel that doing so is a good thing, since this is the culture in which I live - to several levels.

So as they are equal why try to change it?

Recall also that cultures exist that are not embodied in law and government. After all, the lessons we've learned regarding government is that it is preferable for the government to answer to the people, rather than the people answering to the government. So if the social and cultural morality should change and come into conflict against the prevailing legal morality, then that legal morality is likely to change - though over time, of course.

Moral systems are never either equal nor comparably better or worse than one another, in absolute terms... you can only compare them by first applying another moral framework over them.

Hence, morality remains, as always, relative.

Yes, in our current culture, I agree that some things are wrong. Incest, rape, sexually abusing children, sex with animals, murder, torture... but I also am willing to recognize that these things are wrong within our cultural system, and that other cultural systems may disagree.

I think part of the problem is that you are unwilling to step out of your own framework for even an instant to look at the situation. Are you willing and able to step out of your current system of beliefs and morals, and step into an alien system for a moment, to consider what would then be right or wrong?

Since this started with a discussion about teenage girls, let's start there. The current situation is that teenage girls are generally considered taboo as objects of sexual desire, though there is much grey area to be explored on the subject. Now step out from this framework and into a different one - say, one where the population is only a few hundred people, and health care is almost non-existent; where a person's lifespan may be no more than four decades, and two-thirds of babies never survive to reach puberty.

Does a teenage girl become more appropriate as an object of sexual desire? Of course. Old enough to breed, old enough to help ensure the survival of her tribe.

On the other hand, in an overpopulated society, where survival and success is measured by gaining an excellent education, where lifespans are expanded, and where taking time to have a child as a teenager might also mean losing many opportunities for education and career, the teenage girl becomes less appropriate as an object of sexual desire.

In theory, we could even generate a cultural condition in which sexual activity with anyone under 21 would be strictly taboo, if we create the right conditions.

Yes, we could consider it apologetics, and I agree it would be a terrible stretch to come up with a social/cultural environment where, say, executing newborn boys six weeks after birth is right. But the fact is, it is possible, and goes to show that morality is a dynamic and relative condition.

Now, with the growing and maturing global culture we have today, many taboos are becoming globally predominant. Though these moral codes aren't by any means absolute, they can be considered to be universal. Yet if the global society collapses, those universal morals will fade and vanish once again.

Z
24th May 2007, 04:15 PM
But this isn't relativism, relativism is the idea that arresting you for not wearing a shirt and permitting you to not wear a shirt are equal in terms of morality.

There is nothing fundamentaly wrong with say Iran when it publicly exicutes homosexuals because society is in favor of it. That is the relativism that is being promoted here.


Yes, because there is nothing fundamentally wrong.

Right and wrong are purely human creations, and are always defined by culture.

Z
24th May 2007, 04:18 PM
My Franglais must get in my way sometimes.
My point was for those with a cavalier position on prostitution.

Some say they would not care if their off spring were in the trade.
I am asking if they would then use their own offspring for gratification.
When I ask this they usually reword their replies.

Regards
DL

That makes no sense. Approving of prostitution does not lead to approving to incest.

There are several professions which are inappropriate for a family member to be a client/patient. Heck, even in retail, the company my wife works for forbids a family member to sell to another family member.

Other more reasonable examples include: medical care, psychological care, social services, and investment services.

Legal government-regulated prostitution is far preferable to a situation in which prostitution is illegal, simply because it will always exist anyway. And if a person wants to sell their sexual services, then who are we to intervene and deny them that right?

Why is sex the one thing we can give away freely, but not sell?

Wheezebucket
24th May 2007, 05:40 PM
Be it a pimp or be it a father taking the dollars does she really split hairs as to what she will be called.
I may have generalized too much. I just don't see any difference.
Exploitation by any other name is still exploitation.

Regards
DL

Idiotic. Not to mention insulting to the guys and girls out there who don't subscribe to your version of 'morality'. How in the world is it just 'splitting hairs' to point out the difference between an 8 year old girl forced into sexual slavery by an adult and an of-age woman who chooses to have sex for money for any number of different reasons? Are you even awake when you make these posts?

And when did we start bringing pimps into this? I think all your ridiculous 'outrage' stems from your complete lack of information on the subject. Try educating yourself a bit so you can speak on some specifics. Because I'm sure there are even a few points we would agree on, but not while you've got them wrapped up in this giant blanket of ignorance and bigotry.

Loss Leader
24th May 2007, 06:10 PM
If they are as necessary as you say it would be because of a weakness in men.


What evidence do you have that the male desire to pay for sex is a weakness of character?

Are men so week as to not even attempt to strengthen their character?


What evidence do you have that weaknesses of character can be strengthened?


The oldest professions were hunting and gathering. Prostitution came later.


What evidence do you have that hunting and gathering predated prostitution?

For that matter, the statement seems illogical on its face. Our ancestors lived in a harsh and dangerous environment back in Clan of the Cave Bear times. Women, usually physically weaker and saddled with young children, generally could not defend themselves or provide enough for themselves and their children. It seems logical that they traded the one commodity that took no energy to gather (sex) for the protection and generosity of whichever men could afford them. The really hot women got the better hunters and the crack whore h. heidelbergensis women got the less capable men. That this system could branch out and co-evolve into both loving marriage on the one end and out-and-out prostitution on the other seems reasonable at least to me.


No wonder women have lost respect for us.


Please cite any evidence you have that women have lost respect for men.


We have lost respect for ourselves.


Please cite any evidence you have that men have lost respect for themselves.


Be it a pimp or be it a father taking the dollars does she really split hairs as to what she will be called.
I may have generalized too much. I just don't see any difference.
Exploitation by any other name is still exploitation.


You were speaking about pimps who prostitute adult women on the one hand and fathers who abuse their young children on the other. Do you really not see a difference between those two clasifications? Is the difference between an adult woman and a young child really just splitting hairs?

Loss Leader
24th May 2007, 06:12 PM
I am a lawyer. I use my ability to reason, to gather and assess evidence and to argue eloquently (I hope) for the benefit of my clients, whether or not I personally believe in their causes. I get paid for this. Nobody is forcing me to work as a lawyer. Am I being exploited?


As a fellow lawyer please allow me to implore you to just leave us the hell out of this.

Thunder
24th May 2007, 07:37 PM
Some argue that prostitution and a looser social regulations about sex is what keeps the West from developing suicide bombers...:D

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 04:11 AM
I am a lawyer. I use my ability to reason, to gather and assess evidence and to argue eloquently (I hope) for the benefit of my clients, whether or not I personally believe in their causes. I get paid for this. Nobody is forcing me to work as a lawyer. Am I being exploited?

My friend is an engineer. She uses her facility with math, her ability to design buildings and other abilities of which I know little for the benefit of her clients, whether she likes the buildings or not. She gets paid for this. Nobody is forcing her to be an engineer. Is she being exploited?

Another friend is a professional hockey player*. He uses his ability to stickhandle, to shoot a puck and bodycheck to entertain people, to the benefit of his employer, whether or not he enjoys playing hockey. He gets paid for this. Nobody is forcing him to be a hockey player. Is he being exploited?

Compare us to an adult prostitute. She (I will assume female as you seem to be doing so) uses her ability to give sexual pleasure and to simulate her own sexual desire and pleasure for the benefit of her clients, whether or not she is personally attracted to them. She gets paid for this. Assuming nobody is actually forcing her to work as a prostitute (as others have noted repeatedly, this is an entirely different question), is she being exploited?

You have an annoying habit of confusing issues with one another. Pick an issue and stick to it. You say that exploitation is bad. It certainly is a word with negative connotations. Does that automatically translate into prostitution being wrong? Only if you can show that all prostitution is exploitation. And that will depend on how you define exploitation - and be careful when you draw your definition that you don't capture the lawyer, the engineer and the professional athlete.

*Not really. But I do have a friend who played in the Olympics for Canada's women's hockey team.

Always pleased to annoy. It may generate thought.

I started the post speaking of abusive situations leading many young people into the trade. On that note let me say that no one abused you into your trade. No one abused your friend into hers. Good for you guys.

Not so good for the 12 year old virgin in the Philippines or your 14 year old poor neighbour.

No one kidnaps lawyer for their abilities. Or athletes for that matter.

It is unmanly for men to go about doing other men's young daughters. Dicks have no conscience this is true but men should have.

I would prefer to live in a world where there are some morals and ethics.
I do not like taboos but to have open season on children seems unmanly.
If men do not help and protect children, who will.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 04:25 AM
That makes no sense. Approving of prostitution does not lead to approving to incest.

GIA wrote
Knowing that half the prostitutes are there because of abuse and incest may.

There are several professions which are inappropriate for a family member to be a client/patient. Heck, even in retail, the company my wife works for forbids a family member to sell to another family member.

GIA wrote
Not on moral grounds.

Other more reasonable examples include: medical care, psychological care, social services, and investment services.

GIA wrote
Not on moral grounds.

Legal government-regulated prostitution is far preferable to a situation in which prostitution is illegal, simply because it will always exist anyway. And if a person wants to sell their sexual services, then who are we to intervene and deny them that right?

GIA wrote
Then we never clean up our act in the home.
Children have a right to not be abused and a right not to be exploited.

Legalization wold no doubt be good for adult prostitutes but we are talking more of children here.

Why is sex the one thing we can give away freely, but not sell?

Because we associate it with love. That is what is supposed to make us moral and ethical and look out for each other and each others children.
It is hard for a man to help children one day while paying for their services at night.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 04:44 AM
GIA wrote
Is this a court evidence, evidence, evidence.
Try logic instead.

What evidence do you have that the male desire to pay for sex is a weakness of character?

GIA wrote
It shows a lack of confidence in winning over a non prostitute.
Where is man the hunter. Now we have man the dollar.

What evidence do you have that weaknesses of character can be strengthened?

GIA wrote
Dumb question.

What evidence do you have that hunting and gathering predated prostitution?

GIA wrote
Nature always places survival before procreation. Want evidence.

For that matter, the statement seems illogical on its face. Our ancestors lived in a harsh and dangerous environment back in Clan of the Cave Bear times. Women, usually physically weaker and saddled with young children, generally could not defend themselves or provide enough for themselves and their children. It seems logical that they traded the one commodity that took no energy to gather (sex) for the protection and generosity of whichever men could afford them. The really hot women got the better hunters and the crack whore h. heidelbergensis women got the less capable men. That this system could branch out and co-evolve into both loving marriage on the one end and out-and-out prostitution on the other seems reasonable at least to me.

GIA wrote
Hog wash.

Please cite any evidence you have that women have lost respect for men.

GIA wrote
Ask them fool.

Please cite any evidence you have that men have lost respect for themselves.

GIA wrote
Men who think that a hooker sees a man approaching them is delusional. She sees dollars approaching. Reducing yourself to a bit of coke is to loose respect for yourself.

You were speaking about pimps who prostitute adult women on the one hand and fathers who abuse their young children on the other. Do you really not see a difference between those two classifications? Is the difference between an adult woman and a young child really just splitting hairs?

Not when the adult woman was likely abused or coerced in the first place.
What is the difference between a father abusing his 14 year old or going out to pay for some other fathers 14 year old.
Do you see a major difference excluding the fee?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 04:47 AM
Some argue that prostitution and a looser social regulations about sex is what keeps the West from developing suicide bombers...:D

The same are the reasons that they come at us.
Perhaps they are tired of seeing westerners going to the third world and buying their women and children.

Regards
DL

ponderingturtle
25th May 2007, 05:19 AM
Yes, because there is nothing fundamentally wrong.

Right and wrong are purely human creations, and are always defined by culture.

As both are equaly right, why would one be better than the other? Why try to change morals as any moral is just as correct as any other?

Moral correctness is finaly decided by force, if you can force your morals on someone you are right to do so.

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 05:26 AM
As both are equaly right, why would one be better than the other? Why try to change morals as any moral is just as correct as any other?

Moral correctness is finally decided by force, if you can force your morals on someone you are right to do so.

You can force people to do what you want.
You cannot force them to think as you do without convincing them that you are correct.

Regards
DL

Loss Leader
25th May 2007, 06:03 AM
It is unmanly for men to go about doing other men's young daughters.... I do not like taboos but to have open season on children seems unmanly. If men do not help and protect children, who will.
It is hard for a man to help children one day while paying for their services at night.
What is the difference between a father abusing his 14 year old or going out to pay for some other fathers 14 year old.



So, GIA, can we assume from these posts that you have now focussed your objection on child prostitution? You keep mixing up child abuse, child sex slavery, adults who were abused as children and adult prostitution. In these successive quotes, however, you seem to have honed in solely on child sex slavery.

If you would like to limit this conversation to child sex slavery then I think you'll find widespread agreement that children should not be used as sexual objects by adults. You'll probably find widespread agreement that minors as old as 17 should not be used as sexual objects by adults even if the minors consent.

Beyond that, however, you're going to have to provide some sort of verifiable reasons for your position. You have yet to do so.


Is this a court evidence, evidence, evidence?
Try logic instead.


So idiotic that it's my new sig line.

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 06:21 AM
So, GIA, can we assume from these posts that you have now focused your objection on child prostitution? You keep mixing up child abuse, child sex slavery, adults who were abused as children and adult prostitution. In these successive quotes, however, you seem to have honed in solely on child sex slavery.

If you would like to limit this conversation to child sex slavery then I think you'll find widespread agreement that children should not be used as sexual objects by adults. You'll probably find widespread agreement that minors as old as 17 should not be used as sexual objects by adults even if the minors consent.

Beyond that, however, you're going to have to provide some sort of verifiable reasons for your position. You have yet to do so.





So idiotic that it's my new sig line.

I am flexible to any dialog.
As you can see from other posters, there are many branches to this tree.
I think that these things are all interrelated especially if we look at the various situations around the world.

But yes, I have a personal focus on abuse in the home and how men, to my way of thinking are shirking their responsibility to the family. Note that we even needed to implement rather harsh laws for divorced fathers who did not want to take financial responsibility after a divorce.

Men do not feel for their children in our culture the way I think we should.
As you can see though, most of the dialog here has focused on the rights of prostitutes, but few mention the children and their rights.

Regards
DL

toddjh
25th May 2007, 07:13 AM
Men do not feel for their children in our culture the way I think we should. As you can see though, most of the dialog here has focused on the rights of prostitutes, but few mention the children and their rights.

That's because the thread is called "What to do with prostitutes," not "What to do about child sex slavery." If you started a thread about the latter subject, I'm sure every single person here would agree it's despicable and needs to be stopped.

Prostitution involving consenting adults, on the other hand, is neither immoral nor something we need to stop.

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 07:26 AM
That's because the thread is called "What to do with prostitutes," not "What to do about child sex slavery." If you started a thread about the latter subject, I'm sure every single person here would agree it's despicable and needs to be stopped.

Prostitution involving consenting adults, on the other hand, is neither immoral nor something we need to stop.

As noted above, to me it all comes together.
I agree that I should have been more focused in my opening.

As to stopping prostitution outright or legalization, I am undecided.
I look at a city, any city, with a red light district and then imagine it without that red light district.
I see the latter as a better looking city. Not for the physical appearance but for it's ---psyche-- might be the right word.

Regards
DL

toddjh
25th May 2007, 07:38 AM
As noted above, to me it all comes together.

But you haven't given us any reason to believe that prostitution is anything more than an effect and not a cause.

As to stopping prostitution outright or legalization, I am undecided.
I look at a city, any city, with a red light district and then imagine it without that red light district.

Good luck with that. Prostitution is already illegal in most places, and those red light districts still exist. Harsher punishments will just drive it even further into bad parts of town, make it more dangerous for both the women and their clients, land a lot of people in jail for no good reason, and put money in the pockets of crooked law enforcement officials who look the other way.

I see the latter as a better looking city. Not for the physical appearance but for it's ---psyche-- might be the right word.

Let's solve the problem of homelessness by banning bums from all our cities, too.

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 08:23 AM
But you haven't given us any reason to believe that prostitution is anything more than an effect and not a cause.

GIA wrote
Prostitution is probably the cause of many undesirable things but I had not been trying to speak to that issue. I have digressed enough already to get chastisement from some.
I see prostitution as more of effect with abuse as the cause of much of it.

Good luck with that. Prostitution is already illegal in most places, and those red light districts still exist. Harsher punishments will just drive it even further into bad parts of town, make it more dangerous for both the women and their clients, land a lot of people in jail for no good reason, and put money in the pockets of crooked law enforcement officials who look the other way.

GIA wrote
I agree. Do you agree though that the city would look better--psychy--without it?

Let's solve the problem of homelessness by banning bums from all our cities, too.

I understand that some cities are trying this in the US.
Canadian cities in the past were giving free bus tickets to try and do the same.

Poverty may be the root cause and if rich nations do not start to chare more than current levels, poor countries will come to bite us in the rear.

Do you know any words that will change the mind set of the world.
Please utter them and make it so.

Regards
DL

toddjh
25th May 2007, 08:37 AM
I see prostitution as more of effect with abuse as the cause of much of it.

So what makes you think prostitution itself is so bad, then? Trying to reduce abuse by eliminating prostitution is like trying to cure an infection by taking aspirin for the pain.

I agree. Do you agree though that the city would look better--psychy--without it?

I don't think there's any point in speculating about impossible situations.

I understand that some cities are trying this in the US.
Canadian cities in the past were giving free bus tickets to try and do the same.

Yeah, because they don't care about solving the problem, they just want it to be somebody else's problem.

Do you know any words that will change the mind set of the world.
Please utter them and make it so.

"Abracadabra."

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 08:52 AM
So what makes you think prostitution itself is so bad, then?

GIA wrote
I see prostitution growing in large part from the abuse of children and from the fact that to me it shows a weakness in men. Otherwise you end up clouding issues. IE. A recent president who cannot relate a blow job to sexuality.
Is this a good example for our youth. No.

Trying to reduce abuse by eliminating prostitution is like trying to cure an infection by taking aspirin for the pain.

GIA wrote
If all you have is aspirin, it is a pain drug.

I don't think there's any point in speculating about impossible situations.

GIA wrote
I take that as agreement. You would have stated it if it was otherwise.

Yeah, because they don't care about solving the problem, they just want it to be somebody else's problem.

GIA wrote
Agreed.

"Abracadabra."

Let's see if that works.

Regards
DL

toddjh
25th May 2007, 08:59 AM
I see prostitution growing in large part from the abuse of children and from the fact that to me it shows a weakness in men.

Okay, which is what I said: it's an effect, not a cause. I agree the causes are bad. We all agree the causes are bad. What is wrong with prostitution?

If all you have is aspirin, it is a pain drug.

And all it does it make things worse by removing a warning sign without doing anything at all to actually solve the underlying problems.

I take that as agreement. You would have stated it if it was otherwise.

I would've stated my agreement if I agreed. I just don't think there's any point in speculating about a hypothetical situation that could never come to pass. Successfully eliminating prostitution from a large city would require such drastic changes to society, biology, and human nature that I would have no idea what civilization would be like anymore. It would be such a huge science-fiction scenario that I have no idea if such a city would be good or not.

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 09:35 AM
Okay, which is what I said: it's an effect, not a cause. I agree the causes are bad. We all agree the causes are bad. What is wrong with prostitution?



And all it does it make things worse by removing a warning sign without doing anything at all to actually solve the underlying problems.



I would've stated my agreement if I agreed. I just don't think there's any point in speculating about a hypothetical situation that could never come to pass. Successfully eliminating prostitution from a large city would require such drastic changes to society, biology, and human nature that I would have no idea what civilization would be like anymore. It would be such a huge science-fiction scenario that I have no idea if such a city would be good or not.

If we agree that all these causes for prostitution are bad then when does prostitution become good. When is placing a price tag on a human good.
Are humans now just a commodity. If we are then slavery was never healthier. We can all own slaves, just for a while. Isn't that nice!

I submit that the buyer here is just as much a slave to His desire as the seller. The seller may be healthier mentally because she at least recognizes that fact while the buyer is too blind to see his own slavery.

Is this supposed to be the good part of prostitution?
Should we not aspire to better things?

Regards
DL

Loss Leader
25th May 2007, 10:01 AM
If we agree that all these causes for prostitution are bad then when does prostitution become good.


We have not agreed that the underlying causes of prostitution are bad because we have not agreed on the underlying causes of prostitution. You have asserted without evidence that child abuse leads to prostitution and people here have answered that: 1) Not all child abuse leads to prostitution; and 2) Not all prostitution is caused by child abuse. You have failed to show a logical or factual connection between the two. Until you come up with some statistics, people can reasonably treat the phenomena as separate and unrelated things.

Even so, just because an underlying cause of something is bad does NOT necessarily mean that the thing itself is bad. There is little doubt among historians that the Holocaust was a major cause in the recognition of the State of Israel a few years later. Does the contention that the establishment of Israel was a good thing mean that the Holocaust was a good thing? Does the contention that the Holocaust was a bad thing mean that establishing the State of Israel was a bad thing?


I submit that the buyer here is just as much a slave to His desire as the seller. The seller may be healthier mentally because she at least recognizes that fact while the buyer is too blind to see his own slavery.


Perhaps but this is so wildly unrelated to your original point that it has no place in this thread.

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 10:08 AM
We have not agreed that the underlying causes of prostitution are bad because we have not agreed on the underlying causes of prostitution. You have asserted without evidence that child abuse leads to prostitution and people here have answered that: 1) Not all child abuse leads to prostitution; and 2) Not all prostitution is caused by child abuse. You have failed to show a logical or factual connection between the two. Until you come up with some statistics, people can reasonably treat the phenomena as separate and unrelated things.

Even so, just because an underlying cause of something is bad does NOT necessarily mean that the thing itself is bad. There is little doubt among historians that the Holocaust was a major cause in the recognition of the State of Israel a few years later. Does the contention that the establishment of Israel was a good thing mean that the Holocaust was a good thing? Does the contention that the Holocaust was a bad thing mean that establishing the State of Israel was a bad thing?





Perhaps but this is so wildly unrelated to your original point that it has no place in this thread.

You asked why prostitution was bad. I answered and now it does not relate.
OK

As to your former, I have given stats.

Read any book on the topic of either drug abuse or prostitution and you will see the connection. Clear as the nose on your face.

Regards
DL

Jon.
25th May 2007, 10:39 AM
You asked why prostitution was bad. I answered and now it does not relate.
OK

No, you answered as to why child sex abduction is bad, and why exploitation of people who were abused is bad. You did not explain why prostitution is bad. You might want to give that a try.

As to your former, I have given stats.

Read any book on the topic of either drug abuse or prostitution and you will see the connection. Clear as the nose on your face.

Regards
DL

But you still haven't answered the question about whether it is prostitution that is bad in and of itself, nor the question about whether it would be okay if it were only prostitutes who were not abused (and even your own statistics would suggest that this is most of them). And where did drug abuse come from?

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 10:56 AM
No, you answered as to why child sex abduction is bad, and why exploitation of people who were abused is bad. You did not explain why prostitution is bad. You might want to give that a try.



But you still haven't answered the question about whether it is prostitution that is bad in and of itself, nor the question about whether it would be okay if it were only prostitutes who were not abused (and even your own statistics would suggest that this is most of them). And where did drug abuse come from?

I indicated that making commodities of our selves was bad.
Man not in control of his libido is bad.
All of the reasons they become prostitutes are bad including putting ones self through school with the trade.
The decease and corruption that flows from it is bad.
If you need more read o book.

Regards
DL

Jon.
25th May 2007, 11:08 AM
I indicated that making commodities of our selves was bad.

In that case, you have not answered my earlier post about why the lawyer (sorry, Loss Leader), the engineer or the professional athlete making commodities of themselves (or more precisely, their abilities) is not bad. Or is it? Perhaps we should stop commodifying our skills, and just go back to being subsistence farmers or hunter/gatherers.

Man not in control of his libido is bad.

You seem to be implying that the existence of prostitution necessarily means a lack of control of libido in the human male. Why do you make this connection? Do you not think that prostitution could be seen as a control measure - get the men to "vent" their libidos with professionals rather than raping or killing?

All of the reasons they become prostitutes are bad including putting ones self through school with the trade.

All generalizations suck.;)

Seriously, though, the only reason I could see for saying this is that prostitution is in and of itself a bad thing - a proposition you haven't been able to defend in the least, and when pressed, you change the subject. Every time.

The decease and corruption that flows from it is bad.

"Decease" (ie. death) or "disease"? Either way, if it were possible to separate the negative consequences you associate with prostitution from the act of providing sexual services for money, would that change your mind? If not, then leave the negative consequences out of it and focus on why you think prostitution is wrong per se.

If you need more read o book.

Which one(s) do you recommend?

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 11:25 AM
In that case, you have not answered my earlier post about why the lawyer (sorry, Loss Leader), the engineer or the professional athlete making commodities of themselves (or more precisely, their abilities) is not bad. Or is it? Perhaps we should stop commodifying our skills, and just go back to being subsistence farmers or hunter/gatherers.

GIA wrote
Here you compare trained skills to unskilled people.

You seem to be implying that the existence of prostitution necessarily means a lack of control of libido in the human male. Why do you make this connection? Do you not think that prostitution could be seen as a control measure - get the men to "vent" their libidos with professionals rather than raping or killing?

GIA wrote
You make my point of control. So little of it that these men will turn to crime.
How professional do you need to be to do what mother nature gives to all. Professional 12 year old. Ya.

All generalizations suck.;)

Seriously, though, the only reason I could see for saying this is that prostitution is in and of itself a bad thing - a proposition you haven't been able to defend in the least, and when pressed, you change the subject. Every time.

GIA wrote
And here I was starting to think that I had just about done you in. I detected some reaching.

"Decease" (ie. death) or "disease"? Either way, if it were possible to separate the negative consequences you associate with prostitution from the act of providing sexual services for money, would that change your mind? If not, then leave the negative consequences out of it and focus on why you think prostitution is wrong per se.

Gia wrote
How can I leave the negative out of it and prove it negative. Goof. Smiles all around on that one. You are reaching.

Which one(s) do you recommend?

Pardon my Franglais disease and illness.
Check what low morals has done in South Africa.

Regards
DL

Achán hiNidráne
25th May 2007, 11:48 AM
I indicated that making commodities of our selves was bad.

Everyone with talents and the physical capability to use them is a "commodity;" the doctor, the construction worker, the airline pilot, the fast-food fry-cook, etc.

I suggest you learn some basic economics.

Man not in control of his libido is bad.

What do you mean by "Man not in control of his libido." How does having access to one more sexual outlet lead to "Man" losing control of their sexual desires?

Any component psychologist will tell you that, for the most part, repressing your sexual urges is what is bad. Not everyone is as fortunate in attracting a mate as others, and masturbation only puts a band-aid on the situation. For the lonely human being who needs sexual release, what other alternatives exist?

All of the reasons they become prostitutes are bad including putting ones self through school with the trade.

Not every college student is cut out for four years of working summers at McDonalds for minimum wage. Have you SEEN tuition rates?

The decease...

I'm assuming you mean "disease." It's called a condom, and most societies where prostitution is legal make sure that sex workers have access to them along with health care and birth control.

...and corruption that flows from it is bad.

What "corruption" are you speaking of?

If it is public corruption, that is a direct result of the prohibition of prostitution. Black markets don't try to bribe, influence, or bully government to overlook their activities over LEGAL goods and services. If you want another example, look no further than this country's (USA) moronic attempt to ban alcohol which continues today in the form of the oppressive "War On Drugs." Al Capone didn't become powerful because booze was legal in the 1920s, just as the drug cartels don't make their money today on legal cocaine or heroin.

If you are raising the canard of "moral corruption," that depends on your "morals." To an uptight prude, prostitution is indeed moral corruption. To someone with a more enlightened notion of sexuality, it's no big thing.

Why should the rest of society suffer for the sake of anyone's sexual hang-ups?

If you need more read o book.

Given your handle and your anti-sex attitudes, I have this sneaking suspicion that that "o book" you want us to read is the one you thump weekly in some church. Turning to The Bible or any other work of religion for moral guidance is sort of like citing an episode of Star Trek as a resource on astrophysics.

In the meantime, I highly recommend that you get a book on English grammar and read that!

Achán hiNidráne
25th May 2007, 11:53 AM
Check what low morals has done in South Africa.

Regards
DL

"[L]ow morals" according to whom?

slingblade
25th May 2007, 11:56 AM
Check what low morals has done in South Africa.


Oh, I've seen just what the low morals of the Afrikaaners and Boers has done to those people, and is still doing.

(taking bets that this goes right on by....)

Jon.
25th May 2007, 12:00 PM
Here you compare trained skills to unskilled people.

In that case, change it to construction workers or janitors or whatever unskilled workers you want. You will still have to provide a workable definition of "exploitation" that includes prostitutes and excludes other people working for a living if you want to say that the prostitution is bad because of exploitation.

You make my point of control. So little of it that these men will turn to crime.
How professional do you need to be to do what mother nature gives to all. Professional 12 year old. Ya.

See? There you go again, bringing age into it. "Professional" in this sense just means doing it for money.

And I don't understand your first point here. Are you saying that prostitution is a crime, and men lack control to the point that they will turn to the crime of hiring a prostitute? Because (a) that's circular reasoning; and (b) it's not a crime everywhere and is not a crime even in Canada unless the hiring is done in a public place. Or are you referring to my reference to rape? If so, please explain your point further, focussing on how getting rid of prostitution will reduce sexual assault rates.


GIA wrote
And here I was starting to think that I had just about done you in. I detected some reaching.

Ad hominems will get you nowhere; nor will hand-waving.

How can I leave the negative out of it and prove it negative. Goof. Smiles all around on that one. You are reaching.

I'm asking you to answer the earlier question: if the negatives of disease and corruption could be taken out of the prostitution industry, would you still consider prostitution wrong?

If your answer is yes, then it is not those negatives that cause you to consider prostitution wrong and you need to explain the real reasons. You also need to explain why other industries that cause disease and corruption (alcohol, tobacco, automotive, etc.) are not wrong, unless of course you think they are.

If your answer is no, then you would agree that, for instance, a law that provides that prostitutes have to be checked regularly for disease, use condoms every time, and protects them from unscrupulous employers ("pimps") would be welcome.

Pardon my Franglais disease and illness.
Check what low morals has done in South Africa.

Regards
DL

What have low morals in South Africa done? How do you separate that from poverty and after-effects of the apartheid regime, to name just two other factors?

And you still didn't recommend a particular book to me.

Jon.
25th May 2007, 12:03 PM
Turning to The Bible or any other work of religion for moral guidance is sort of like citing an episode of Star Trek as a resource on astrophysics.

Actually, looking to the Bible for instruction in the 21st century is more like trying to fix your Toyota Prius with the instruction manual from a Model T Ford.;)

Greatest I am
25th May 2007, 12:21 PM
Everyone with talents and the physical capability to use them is a "commodity;" the doctor, the construction worker, the airline pilot, the fast-food fry-cook, etc.

I suggest you learn some basic economics.

GIA wrote
The above require some type of training. The only thing a hooker needs is a little sign that say rub here. Good training.

What do you mean by "Man not in control of his libido." How does having access to one more sexual outlet lead to "Man" losing control of their sexual desires?

GIA wrote
It was suggested that if we eliminate hookers, men would turn to crime to satisfy their lust. I call that loss of control.
Real men can get real women.

Any component psychologist will tell you that, for the most part, repressing your sexual urges is what is bad. Not everyone is as fortunate in attracting a mate as others, and masturbation only puts a band-aid on the situation. For the lonely human being who needs sexual release, what other alternatives exist?

GIA wrote
Lonely people want to replace loneliness with affection. Friction is not affection.

Not every college student is cut out for four years of working summers at McDonalds for minimum wage. Have you SEEN tuition rates?

GIA wrote
Perhaps her deadbeat dad might help. Or is he spending it all on hookers.

I'm assuming you mean "disease." It's called a condom, and most societies where prostitution is legal make sure that sex workers have access to them along with health care and birth control.

GIA wrote
They ave condoms in South Africa.

What "corruption" are you speaking of?

If it is public corruption, that is a direct result of the prohibition of prostitution. Black markets don't try to bribe, influence, or bully government to overlook their activities over LEGAL goods and services. If you want another example, look no further than this country's (USA) moronic attempt to ban alcohol which continues today in the form of the oppressive "War On Drugs." Al Capone didn't become powerful because booze was legal in the 1920s, just as the drug cartels don't make their money today on legal cocaine or heroin.

GIA wrote
The corruption I speak of is mostly law enforcement personnel that take advantage and even their pay. As to the drug corruption yous speak of above are you speaking of the CIA controlling the drug and gun markets?
Not too many drug lords hitting the courts lately. Or is it government interference with DEA in Mexico?
Pot is still California's largest cash crop is it not.
Good drug war all right.

If you are raising the canard of "moral corruption," that depends on your "morals." To an uptight prude, prostitution is indeed moral corruption. To someone with a more enlightened notion of sexuality, it's no big thing.

GIA wrote
Well I beat a 18 year drug rap in 89 and I want to legalize victimless crimes. I am quite liberal by most standards.

Why should the rest of society suffer for the sake of anyone's sexual hang-ups?

GIA wrote
Whose hang up are we talking about here.
I thought the issue had more to do with human dignity.

Given your handle and your anti-sex attitudes, I have this sneaking suspicion that that "o book" you want us to read is the one you thump weekly in some church. Turning to The Bible or any other work of religion for moral guidance is sort of like citing an episode of Star Trek as a resource on astrophysics.

GIA wrote
I am learning of morality as we speak. Never go to church though.

In the meantime, I highly recommend that you get a book on English grammar and read that!

I read and write two languages badly.
What can I say.

I do know I am right though in my position when debaters start looking for cheap personal flaws to attack instead of the issue.

Regards
DL

toddjh
25th May 2007, 12:49 PM
GIA, I'd like to ask you a couple hypothetical questions.

Imagine a future where we've eliminated poverty, drug abuse, child abuse, and slavery.

1. Do you think prostitution will no longer exist in this future?, and

2. If prostitution does still exist, why is it bad?

toddjh
25th May 2007, 12:56 PM
If we agree that all these causes for prostitution are bad then when does prostitution become good.

I didn't say it was good, I just said you haven't successfully shown that it is bad. I also said that it was impossible to eliminate, but that's just a factual statement, not an endorsement.

For the record, I don't think prostitution is necessarily bad. I think it serves an important purpose in society, and we tamper with that at our own risk.

When is placing a price tag on a human good.

No one is placing a price tag on a human -- that's slavery, and we all agree that's bad. Prostitution is completely different, just an exchange of money for a service, like anything else. It's only irrational and puritanical attitudes about sex that lead people to see it as anything else. Well, that, and the fact that our current anti-sex laws push it firmly into the world of organized crime.

I submit that the buyer here is just as much a slave to His desire as the seller. The seller may be healthier mentally because she at least recognizes that fact while the buyer is too blind to see his own slavery.

Oh, I agree completely. Prostitutes are the ones doing the exploiting -- they may, in turn, be exploited themselves by a pimp or somesuch, but that's a separate issue. If you want to see who's exploiting who, all you have to do is look at which way the money flows.

Is this supposed to be the good part of prostitution? Should we not aspire to better things?

Sure, I think most prostitutes should aspire to better things. I also think most janitors and McDonald's workers and Walmart cashiers should aspire to better things. But a) not everybody is capable of living up to their aspirations, and b) somebody has to do those jobs.

Loss Leader
25th May 2007, 04:46 PM
Not every college student is cut out for four years of working summers at McDonalds for minimum wage. Have you SEEN tuition rates?
.Perhaps her deadbeat dad might help. Or is he spending it all on hookers.


This exchange more than any other convinces me that GIA has no underlying thesis or, at least, no ability to sort out his various beliefs and isolate one for argument.

In his comment he has mixed up deadbeat dads with abusive fathers. He has confounded the poor father whose bad parenting is a cause of adults entering the field of prostitution with the immoral male who frequents prostitutes. He has once again completely confused adult and children prostitutes. He has ignored Mark's point that some women might enjoy prostitution more than minimum wage jobs. And he has implied a phenomenon without any reason to believe it exists. Is there even one girl on the planet earth whose father's sex spending destroyed her dreams for college and forced her into a life of prostitution?


I mean besides Lindsay Lohan.

AmyWilson
25th May 2007, 07:32 PM
I see nothing with prostitution. We women have our needs and desires and they should be satisfied. :)

Davidjayjordan
26th May 2007, 05:37 AM
Not all prostitutes, come from abuse as many just like sex and others just like the money, and take advanatage of it and then drift to other careers or college etc.

Prostitution in essense is just suppky and demand, and fulfilling a human need for sex. It doesn't have to be degrading at all to either party.

Sexually is not automatically sinful, as the Lord created it, even though man and woman can screw it up sometimes.

There is nothing, inherantly wrong with prostituion.... and yet as you mention the world and the system make it dangerous and all human activity can cause further abuse.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Isprostitutionright.html

.

calebprime
26th May 2007, 05:59 AM
Gosh, the enlightened, guilt-free, economically sophisticated arguments here have opened my eyes!

That's what I can do for a living!

Become a service-provider to the lonely ladies, men, and assorted pets who want a man like me!

Middle-aged, a little fat, rather shy.

If you give me weed, whites and wine
and you show me a sign,
then I'll be willin'
to be movin'

Loss Leader
26th May 2007, 06:39 AM
And this thread disappears in a puff of logic.

calebprime
26th May 2007, 07:03 AM
I apologize if I haven't read the whole thread.

I certainly hope that someone has pointed out that most prostitutes are miserable--in relation to what they would want for themselves--because it is usually a rough, demeaning business.

Not because it--logically speaking--has to be that way.

Simply because it is that way.

calebprime
26th May 2007, 07:32 AM
That should have read: I apologize for not reading the whole thread.

I was responding to the Amy Wilson and DJJ posts.

Lonewulf
26th May 2007, 09:55 AM
And this thread disappears in a puff of logic.

I'm not sure I'd call it logic. :)

What's wrong with prostitution? Nothing, in itself. The only thing wrong is that some prostitutes are exploited. There is a problem with exploitation -- but not necessarily prostitution.

Should 12 year old girls be sold for their bodies? Hell no. That's child sex labor, and it's wrong.

Should a grown woman be able to sell her body? Hell yeah. That's her choice.

Should a grown woman be forced into a situation where she has to sell her body? Hell no. That, too, is wrong. I would gladly attempt to make it so that no one is a prostitute against their will. But if they choose to do so of their own free will, who am I to prevent them?

toddjh
26th May 2007, 09:56 AM
I certainly hope that someone has pointed out that most prostitutes are miserable--in relation to what they would want for themselves--because it is usually a rough, demeaning business.

Yes, people have pointed that out. But they've also pointed out that a) probably most McDonald's workers and Walmart cashiers aren't exactly thrilled either, and they make a lot less money; and b) barring coercion, prostitutes obviously prefer it to the other jobs available to them, or else they wouldn't be doing it.

As for their motivations, it's all about the money, pure and simple. The vast majority of prostitutes are in the business because they want to make money quickly, either because they have a drug habit to feed, a family to support, or tuition to pay. Some do enjoy the sex from time to time (at least the two I know have said so), but that's not why they do it.

MelBrooksfan
26th May 2007, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=Lonewulf;2634411
Should a grown woman be able to sell her body? Hell yeah. That's her choice.
[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase George Carlin, "Selling is legal. [Rule 8]ing is legal. So why isn't selling [Rule 8]ing legal?

calebprime
26th May 2007, 10:03 AM
Yes, people have pointed that out. But they've also pointed out that a) probably most McDonald's workers and Walmart cashiers aren't exactly thrilled either, and they make a lot less money; and b) barring coercion, prostitutes obviously prefer it to the other jobs available to them, or else they wouldn't be doing it.

As for their motivations, it's all about the money, pure and simple. The vast majority of prostitutes are in the business because they want to make money quickly, either because they have a drug habit to feed, a family to support, or tuition to pay. Some do enjoy the sex from time to time (at least the two I know have said so), but that's not why they do it.

I don't know much about prostitution, so this seems interesting to me. I, for one, would be interested in your anecdotes. all irony aside.



btw, the more sober i am, the sillier i seem. you'll know when i'm toking up or something when i start to make sort of vague, logical arguments--in an attempt to sound reasonable.

and the amy wilson/DJJ posts were the equivalent of kittens all the way down.

Lonewulf
26th May 2007, 10:13 AM
To paraphrase George Carlin, "Selling is legal. [Rule 8]ing is legal. So why isn't selling [Rule 8]ing legal?

It is. If, instead of handing money over directly, you buy the woman gifts or buy her dinner.

calebprime
26th May 2007, 10:34 AM
Yes, people have pointed that out. But they've also pointed out that a) probably most McDonald's workers and Walmart cashiers aren't exactly thrilled either, and they make a lot less money; and b) barring coercion, prostitutes obviously prefer it to the other jobs available to them, or else they wouldn't be doing it.

As for their motivations, it's all about the money, pure and simple. The vast majority of prostitutes are in the business because they want to make money quickly, either because they have a drug habit to feed, a family to support, or tuition to pay. Some do enjoy the sex from time to time (at least the two I know have said so), but that's not why they do it.

one more btw. so we're clear. i'm the last person here who will ever argue that "normal" ought to equal "healthy" ought to equal "good". I'm libertarian on moral issues. Live and let die.

I do think that enormous aggression is directed at prostitutes, mostly by men, and that hostility is given licence by the shame that is the societal norm.

just so we're clear on, like, where i'm coming from, man.

and the song reference was to compare the exhaustion a truck driver feels with the exhaustion a prostitute might feel, which is similar in some ways to the exploitation a Wal-mart worker might feel.

but I don't think working as a clerk (I have) would mess with my head as much as letting the same asshats I despised as a clerk 8 me. that's a little more personal. as a clerk, I changed my name.

as a prostitute:

On the counter
By your keys
Was a book of numbers
And your remedies
One of these
Surely will screen out the sorrow
But where are you tomorrow

...

Down to Greene Street
There you go
Lookin' so outrageous
And they tell you so
You should know
How all the pros play the game
You change your name

SoBitter
26th May 2007, 10:51 AM
I wouldn't argue that prostitution is very beneficial, at least not the way it exists now, but the point is that the OP can't defend what he's putting forth. Therefore this thread sucks.

It's like beating a dead whores.

Tanstaafl
26th May 2007, 10:55 AM
Now that we've descended to bad puns, I wish I had a handy kitten picture...

MelBrooksfan
26th May 2007, 11:08 AM
Now that we've descended to bad puns, I wish I had a handy kitten picture...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/Grendal123/Kitten.jpg

Lonewulf
26th May 2007, 06:34 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/Grendal123/Kitten.jpg

L. O. L.

Greatest I am
27th May 2007, 06:39 AM
GIA, I'd like to ask you a couple hypothetical questions.

Imagine a future where we've eliminated poverty, drug abuse, child abuse, and slavery.

1. Do you think prostitution will no longer exist in this future?, and

2. If prostitution does still exist, why is it bad?

If poverty is eliminated and education is available, I think that prostitution will become the call girl call boy type of prostitution. The cheaper sleazier type may disappear altogether.

Is the new system still bad.
Yes. I think that in the new mentality having to buy sex shows people not developing the social skills required to find sexual release without money.

Sex has traditionally been connected with love. This disappears or is denigrated by a sex trade.

Everything else in the world is a commodity. I would like to see man above this trend.

Perhaps a small scenario will show better.

You are in a bar looking to connect. Your there all night, you buy drinks, you dance you throw good jokes around, you are at your pick up beat.
Closing time comes along and you have not been lucky.
Oh well. Out comes the wad of cash to see if luck is with you.
Your social luck is now measured in dollars. Do you feel good about your evening of conquest sport?


Regards
DL

Lonewulf
27th May 2007, 06:48 AM
Sex has traditionally been connected with love. This disappears or is denigrated by a sex trade.

Buddy, the sex trade is traditional too. It's been around for a long time, in every kind of society.

Greatest I am
27th May 2007, 06:49 AM
This exchange more than any other convinces me that GIA has no underlying thesis or, at least, no ability to sort out his various beliefs and isolate one for argument.

In his comment he has mixed up deadbeat dads with abusive fathers. He has confounded the poor father whose bad parenting is a cause of adults entering the field of prostitution with the immoral male who frequents prostitutes. He has once again completely confused adult and children prostitutes. He has ignored Mark's point that some women might enjoy prostitution more than minimum wage jobs. And he has implied a phenomenon without any reason to believe it exists. Is there even one girl on the planet earth whose father's sex spending destroyed her dreams for college and forced her into a life of prostitution?


I mean besides Lindsay Lohan.

Your last includes two conditions that I think I have kept separate but yes I am sure that some prostitute out there fits the profile you suggest.
Not many I am sure but some.
I am sure that many children have missed a better education because of the spending habits of parents, in sexual terms.
I am also sure that many prostitutes are there because of abuse.
How often the two factors combine? Take a survey. You will get numbers for all conditions.

Regards
DL

Z
27th May 2007, 06:57 AM
If poverty is eliminated and education is available, I think that prostitution will become the call girl call boy type of prostitution. The cheaper sleazier type may disappear altogether.

Is the new system still bad.
Yes. I think that in the new mentality having to buy sex shows people not developing the social skills required to find sexual release without money.

Sex has traditionally been connected with love. This disappears or is denigrated by a sex trade.

Everything else in the world is a commodity. I would like to see man above this trend.

Perhaps a small scenario will show better.

You are in a bar looking to connect. Your there all night, you buy drinks, you dance you throw good jokes around, you are at your pick up beat.
Closing time comes along and you have not been lucky.
Oh well. Out comes the wad of cash to see if luck is with you.
Your social luck is now measured in dollars. Do you feel good about your evening of conquest sport?


Regards
DL

Or perhaps you just want to get laid, without playing stupid games or getting involved in distracting emotional attachments. Sex and love should not be intrinsically tied together these days. So instead of wasting good time and money at the bar, you cruise to the strip, pick up the dish of the day, do your business, and move on. No 'will you call me in the morning' crap, no 'I thought you loved me' garbage.

Prostitution can be a good thing, if anal-retentive simpletons stop trying to treat it as inherently bad.

Greatest I am
27th May 2007, 07:06 AM
Buddy, the sex trade is traditional too. It's been around for a long time, in every kind of society.

True.

We have been abusing and demeaning ourselves for many years.
Buyers delude themselves into thinking that they are not demeaned.
Hookers are more honest.


Regards
DL

Greatest I am
27th May 2007, 07:12 AM
Or perhaps you just want to get laid, without playing stupid games or getting involved in distracting emotional attachments. Sex and love should not be intrinsically tied together these days. So instead of wasting good time and money at the bar, you cruise to the strip, pick up the dish of the day, do your business, and move on. No 'will you call me in the morning' crap, no 'I thought you loved me' garbage.

Prostitution can be a good thing, if anal-retentive simpletons stop trying to treat it as inherently bad.

A social life centered on the strip is every one's dream.
All children should be trained from birth to share your aptitude.
What a wonderful place to pick up our daughters.

Regards
DL

Wheezebucket
27th May 2007, 07:31 AM
A social life centered on the strip is every one's dream.
All children should be trained from birth to share your aptitude.
What a wonderful place to pick up our daughters.

Regards
DL

It's cool that it's so easy for you to insult all these working men & women with your broad strokes of ignorance. Instead of talking about the actual issues involved with prostitution, you keep clouding it with all this moral high-ground ********. Quit confusing topics and pretending you've got some inside track on what's 'right' and what's not. If someone is *********** for money, it doesn't make him/her a bad person. It does not mean something is 'wrong' with them. It does not somehow make them morally inferior to *you* in any way.

It does not mean they were abused as a child by their parents. It does not mean they are under the thumb of an opressive pimp. It does not mean that they were forced into the trade as children. It does not mean they are slaves to some group or individual. Are you clear on that yet? None of those things are a given. Are there child sex slaves out there? Absolutely, and it's a huge problem. It's also an entirely seperate subject from adult prostitution among two consenting adults. Are there some mean pimps out there (oh my gosh, some like on tv I bet!?!?!?)? Of course. Are all hooking men and women under the care of a pimp? Nope. Are all pimps opressive douche bags? Surprisingly not - no more than any store manager or owner, anyways.

It's ok to **** for 'love' apparently, but not just because we're human.

You're right, there is an education problem out there, and you're apparently as much a victim of it as these hookers you're so desperate to save from their awful fates.

Z
27th May 2007, 08:04 AM
A social life centered on the strip is every one's dream.
All children should be trained from birth to share your aptitude.
What a wonderful place to pick up our daughters.

Regards
DL

Who said anything about a social life? I'm talking about the basic need for sexual release. Too many morons - yourself included - associate sex with love. For those who are more mature and intelligent, this narrows down the available pool of sex partners considerably.

Masturbating is fine for some of us, but for a lot of people, it just won't do. So their options are to do without, which is a needless discomfort; to see a prostitute, which, while risky, is not inherently wrong; to lie to someone else, which is wrong; or to just rape someone, which is also wrong.

And, no, denying your sexual urges does not make you a better person; it makes you an idiot.

Sex is not itself a dirty or immoral act; so selling sex shouldn't be seen that way either. It's no different a service than a haircut or a shoeshine or a massage or any of a hundred other direct and personal actions.

You seem so desperate to prove prostitution wrong that at every given chance you deliberately conflate the issue with other side issues, such as drug trade, child abuse, exploitation, incest... but we see through your obfuscations. The problem here is that you personally find prostitution distasteful, and wish to compell others to share your moral indignation.

Well, pastor GIM, it ain't happenin'.

I have a daughter. If she comes up to me at some point after she's an adult and tells me she wants to be a prostitute, I'd have a long talk with her about being careful, about the possibility of taking on the legal trade in Nevada, and so forth. I'd ask her if it's really what she wants to do, if she's explored other options, etc. And then I'd tell her I love her and give her my best wishes for her success. And that's that.

If it makes her happy, I'm all for it.

And that's the thing: not every prostitute is forced into it; not every call-girl is the result of abuse or neglect or hard times. Some women do it because they enjoy it.

What next, GIM? Gonna start a thread on what to do about the porn industry?

Personally, I think every idiot carrying around an anti-commercial-sex stigma should be castrated or sewn shut and tossed on a small active volcanic island. But that's just me.

Greatest I am
27th May 2007, 08:18 AM
I see I have succeeded.

When logic fails, attack on a personal level or rant.

Regards
DL.

Wheezebucket
27th May 2007, 08:24 AM
Brilliant.

Z
27th May 2007, 11:35 AM
I see I have succeeded.

When logic fails, attack on a personal level or rant.

Regards
DL.


Interestingly, I did neither.

Nothing in that was an attack on a personal level. It was merely based on observation.

This would be an attack on a personal level: "I wish I had never seduced your mama, 'cuz we've BOTH been regretting your birth."

It may have been considered a 'rant', though I've ranted at greater length and with greater vitriole on far more trivial subjects.

But the fact remains, whatever it was or was not, it contained the truth of the matter: that there is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, while there is something wrong with people who thing something is wrong with prostitution.

And since you fail to address any points in my post, I see that I am correct.

Regards,

The Rev.

Achán hiNidráne
27th May 2007, 12:25 PM
Or perhaps you just want to get laid, without playing stupid games or getting involved in distracting emotional attachments. Sex and love should not be intrinsically tied together these days. So instead of wasting good time and money at the bar, you cruise to the strip, pick up the dish of the day, do your business, and move on. No 'will you call me in the morning' crap, no 'I thought you loved me' garbage.

Prostitution can be a good thing, if anal-retentive simpletons stop trying to treat it as inherently bad.

Here, here.

Loss Leader
27th May 2007, 05:52 PM
Sex has traditionally been connected with love.


Once again you make a statement based on nothing other than your own personal beliefs and informed by no actual knowledge. As late as a hundred year ago and going back hundreds and even thousands of years, marriages have been arranged throughout much of the Western world. Even today in Japan, Korea, India, Mongolia and other countries, arranged marriages continue in appreciable numbers. At least two of my great-grandparents' marriages were arranged.

And throughout history, these marriages have produced children. There has been sex. Sometimes it has been joyless "think of England" sex, sometimes it may have been passionate but emotionally empty sex, sometimes it may have been good for a while and gotten terrible as a couple aged or drifted apart. But there was sex.

So exactly how has sex "traditionally" been associated with love? What is your evidence of this other than that's how you think it should have been?

And then explain why the "traditional" view should be the prevailing view. Women were traditionally thought of as property, the earth was traditionally believed to be flat - should we return to these traditional views?

GIA - your life will be a lot easier if you just repeat after me: "I believe prostitution is bad. I believe it for entirely personal reasons. I believe it as a matter of faith. I do not intend my belief to serve as evidence or to convince anyone to modify their position. For me, however, I am satisfied that I have adopted a reasonable, workable and correct position."

You'll feel better almost instantly, I promise.

Lonewulf
27th May 2007, 05:54 PM
True.

We have been abusing and demeaning ourselves for many years.
Buyers delude themselves into thinking that they are not demeaned.
Hookers are more honest.


Regards
DL

So you're taking back the claim that prostitution is destroying "traditional love"?

Traditionally, prostitution has existed in every society. YOUR judgment of "love" is NOT traditional.

Before "love at first sight" (a traditional view of romance in today's society), there existed "love at first marriage". I.E., you get married to someone by arranged marriage, and then you show love and devotion to your mate. The traditional view (and this was true all throughout the middle ages) was that first came the marriage, then came the love. Our view of love would be as alien to them as theirs is to us; and places like India still have similar views.

Prostitution, however, has existed all throughout time, and usually in very different ways. You imagine a prostitute as a streetwalker with sexually transmitted diseases and looking like she was hit with a semi-truck going 100 MPH. I imagine someone offering sex as, say, being a priestess of the goddess Aphrodite, offering her services to those that come to pray. (I'm not entirely sure it was necessarily done in this way, but there were women who devoted themselves to a life of pleasure).

I also can imagine prostitutes in high-resort locations, taking ludicrous bucks form the bigwigs to show them a good night in the sack. No STDs, an entirely legal transaction, and a woman that gets to put her kids through college.

While you equate "prostitution in general" with "child sex", I'm sitting over here laughing at your ridiculously small-minded view of the trade. While you equate "prostitution in general" with "diseased streetwalker", I just laugh harder.

The Great Hairy One
27th May 2007, 09:51 PM
Didn't we sort this issue out in that discussion with Dan already?

Cheers,
TGHO

Greatest I am
28th May 2007, 08:55 AM
Once again you make a statement based on nothing other than your own personal beliefs and informed by no actual knowledge. As late as a hundred year ago and going back hundreds and even thousands of years, marriages have been arranged throughout much of the Western world. Even today in Japan, Korea, India, Mongolia and other countries, arranged marriages continue in appreciable numbers. At least two of my great-grandparents' marriages were arranged.

And throughout history, these marriages have produced children. There has been sex. Sometimes it has been joyless "think of England" sex, sometimes it may have been passionate but emotionally empty sex, sometimes it may have been good for a while and gotten terrible as a couple aged or drifted apart. But there was sex.

So exactly how has sex "traditionally" been associated with love? What is your evidence of this other than that's how you think it should have been?

And then explain why the "traditional" view should be the prevailing view. Women were traditionally thought of as property, the earth was traditionally believed to be flat - should we return to these traditional views?

GIA - your life will be a lot easier if you just repeat after me: "I believe prostitution is bad. I believe it for entirely personal reasons. I believe it as a matter of faith. I do not intend my belief to serve as evidence or to convince anyone to modify their position. For me, however, I am satisfied that I have adopted a reasonable, workable and correct position."

You'll feel better almost instantly, I promise.

The library is full of books depicting romantic love and sex.
I see few books showing pay for sex.

Do I really need to show the connection.

Any one who has had both romantic sex and paid sex will agree that romantic sex is better. Especially women.
Men who can use a knot hole happily, will not agree. Then again few of these will know anything about romantic sex.

Those who have been raised in a loving atmosphere will know the difference between it and the atmosphere where there is no love.

Perhaps as Loss leader indicates, placing a price on brides is the way to go.
Perhaps the sign of the beast is a number assigned to us to show our worth and buying ability. Perhaps the creation of a cast system would be better then we would all know on which streets to go shopping for our partners.

A great system for the young but then what happens to the old.
Who cares unless they have good body perts and tight spots.

What a wonderful world that would be.

Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex. Real men will ask their women and try to please. The other, "so called men" will not care to share. They pay for seconds.

Regards
DL

Lonewulf
28th May 2007, 09:41 AM
The library is full of books depicting romantic love and sex.
I see few books showing pay for sex.

Don Quixote.

There were also plenty of books, like Song of Roland, or Beowulf, of men doing supernatural and outright superhuman things. Do you believe supermen exist?

Like Beowulf; able to hold his breath for three days underwater?

You're talking about overdone literature of the past, that had no view on reality.

Greatest I am
28th May 2007, 10:13 AM
Don Quixote.

There were also plenty of books, like Song of Roland, or Beowulf, of men doing supernatural and outright superhuman things. Do you believe supermen exist?

Like Beowulf; able to hold his breath for three days underwater?

You're talking about overdone literature of the past, that had no view on reality.

Not only the past but the present as well.
Many modern authors would argue with you. Not I.

I do have a quick one for you though.

Did we agree that romantic sex is better than simply pay for sex.

Or do you know the difference.

Regards
DL

Lonewulf
28th May 2007, 10:23 AM
Not only the past but the present as well.
Many modern authors would argue with you. Not I.

And?

I do have a quick one for you though.

Did we agree that romantic sex is better than simply pay for sex.

Sex is sex.

Or do you know the difference.

Sex is sex.

Out of curiosity:

Did you ever refer to the point that prostitution has been around since the beginning of humankind? It can't "erode away at" romantic love. It's lived side by side every single interpretation of "romantic love".

Prostitution is the one constant in societies. YOUR version of romantic love is not.

If you want to get rid of it, go ahead. I'll refer back to Don Quixote, though; keep attacking your windmills. They'll just break your lance and knock you on your ass.

Greatest I am
28th May 2007, 10:52 AM
And?



Sex is sex.



Sex is sex.

Out of curiosity:

Did you ever refer to the point that prostitution has been around since the beginning of humankind? It can't "erode away at" romantic love. It's lived side by side every single interpretation of "romantic love".

Prostitution is the one constant in societies. YOUR version of romantic love is not.

If you want to get rid of it, go ahead. I'll refer back to Don Quixote, though; keep attacking your windmills. They'll just break your lance and knock you on your ass.

The ideals of love, hate and prostitution are so intertwined with history that it impossible to know what came first, unless you have information that I don't.
You would need to show why the ideals of love would "erode away" faster than those of prostitution.
You do not want to take my word on much and I do not take your here.

Better to fight on than to give up and forget about ideals of love.

It is unfortunate that with you, sex with a loved one, is no better than sex with a hooker.

Regards
DL

Lonewulf
28th May 2007, 10:57 AM
The ideals of love, hate and prostitution are so intertwined with history that it impossible to know what came first, unless you have information that I don't.
You would need to show why the ideals of love would "erode away" faster than those of prostitution.

Uh, no, YOU would need to, since it was your claim that prostitution would attack the idea of romantic love.

Loss Leader
28th May 2007, 12:26 PM
The library is full of books depicting romantic love and sex.
I see few books showing pay for sex.


Moll Flanders and Candide.

The Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.mythome.org/gilgamesh1.html), the oldest written story in human history, has a prostitute in it. "Gilgamesh leaped up and in his great voice cried: "Set this trap. Take back with you the sacred temple girl, Shamhat. Shamhat has civilizing charm. Shamhat has civilizing skills." Gilgamesh literally hires a prostitute to help tame the wild man Enkidu.

Do I really need to show the connection.

You stated, "sex has traditionally been connected with love." You have shown no evidence of this. So, yes, you do need to support your point with evidence.

Any one who has had both romantic sex and paid sex will agree that romantic sex is better.


First of all, you have no evidence for that statement. Who is this "anyone"? Where can I read the results of this study?

Second of all, that's not what you said. You said:
Sex has traditionally been connected with love. This said nothing about which was "better." How does your argument that romantic love is "better" make it more likely that sex has been traditionally connected with love?


Perhaps as Loss leader indicates, placing a price on brides is the way to go.


I never advocated any such thing. All I did was point out that much sex, even much sex within marriage has not traditionally been associated with love in the Western world and many other countries. I did so to show that you once again stated your own personal preference as though it were historical fact. Don't put words in my mouth.


Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex.


Perhaps. However, this has not been your point up until now. It is not the point of the thread. And you still haven't supported this point with any evidence.


Real men will ask their women and try to please. The other, "so called men" will not care to share. They pay for seconds.


But what would a true Scotsman do?

Greatest I am
28th May 2007, 01:18 PM
Legalized Prostitution
Every so often, Canadians are urged to legalize prostitution. Proponents claim that this will eliminate crime, encourage prostitutes to leave the streets and work in safe environments (brothels), stop the illicit drug trade, which is always closely allied to prostitution, and improve the health of prostitutes by way of regular medical checks-ups.
Unfortunately, this theory is pure fantasy. One has only to look to the jurisdictions that have legalized prostitution to recognize the disaster it has been. For example, several Australian states, such as Victoria in the mid-1980s, and New South Wales in 1995, have legalized prostitution. These states are now struggling with the fall-out. (During the debate on legalized prostitution, one of the legislators in Victoria argued that legalizing prostitution would bring a better class of women into the trade!)
The most immediate result of legalizing "the trade" was that all forms of prostitution boomed, with the unregulated prostitution business increasing faster than the legal prostitution activities. Municipal councils immediately complained that prostitution was out of control. Organized crime enjoyed a field day. With business becoming so good, shootings and deaths quickly followed with gangs fighting for control of this lucrative sex trade. Moreover, because prostitution itself was legal, police made few checks on brothels, with the result that they quickly became ideal locations for drug connections. Posing as clients, the drug dealers thrived, completely assured of privacy for their transactions.
Prostitutes working out of the brothels also quickly became disillusioned with the arrangement. The madams treated them like cattle in a meat market. They were forced to work 14-hour shifts seven days a week. They were restricted to the premises, except for medical or hairdressing appointments, and were always accompanied by an escort. The pimps, of course, retained absolute control of the prostitutes by comfortably operating out of the brothel environment.
Even the highly lauded medical check-ups of the prostitutes were, in reality, meaningless. The prostitutes moved around too often to keep track of them and if one did become infected with a sexually transmitted disease, another prostitute simply went to the check-up in her place, using the infected woman's medical card.
Sweden is another example of a jurisdiction that legalized prostitution - 30 years ago - and lived to regret it. Prostitution flourished, with one in ten Swedish males buying such services. The drug trade expanded too, with at least half of Swedish prostitutes becoming drug addicts. Interestingly, it is frequently argued that women become prostitutes because they are economically disadvantaged. However, in Sweden, with its cradle-to-grave social welfare policies, this is not the case. According to a Swedish government report released in April 1995, women in Sweden entered into prostitution because they regarded it as "easy money." As a result, Sweden amended its legislation in May 1998, which made the purchase of sexual services from a prostitute a criminal offence, imposing either a fine or imprisonment up to a maximum of 6 months.
Obviously, legalizing prostitution is no solution to the problem and, in fact, opens the door to even more serious problems. Canadians must take a firm stand on this issue

Regards
DL

Loss Leader
28th May 2007, 01:51 PM
Every so often, Canadians are urged to legalize prostitution. Proponents claim that this will eliminate crime ...


GIA, what do you believe this essay is evidence of?

First of all, you didn't write it. We know you didn'w write it because it stays on point. But since you didn't write it, we have no idea what truth value to assign it. Where did you get it? Who wrote it? Why should we believe him or her?

And here begins a second problem - this essay does not cite any sources. How can we check that what the author asserts as true actually is true? What sources did the author use?

Even then, this is nothing but an opinion piece. It is an editorial. If I post an editorial in favor of legalized prostitution, does that make the score even?

And here we encounter an odd occurance - the arguments in this essay are almost completely dissimilar to your own arguments. The author talks about the difficulty tracking prostitutes while you have been talking about how romantic love is moral and sex for pay is not. The author writes about increases in illegal drug activity while you have argued that child abuse and prostitution share some connection. So should we disregard your arguments and talk about these?

But there's a reason that your arguments and this article have so little in common - this article does not support your main point. Your point, to the extent that you've formed it, appears to be that all prostitution is always bad for all individuals involved. This article has nothing to do with that. It doesn't address ridding a city of prostitution completely. It doesn't address the underlying causes of prostitution. It is, in fact, irrelevant to your main point.

Please focus on what it is you are trying to argue, collect your facts and present them. Copying other people's homework is never the right answer.

Greatest I am
28th May 2007, 02:08 PM
Survivors of Prostitution and Trafficking Manifesto
Author(s): Various

Survivors of Prostitution and Trafficking Manifesto
Press Conference – European Parliament

Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
“Who Represents Women in Prostitution?”
October 17, 2005

We, the survivors of prostitution and trafficking gathered at this press conference today, declare that prostitution is violence against women.

Women in prostitution do not wake up one day and “choose” to be prostitutes. It is chosen for us by poverty, past sexual abuse, the pimps who take advantage of our vulnerabilities, and the men who buy us for the sex of prostitution.

Prostitution is sexual exploitation, one of the worst forms of women’s inequality, and a violation of any person’s human rights.

Many women in prostitution have been severely injured, some have died, and some have been murdered by their pimps and customers.

Physical violence, rape and degradation are often inflicted on us by customers, pimps, recruiters, police and others who gain from prostitution. The public either judges us as “whores” or thinks we make a lot of money.

The condition of women in prostitution is worsened by laws and policies that treat us as criminals and the scum of society, while customers, pimps, managers and sex business owners are not made accountable. Our condition is also made worse by giving licenses to prostitution enterprises and legal protection to pimps, customers and the sex industry

Most women are drawn into prostitution at a young age. The average age of entrance into prostitution worldwide is 13.

Victims of prostitution and trafficking have almost no resources to help them exit. Programs that provide alternatives for women in prostitution are very few.

Women in prostitution dream of a life free from oppression, a life that is safe, and a life where we can participate as citizens, and where we can exercise our rights as human beings, not as “sex workers.”

We, survivors from Belgium, Denmark, Korea, the UK and the United States declare:

1. Prostitution must be eliminated. Thus, it should not be legalized or promoted.

2. Trafficked and prostituted women need services to help them create a future outside of prostitution, including legal and fiscal amnesty, financial assistance, job training, employment, housing, health services, legal advocacy, residency permits, and cultural mediators and language training for victims of international trafficking.

3. Women in prostitution need governments to punish traffickers, pimps and men who buy women for prostitution and to provide safety and security from those who would harm them.

4. Stop arresting women and arrest the perpetrators of trafficking and prostitution.

5. Stop police harassment of women in prostitution and deportation of trafficked women.

6. Prostitution is not “sex work,” and sex trafficking is not “migration for sex work.” Governments should stop legalizing and decriminalizing the sex industry and giving pimps and buyers legal permission to abuse women in prostitution.
As survivors of prostitution and trafficking, we will continue to strengthen and broaden our unity, help any woman out of prostitution, and work with our allies to promote the human rights of victims of trafficking and prostitution.

What is intrinsically evil about prostitution.
From the horses mouth

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
28th May 2007, 02:16 PM
Chill.

Just putting a few facts out there.

As far as proof, proof, proof.

If I ever get in front of a judge i might supply proof.
Here it would not be believed by those who do not want to anyway.

The first insert was a Government printing. Believe it or not. The net is full of the same. You want proof go find whatever you will believe.

The second speaks for itself.

As to my focus and being on topic.
Good questions usually keep me on tract. If not. well, what can I say.

Regards
DL

Gnu Ordure
28th May 2007, 02:24 PM
GIA, I see you finally answered the question on the fundamental rightness/wrongness of prostitution between consenting adults in a non-exploitative context ....

having to buy sex shows people not developing the social skills required to find sexual release without money.


Wow, that's it ? That's what we've been waiting for, for six pages ? Prostitution is wrong because it demonstrates the truism that some people have fewer social skills than others ?

Sorry, GIA, I need you to explain that 'because'.

I understand that some people have fewer social skills than others; I am prepared to temporarily concede, for the sake of the argument, that people who pay for sex have fewer social skills than others.

I don't understand how you conclude from this that paying for sex is wrong/immoral/unethical.


Here's an anology. My family of origin abused me badly. As a result, I have few social skills, and I'm incapable of maintaining adult relationships. I have no friends, let alone a partner.

So each week, I go downtown and I pay a woman money to spend an hour of her life with me, to focus on me, to listen to me, to comfort me, to help me and to hold me.

We don't talk about her, I don't even know if she's married, or whether she has children - I don't ask. I want someone to listen to me.

Is this wrong, GIA ?

I agree that it amply demonstrates my lack of social skills. If I had some friends, maybe I wouldn't need to rent someone in this way.

I also agree that in a perfect world (eg a world in which I wasn't abused as a child), I probably wouldn't need to pay for what most people achieve naturally.

But I don't live in a perfect world, and neither does anyone else.

So if I feel the need to hire someone to be with me, I will do that, on the basis of a freely-entered-into contract between autonomous adults, and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong.





The woman that I refer to above is, of course, my psychotherapist, rather than a prostitute.

But the principle is the same.

In just the same way that your logic leads you to regard prostitution as wrong, it would lead you to conclude that psychotherapy is wrong.






Gnu.


PS : "Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex."

Perhaps men do recognize that, but some also recognize that 'no sex' is a poor third to 'paid-for-sex'.

Loss Leader
28th May 2007, 02:28 PM
Just putting a few facts out there.


This is obviously some new and unique definition of the word "facts" that I was previously unaware of.

The Atheist
28th May 2007, 02:55 PM
Survivors of Prostitution and Trafficking Manifesto
Author(s): Various

Survivors of Prostitution and Trafficking Manifesto
Press Conference – European Parliament

Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
“Who Represents Women in Prostitution?”
October 17, 2005

Women in prostitution do not wake up one day and “choose” to be prostitutes.

(...snipped after the first lie...)

From the horses mouth

Regards
DL

bolding mine.


Why do you bother?

That statement almost certainly applies to the women who co-signed the report, but is wrong. It's wrong for a huge number of prostitutes, who did indeed, "wake up one morning and decide to be hookers".

If you're going to come and try to garner support for your position, being honest is the first essential. The stoopid bitches who wrote the report made a far worse cock-up than yours - at least yours is only an anonymous internet post, but they've put their name to a public document which is demonstrably bollocks. Obviously, people with similar agendas [think of anyone?] are likely to use it to support destroy their case.

Hardly worth dignifying with refutation, but sometimes that itch just has to be scratched.



<<walks off.... "now I know why I've avoided this thread for so long"...>>

The Atheist
28th May 2007, 02:59 PM
PS : "Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex."

Oh weally, Woger?

Them's fighting words! Sex is sex and money is money. The money's in the drawer, the sex is on the floor.... How is it a "poor second"? Your mind, your therapist or your wife tell you that?

[All the above to be taken in the nicest possible way, of course!]

Lonewulf
28th May 2007, 06:17 PM
As far as proof, proof, proof.

If I ever get in front of a judge i might supply proof.

So you're not interested in evidence?

Okay then! Discussion over. :)

Lonewulf
28th May 2007, 07:01 PM
Wow, that's it ? That's what we've been waiting for, for six pages ? Prostitution is wrong because it demonstrates the truism that some people have fewer social skills than others ?

People with lower levels of social skills also have a higher propensity for eating doritos.

Therefore, DORITOS ARE WRONG AND MUST BE BANNED! Doritos are satan!

Gnu Ordure
29th May 2007, 10:29 AM
The Atheist said :


Originally Posted by Gnu Ordure
PS : "Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex."


Oh weally, Woger?

Them's fighting words! Sex is sex and money is money. The money's in the drawer, the sex is on the floor.... How is it a "poor second"? Your mind, your therapist or your wife tell you that?

[All the above to be taken in the nicest possible way, of course!]

Hi , The A.

I think you missed my quotatation marks - that was a quote from GIA which I disagreed with, and I was pointing out to him that, even if some men did think that, it didn't still invalidate paying for sex. As I said :

"Perhaps men do recognize that, but some also recognize that 'no sex' is a poor third to 'paid-for-sex'. ".

The Atheist
29th May 2007, 10:58 AM
The Atheist said :

Hi , The A.

I think you missed my quotatation marks - that was a quote from GIA which I disagreed with, and I was pointing out to him that, even if some men did think that, it didn't still invalidate paying for sex. As I said :

"Perhaps men do recognize that, but some also recognize that 'no sex' is a poor third to 'paid-for-sex'. ".

Bugger, I missed the connection! You're dead right - going without is a very poor option. Hell, I'm married and I pay for it every day!

qayak
29th May 2007, 05:53 PM
I also agree that in a perfect world (eg a world in which I wasn't abused as a child), I probably wouldn't need to pay for what most people achieve naturally.


In a perfect world, no one would have to hire moving companies, their friends would take care of it for them. They wouldn't need to pay for anything as long as they had a friend who was capable of doing it. Get your car fixed for free by your auto mechanic friend, get your compute fixed by your computer dude friend. Yeah right!! The fact is, even friends make you pay for this.

I can't figure out why people are so hung up on paying for sex? Sure, your friend can do the job but let's face it, you get what you pay for. A professional is probably your best bet! :D

Z
29th May 2007, 06:16 PM
A professional is probably the best bet for quite a FEW of you.

(Probably for me too, in spite of living with two women... or maybe because of it...)

Lonewulf
29th May 2007, 07:57 PM
A professional is probably the best bet for quite a FEW of you.

(Probably for me too, in spite of living with two women... or maybe because of it...)

Two women, you say?

Hmm...

Z
30th May 2007, 12:44 AM
Two women, you say?

Hmm...

Don't even THINK about it.... it's not worth the effort.

:p

slingblade
30th May 2007, 12:47 AM
Don't even THINK about it.... it's not worth the effort.

:p

Experience says you obviously weren't with the right two. :cool:

Z
30th May 2007, 12:58 AM
Experience says you obviously weren't with the right two. :cool:

Well, that MAY be true... but once there's kids involved, it's darned hard to get rid of them. :D

toddjh
30th May 2007, 07:19 AM
Don't even THINK about it.... it's not worth the effort.

What effort? All it takes is a little money! :D

Ossai
30th May 2007, 07:57 AM
Greatest I am
The library is full of books depicting romantic love and sex.
I see few books showing pay for sex. That would be because you were looking in the fiction section.

Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex. What happened to practice makes perfect?

Gnu Ordure
30th May 2007, 07:59 AM
GIA asked :Did we agree that romantic sex is better than simply pay for sex.

and Lonewulf replied :

Sex is sex

I'm not sure what you mean there, Lonewulf (and/or The Atheist, who said the same thing).

Are you really saying that for you, the experience of sex is much the same regardless of whether your partner is someone you know well and love, and who loves you, or is a stranger that you've paid ?

.

toddjh
30th May 2007, 08:06 AM
Are you really saying that for you, the experience of sex is much the same regardless of whether your partner is someone you know well and love, and who loves you, or is a stranger that you've paid?

While I haven't paid for sex (yet -- still planning that trip to Vegas! :D), I will go out on a limb and say that yes, to me casual sex is every bit as enjoyable as romantic sex, although I wouldn't call them "the same."

Is a romantic candle-lit dinner always better than going out for a nice thick deep-dish pizza? No, they both have their appeal. Sometimes you might be in the mood for one or the other.

Gnu Ordure
30th May 2007, 09:59 AM
hi todd, you said :

I will go out on a limb and say that yes, to me casual sex is every bit as enjoyable as romantic sex, although I wouldn't call them "the same."


I agree, Todd, but my question pertains to paid-for-sex, not casual sex.

Wheezebucket
30th May 2007, 10:02 AM
hi todd, you said :




I agree, Todd, but my question pertains to paid-for-sex, not casual sex.

If the money comes in the form of a movie and dinner, is it really all that different? Paid-for-sex is casual sex.

Lonewulf
30th May 2007, 10:11 AM
Are you really saying that for you, the experience of sex is much the same regardless of whether your partner is someone you know well and love, and who loves you, or is a stranger that you've paid ?

Insufficient data.

I'd need to make a nice controlled "experiment". Possibly with a bit of wine, and some Barry White.

calebprime
30th May 2007, 10:20 AM
Title: I'm Qualified To Satisfy You


It feels so good
You lying here next to me
Oh, what a groove
You have no idea how it feels
My hands just won’t keep still
I love you, baby
Oh, I love you, I love you, I love you
I just wanna hold you
Run my fingers through your hair
Ooh
Outta sight
Uh-huh, right there, you like it like that
Closer
Come here, closer, close
Oh, baby
Oh, baby

Gnu Ordure
30th May 2007, 11:21 AM
If the money comes in the form of a movie and dinner, is it really all that different?

That would indeed be very similar, wheezebucket, involving as it does a transaction of specific financial value...

In which case I could re-phrase my question:

Are you really saying that for you, the experience of sex is much the same regardless of whether your partner is someone you know well and love, and who loves you, or is a stranger who has sex with you because you've bought her a meal ?

And I disagree that paid-for-sex is casual sex. Paid-for-sex is a type of casual sex, yes, in the sense that there may be no deep emotional involvement. But casual sex does not have to involve a transaction involving money or goods.

So, my question pertains to paid-for-sex - money or goods (or anything of value).

Lonewulf said :

Insufficient data

So, can I ask you again, what did you mean when you said "Sex is sex" ?

I'd need to make a nice controlled "experiment". Possibly with a bit of wine, and some Barry White.


Steady on, Lonewulf, we've only just met...

It's a little early to be introducing me to the seductive charms of the Walrus of Love.



Gnu.

The Atheist
30th May 2007, 07:50 PM
GIA asked :

and Lonewulf replied :



I'm not sure what you mean there, Lonewulf (and/or The Atheist, who said the same thing).

Are you really saying that for you, the experience of sex is much the same regardless of whether your partner is someone you know well and love, and who loves you, or is a stranger that you've paid ?

.

Not so much that it's the same, but that neither is inherently "better" than the other.

Paid, casual, never-met-in-the-dark, lifelong partner; the sex can all be equal[ly good or bad!]

Lonewulf
31st May 2007, 12:42 AM
So, can I ask you again, what did you mean when you said "Sex is sex" ?

I meant that sexual activity is more or less just sexual activity. I differentiate sexual activity from a sexual relationship.

And when I said "insufficient data", out of curiosity, what did you think I meant?


Steady on, Lonewulf, we've only just met...

It's a little early to be introducing me to the seductive charms of the Walrus of Love.

Ew, who's introducing who to who? I wasn't flirting with you, nor trying to "teach" you any "tricks".

However, if you're going to claim that relationship sex is inherently better, then you would need to prove it. The one way to prove it is with controlled experiments. You know, a little something called "science"? You'd do well to learn it.

The Atheist
31st May 2007, 01:48 AM
The one way to prove it is with controlled experiments.

Look, I know what a chore this kind of thing is and that recruits for study are hard to find, but I'm prepared to make the sacrifice and work on this study.

Lonewulf
31st May 2007, 01:55 AM
Look, I know what a chore this kind of thing is and that recruits for study are hard to find, but I'm prepared to make the sacrifice and work on this study.

Your sacrifice will be regarded for minutes as heroic, soldier!

The Great Hairy One
31st May 2007, 02:10 AM
Your sacrifice will be regarded for minutes as heroic, soldier!


Minutes? It takes him that long? :confused:

Cheers,
TGHO

Lonewulf
31st May 2007, 02:17 AM
Minutes? It takes him that long? :confused:

Cheers,
TGHO

Naw. I'm just slow-witted.

Also, that's the time it takes for him to realize that he hooked up a date with tub girl.

largeprimenumber
31st May 2007, 02:26 AM
If I ever get in front of a judge i might supply proof.
Here it would not be believed by those who do not want to anyway.
This is always the last resort of people who expect their emotional but uninformed opinions to outweigh those of others.

Is this a court evidence, evidence, evidence.
Try logic instead.
I don't think you understand the concept of logic. The bulk of this thread consists of many people of varied opinion and temperament explaining to you in detail how your position is not logical. I repeat, there is no logic underlying your statements.

The Atheist
31st May 2007, 03:12 AM
Minutes? It takes him that long? :confused:

Cheers,
TGHO

And there was me thinking you were an ok bloke. Ok, changed that analysis!

Naw. I'm just slow-witted.

Also, that's the time it takes for him to realize that he hooked up a date with tub girl.

Hmmm, "Tub girl". Not sure I like the sound of that. Xmas cards may be light your end this year as well.

Lonewulf
31st May 2007, 04:13 AM
Hmmm, "Tub girl". Not sure I like the sound of that. Xmas cards may be light your end this year as well.

I'll be good.

Greatest I am
31st May 2007, 06:26 AM
GIA, I see you finally answered the question on the fundamental rightness/wrongness of prostitution between consenting adults in a non-exploitative context ....




Wow, that's it ? That's what we've been waiting for, for six pages ? Prostitution is wrong because it demonstrates the truism that some people have fewer social skills than others ?

Sorry, GIA, I need you to explain that 'because'.

I understand that some people have fewer social skills than others; I am prepared to temporarily concede, for the sake of the argument, that people who pay for sex have fewer social skills than others.

I don't understand how you conclude from this that paying for sex is wrong/immoral/unethical.


Here's an anology. My family of origin abused me badly. As a result, I have few social skills, and I'm incapable of maintaining adult relationships. I have no friends, let alone a partner.

So each week, I go downtown and I pay a woman money to spend an hour of her life with me, to focus on me, to listen to me, to comfort me, to help me and to hold me.

We don't talk about her, I don't even know if she's married, or whether she has children - I don't ask. I want someone to listen to me.

Is this wrong, GIA ?

I agree that it amply demonstrates my lack of social skills. If I had some friends, maybe I wouldn't need to rent someone in this way.

I also agree that in a perfect world (eg a world in which I wasn't abused as a child), I probably wouldn't need to pay for what most people achieve naturally.

But I don't live in a perfect world, and neither does anyone else.

So if I feel the need to hire someone to be with me, I will do that, on the basis of a freely-entered-into contract between autonomous adults, and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong.





The woman that I refer to above is, of course, my psychotherapist, rather than a prostitute.

But the principle is the same.

In just the same way that your logic leads you to regard prostitution as wrong, it would lead you to conclude that psychotherapy is wrong.






Gnu.


PS : "Men should recognize that paid for sex is a poor second to romantic sex."

Perhaps men do recognize that, but some also recognize that 'no sex' is a poor third to 'paid-for-sex'.

I see the point that you make.

This does not justify contributing to a system that is fed by exploited people.

In your scenario both lose. Neither personal situation is improved. She is maintained in a system that causes her younger "sisters" to be abused and he learns nothing to improve his lifestyle either.

The bad aspects outweigh the good one's.
If we are to abolish slavery then we cannot place price tags on each other.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
31st May 2007, 06:30 AM
bolding mine.


Why do you bother?

That statement almost certainly applies to the women who co-signed the report, but is wrong. It's wrong for a huge number of prostitutes, who did indeed, "wake up one morning and decide to be hookers".

If you're going to come and try to garner support for your position, being honest is the first essential. The stoopid bitches who wrote the report made a far worse cock-up than yours - at least yours is only an anonymous internet post, but they've put their name to a public document which is demonstrably bollocks. Obviously, people with similar agendas [think of anyone?] are likely to use it to support destroy their case.

Hardly worth dignifying with refutation, but sometimes that itch just has to be scratched.



<<walks off.... "now I know why I've avoided this thread for so long"...>>

What makes you think that a "huge" number are there by choice.
Prostitution is not touted as the career of choice.

Regards
DL