Poll: Have you ever had a prostitute? (Vote): Yes. (Vote): No. (Vote): No, but I would try it.
The reason I'm asking is because I happen to work in a particular place (ahem, naval-going men) where it is absolutely normal to get a prostitute in just about every port we ever visit. Almost every guy I know - married or not - has been to a whorehouse and paid for sex in some foreign country that we've been in. Some guys I know don't even know what it's like to be in a foreign country because all they've ever seen is the inside of a whorehouse. It's really crazy to me.
(And yes, I had my first - and last - hooker, in Argentina, quite some time ago. It was one of the shittiest ports I have ever been to and I only did it because I'm of the opinion that a man should try everything once. It absolutely boggled my mind how cheap it was there too. Because I spoke Spanish I spent a lot of my time there bartering with hookers and dudes about the prices and it was just fucking crazy to me that these girls were selling their bodies for the equivalent of like two medium Domino's pizzas in the States. I know! I did the math! And I just had two pizzas delivered the other day!).
Never went to a whore. I dont mind guys going to whores if they have no girlfriends. Maybe I will go someday too you never know. If hes going while he has a girlfriend I will consider him scum though.
On November 26 2007 06:40 arcanejazz wrote: On the Domino's website, I found a medium pizza to cost $10. Sadly, I can say Ive known girls to offer it up for less than the price of 2 pizzas.
Then again, Id do a lot for 2 free pizzas. Great, now Im hungry -.-
Nothing against EXCEPT that most of the time women do not pick this job voluntarily. Usually, getting a prostitute is fulling the demand of abused girls (by drug, by force, ...)
If there were not so much "slavery" in prostitution, I would not mind using a prostitute at all. (win-win)
im deathly afraid of the STDs and im not really overjoyed about sticking my penis into a vag that i know im sharing with like a hundred other men who have also pumped their nasty dicks in.
I can only imagine getting a prostitute if I was a sociopathic middle-aged virgin and resolved to the fact that I'd never get a women, and therefore would be doing it for the novel experience.
I really can't imagine it under any other circumstances, and I'm really surprised to hear even a few of you have tried it or are thinking about it. Imagine how many dicks she's had. Would you kiss her? God, tell me you won't eat her pussy! And her vag-saliva is gonna get all over your junk; condoms don't stop you from getting herpes and warts on your balls. How could an educated person buy a prostitute except in the imaginary situation where a consenting woman will never present herself?
Practice wanking off, get better at it. It's an art form.
Beyonder will probably know he made a good bye thread for him, but rekrul closed it down before anyone could say anything. But then again his failing at this moment so I don't know what the fuck is going on. :p
The only hooker I would ever consider would have to be more of a call-girl than a prostitute, and an expensive and classy one at that. I wouldn't want to fuck some common whore. The risk of disease would be far to great. I don't think I would ever really be desperate enough to goto a hooker, though.
I think the risk of disease is there no matter who you sleep with. Prostitutes aren't the only people that sleep with more than one person. What is that bit about how it's like 6 steps to Brad Pitt? The person you slept with probably slept with someone else that probably slept with someone else that probably slept with someone else... on and on. Easy to get disease in any event.
As for prostitutes not enjoying sex... what the hell do you mean? Girls enjoy sex just as much as guys. I'm sure many prostitutes enjoy sex. I'm sure some don't.
I'm not opposed to prostitution, but never been with a prostitute either. I think it should be regulated... sort of like Amsterdam, as I understand it. Make sure the "sex workers" are screened for STD's and that condoms are used.
As for prostitutes not enjoying sex... what the hell do you mean? Girls enjoy sex just as much as guys. I'm sure many prostitutes enjoy sex. I'm sure some don't.
Umm no... most of their clients don't get laid. In other words most of their clients are: old, fucked up, grossly obese, ugly, or have poor hygiene (you may fit in the last subcategory). Also, because it's a prostitute, nobody gives a fuck about her pleasure. Sex =! automatic pleasure, well not for women anyway. But the big one here is that many prostitutes are probably coerced into doing this.
LoL at everyone here and prostitution. Reading this thread is like reading the minds of 18 year old prude virgins that spend a lot of time online. Oh hi
The interesting here is that the numerous men who patronize prostitutes while we're in foreign ports are not especially stupid, ugly, or obese (of course, some are all of these - and I imagine that these few would probably never get laid if it weren't for these generous street-walkers). For the most part, they are either young men or older thirty-forthysomethings, inevitably married with several kids, a nice house, and a pretty steady paycheck. They're not "losers" in the context that I am seeing them described here.
Try spending months on a steel island in the middle of the ocean away from your loved one, your family, your home, and then imagine that you are spending every minute of your waking life with two hundred other annoying, unhygienic men from all walks of life, and then you might be able to have an idea of what drives some of these men to get drunk out of their minds and fuck prostitutes while they're in a foreign port. Call it stress relief - I don't know.
On November 26 2007 11:07 {ToT}Strafe wrote: LoL at everyone here and prostitution. Reading this thread is like reading the minds of 18 year old prude virgins that spend a lot of time online. Oh hi
yeah us prudes avoiding dirty hookers
in your case its the hookers that should be avoiding you
Btw...does it count if a girl that you know is a prostitute sleeps with you for free because she likes you? LOL
Kinda unrelated but I was at this bar in macau with friends just drinking its basically a bar with like 10 girls that dance around (all hookers) and probably 30 fat ugly dirty losers in there at any given time trying to convince the hookers to leave with them that night. Naturally me and 2 friends got one of the nice tables and ordered a bunch of bottles and half the girls in the place were sitting there drinking with us. Man...I have never gotten so many angry fucking looks from scrubby fuckers all night in my life. One guy even tried to get a rise outa me by stealing an almost empty vodka bottle off our table but I just ordered two more. And no none of us took any of the girls out we were just stealing them out of principle the whole night to piss off all the faggots in there.
On November 26 2007 06:40 arcanejazz wrote: On the Domino's website, I found a medium pizza to cost $10. Sadly, I can say Ive known girls to offer it up for less than the price of 2 pizzas.
Then again, Id do a lot for 2 free pizzas. Great, now Im hungry -.-
No, but really I ordered two pizzas and it was something like 24$ and I recalled that is how much the average whore was in S. America. (I even managed to barter one whore down to like 15$ for this horrible-looking motherfucker with bald spots. I remember I was in pure disbelief that she was actually going to fuck this dude).
Nothing wrong with prostitutes although I prefer normal girls, sometimes you just got so horny after clubbing and end up with no girl... ;d So you pay some whats the difference between not liking a slut you don't pay for or not respecting a whore you do pay for and save urself the hassle.
srly isnt the main point of being with girl is the sex that comes with the miserable relationship you guys are going to have once the novelty of it goes away? whats wrong with hookers.
On November 26 2007 12:48 {ToT}Strafe wrote: No lube anal sex destroys her unless you are tiny.
He's asian.
Actually I'm not.
And I did it slow because it was so tight and only for a minute. I couldn't really tell because I was stoned + she was a virgin so I expected it to be tight.
On November 26 2007 12:53 Rev0lution wrote: srly isnt the main point of being with girl is the sex that comes with the miserable relationship you guys are going to have once the novelty of it goes away? whats wrong with hookers.
The cons outweigh the pros by leaps and bounds. - Human trafficking / sexual slavery - Girls & children who are forced to be in the business - The sheer indignity of it all and how disgusting and deplorable it is - You may intend to use her for sex, and may even treat her well. But the next man may have a rape fantasy to play out. They are the most murdered profession after all. - Strafe
Simply because it is often named the worlds oldest profession seldom means it is a worth while one to keep around.
Either it should be legalized and extremely heavily regulated and tracked. Or abolished altogether. What the world has in mass right now is just sick.
On November 26 2007 12:53 Rev0lution wrote: srly isnt the main point of being with girl is the sex that comes with the miserable relationship you guys are going to have once the novelty of it goes away? whats wrong with hookers.
The cons outweigh the pros by leaps and bounds. - Human trafficking / sexual slavery - Girls & children who are forced to be in the business - The sheer indignity of it all and how disgusting and deplorable it is - You may intend to use her for sex, and may even treat her well. But the next man may have a rape fantasy to play out. They are the most murdered profession after all. - Strafe
Simply because it is often named the worlds oldest profession seldom means it is a worth while one to keep around.
Either it should be legalized and extremely heavily regulated and tracked. Or abolished altogether. What the world has in mass right now is just sick.
Nice even handed assessment of prostitution.
I don't have a problem with paying for sex. Is it really any more pathetic than jerking off in a dark room to the interracial midget gang bang porn playing on your computer?
On November 26 2007 14:00 Seku wrote: I got ripped off while I was in Japan.
Hahahahahaha! Happens to everyone, well almost<=- too smart.
On November 26 2007 13:15 Hippopotamus wrote: One day I'll travel to Thailand and bang my cock against some underage grrls. And I have no clue why the fuck I just said that.
Even though you might be joking I feel I need to correct some stereotype here. Underage sex with Thailand does happen, but not a lot. And if you are ever caught having sex with a girl that isn't 18 yet you can spend some serious time in the Thai Monkeyhouse and that is not something you want to do ever. The police is actually quite strict on under aged prostitution. Better be careful
On November 26 2007 14:31 A3iL3r0n wrote: How come IntoTheWow hasn't posted in this thread yet?
What does he have to do with it?:S
There is only one reason to abolish prostitution and that would be to crack down on STD's that are harmful for society as a whole.
I'm quite convinced that forced prostitution would occur a lot less if you legalize it. In fact by legalizing it and controlling it like any other profession you should be able to eradicate forced prostitution entirely. After all there is no reason why any guy would visit an unwilling girl rather than a girl who consciously and voluntarily chooses to enter this profession.
Prostitution itself is perfectly fine. The things that are closely related to prostitution are the problem, drugs & slavery. Governments need to start legalizing prostitution as soon as possible and even go as far to make it a socially acceptable job so that the women who are conducting the profession aren't shunned upon and pushed into a dark corner of society where they are treated with nothing but disrespect. Prostitutes are treated so bad that is despicable and deplorable. One of the reasons for this is people throwing so much shit on prostitution. Calling them nasty hookers non stop and basically showing no respect for them or whatsoever is totally wrong and should be stopped. I am not saying you should see them as great women, but if prostitutes could achieve the same status as a garbage collector a lot of progress has been made. Keeping them in a corner of society will only make them vulnerable to crimes such as drugs, forced prostitution and what not. Forced prostitution cannot happen in a society where prostitution is legally and socially accepted and also regulated.
Girls that do prostitution often desperately need money(duh). If they need it so bad that they are willing to do this it can even be decent solution. They would not have to resort to crimes and they can mean something for men who have a sick libido. If a guy has some weird fantasies and a prostitute is fine with realizing them for some money then why not? You would really rather want him to get stuck with his fantasy forever? Help the guy out. Not to mention the guys that would go so nuts they would actually force an unwilling girl to do it. Yeah I know they are out there.
Then there are guys who are just horny for the night and want a decent fuck and prostitutes are the perfect solution for the guy so he doesn't wake up with a huge boner and sick pain in his balls that flows through to his stomach. Isn't it wonderful to have girls selling themselves for money? Ball ache is no thanks after all.
Prostitution can have a relieving effect on society. If it weren't for STD's it should probably be taken up in the health care package.(after consultation of a psychiatrist OF COURSE).
This boy i know dad got him a prostitute for his 18th birthday because he knew his son was a virgin and couldn't get laid on his own. He told us the story and i remember all of us making fun of him because he said he kissed her haha... good times...
Strafe, there will always be young mindless peeps with "morality" arguments whining about how the society gets corrupted, how god is unhappy and other sissy crap. There will also always be old women with "criticizm" and lawyers who earn money saying it "insults women as a whole" therefore, violates "women's rights". Not gonna happen.
Not on short term no. I realize that all too well, but it is never wrong to advocate the right thing to do even though it won't happen any time soon. The not gonna happen attitude didn't change the world in history and won't in the future!
arent you afraid of aids or siphylis? i dont suggest a hooker, since its a common to get your cock sick, and of course using condom is really not the same, but in your particular case, as you can not have a normal sexual life 'coz of your travels i suggest you to ... well ..... no good solution found... prostitutes in your case sounds logical.
btw no women can be get "free" even if its an honorable one you MUST SPENT AT LEAST TIME, AND SINCE TIME IS MONEY YOU ARE SPENDING MONEY ON THEM.
I actually just finished watching "Sex Trade$" the documentary. It basically is a documentary showing eastern european women being tricked into sex slavery. They answer ads in their local paper, about waitress/housekeeping jobs in a different country, and are then sold to a pimp. They are forced to have sex, or be beaten to death. One particular story from the documentary showcases a man who sent his wife to turkey with a close family friend, to buy some things to sell at their shop in moldova. He in turn, sold his friends wife while in turkey, to a pimp, and then had the nerve to phone the guy up and tell him that. Long story short, he ended up tracking down the pimp that owned his wife, and in the end got her back. The guy who sold her, was given 5 months probation. The rest, went on without worrying about being caught.
I don't know if its the age factor on these forums, or just a general lack of knowledge about the truth behind most prostitution, but alot of these replies are pretty sick.
Stick to women who work for themselves, who are professional, and do not belong to the sex slave ring. Abolishing these things would certainly help alot of families sleep better at night.
So the next time your naval ship docks, and your buddies are all excited to get laid, think about the girls story, and all of the horrors she has lived through. Then tell me you don't have a problem paying for her.
this forum is plain hillarious in the sex threads...
Its actually quite a coincidence because i just had one 2 days ago ROFL, i went to party but i got wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasted horribly, i remember making out with some german girl but then i blacked out and did stupid stuff so she left, after several hours i find myself home alone and horny so i call for a hooker, she was a young average looking girl it was ok, i was waaay too drunk for sex so it kinda sucked but she gave me a 50% discount cuz she tought i was cute lol wtf.
Its so weird because its been arround 9 years since i ordered a hooker (i had one when i was very young lol) no idea why i randomly decided to do it.
About the moral issue, i have to say you are all a bunch of fucking retards (as usual), as rekrul said, most women are prostitutes in one way or another, a gold digger is even worse than a prostitue because she fucks for money and not only that but she fools the guy, a prostitute is honst its just a deal between two grown adults.
Seriously people you should watch "penn & tellers bullshit" episode on prositution, there is absolutey nothing wrong in what 2 adults decided to do in a bedroom for any reason, for love, money, pleasure, revenge or any fucking reason, if a girl wants the money and a guy wants the sex whats wrong about it?.
I loved one part of the show when they show a handsome guy talking with some girl, and then the (fat and ugly) host of the program approaches flashing some bills and the girl leaves the other guy for the fat one and they say something like " why do people who are naturally attractive must have more sex than people who are not ", and i totally agree so if you are ugly or shy or whatever you are suppoused to have a poor life and jerk off every day? just pay some girl and you will be both happy.
PS: Testie your argument on prostitution is only valid if prostitution is illegal, legalization and regulation of prostitution erradicates every single negative aspect of current illegal prostitution.
Violence: on legalized prostituion whore houses have strict security, also its a huge problem that prostitutes can call the police because well, they would go to jail.
Diseases: on legalized prostition the girls are constantly monitored for diseases and always wear protection no matter what.
Human traffic: it will be obviously erradicated when prostitution is legalized, no whore house would jeopardize their bussiness with slavery... its common nowadays because they already crossed the illegal boundary before.
Indignity: yeah... cleaning toilets its not a job to brag about either, there are dozens of shitty jobs you wouldnt want ppl to know what you do for a living but they are still honest jobs that should be done.
I dont see can anybody disagree with me here withouth a "eewww filthy" or some religion related bullshit.
I`ve had a few. The first one was a street prostitute and I had only a BJ. After that I`ve been several times to clubs.
Edit: lol at this thread and the people saying that they would never pay for sex. Going to a hooker is much less expensive that dating some girl. Imagine all the expenses of buying her drinks and stuff till she is ready for fuck. lol.
Back in 2005 WCG Singapore, we were all sitting around outside in the hotel complex having a barbecue and lots to drink, some Macedonian guy comes up, I forgot what game he was playing, wasn't CS or BW, he comes up to us, without any hesitation or worry exclaims..
"Hey, you guys want whore?" We sort of looked at him. "huh?" "Whore.. you guys want to fuck whore?". We don't say anything. "We found whore down the road, she said if we get 10 people, we get big discount".
"...................What. 10 guys and the same girl?"
Everyone started laughing and went back to drinking, I still can't help wonder if it was just the 1 girl, I doubt it was, but can you imagine?
On November 26 2007 19:01 Energies wrote: Back in 2005 WCG Singapore, we were all sitting around outside in the hotel complex having a barbecue and lots to drink, some Macedonian guy comes up, I forgot what game he was playing, wasn't CS or BW, he comes up to us, without any hesitation or worry exclaims..
"Hey, you guys want whore?" We sort of looked at him. "huh?" "Whore.. you guys want to fuck whore?". We don't say anything. "We found whore down the road, she said if we get 10 people, we get big discount".
"...................What. 10 guys and the same girl?"
Everyone started laughing and went back to drinking, I still can't help wonder if it was just the 1 girl, I doubt it was, but can you imagine?
*shivers*.
Don't worry, it wouldn't have been so rough on her. She'd just take the one in front, and the other 9 would have to chain up.
On November 26 2007 19:01 Energies wrote: Back in 2005 WCG Singapore, we were all sitting around outside in the hotel complex having a barbecue and lots to drink, some Macedonian guy comes up, I forgot what game he was playing, wasn't CS or BW, he comes up to us, without any hesitation or worry exclaims..
"Hey, you guys want whore?" We sort of looked at him. "huh?" "Whore.. you guys want to fuck whore?". We don't say anything. "We found whore down the road, she said if we get 10 people, we get big discount".
"...................What. 10 guys and the same girl?"
Everyone started laughing and went back to drinking, I still can't help wonder if it was just the 1 girl, I doubt it was, but can you imagine?
*shivers*.
Don't worry, it wouldn't have been so rough on her. She'd just take the one in front, and the other 9 would have to chain up.
If you slum for hookers you're going to get cheap trash. Some people are into that. You don't have to go to the Bunny Ranch to get a good hooker, but somewhere in between stretched out crack whores with the clap and $2000 per hour plastic bimbos lies the "good hooker" who looks natural, is clean, is doing it for the money of her own will, and who does what she does well.
my ex room mate did it once. it was embarassing. he didn't know where to go so he asked the taxi driver and afterwards said it was more painful than fun, he liked the sucking tho... weird..
Me and the wife are planning on getting one when we go to Vegas, only way I could talk her into a 3 way, was if it was someone we didn't know and would never see again. Will probably end up at the Bunny Ranch.
On November 26 2007 07:00 CruiseR wrote: like my friend said "You must be completely retarded if you pay for something you can have for free"
The difference is that you just pay to hooker and you don't have to do anything else to get sex when you want, and that it is sure thing. I was never whit hooker through, and if I were, then only bj.
On November 26 2007 19:56 NotSorry wrote: Me and the wife are planning on getting one when we go to Vegas, only way I could talk her into a 3 way, was if it was someone we didn't know and would never see again. Will probably end up at the Bunny Ranch.
See if Isabella Soprano is still there, I'd pay to see that shit~
On November 26 2007 19:56 NotSorry wrote: Me and the wife are planning on getting one when we go to Vegas, only way I could talk her into a 3 way, was if it was someone we didn't know and would never see again. Will probably end up at the Bunny Ranch.
See if Isabella Soprano is still there, I'd pay to see that shit~
Remember, while you have sex, PUERTORICAN IS WATCHING YOU
On November 26 2007 19:56 NotSorry wrote: Me and the wife are planning on getting one when we go to Vegas, only way I could talk her into a 3 way, was if it was someone we didn't know and would never see again. Will probably end up at the Bunny Ranch.
never went to a hooker, only thing id try with one is a bj, too much disease risk in real sex also, try and convince a girlfriend of yours to enter a sex-only relationship, thats much better ;d
on november 26 2007 18:12 baal wrote: This forum is plain hillarious in the sex threads...
Its actually quite a coincidence because i just had one 2 days ago rofl, i went to party but i got wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasted horribly, i remember making out with some german girl but then i blacked out and did stupid stuff so she left, after several hours i find myself home alone and horny so i call for a hooker, she was a young average looking girl it was ok, i was waaay too drunk for sex so it kinda sucked but she gave me a 50% discount cuz she tought i was cute lol wtf.
Its so weird because its been arround 9 years since i ordered a hooker (i had one when i was very young lol) no idea why i randomly decided to do it.
About the moral issue, i have to say you are all a bunch of fucking retards (as usual), as rekrul said, most women are prostitutes in one way or another, a gold digger is even worse than a prostitue because she fucks for money and not only that but she fools the guy, a prostitute is honst its just a deal between two grown adults.
Seriously people you should watch "penn & tellers bullshit" episode on prositution, there is absolutey nothing wrong in what 2 adults decided to do in a bedroom for any reason, for love, money, pleasure, revenge or any fucking reason, if a girl wants the money and a guy wants the sex whats wrong about it?.
I loved one part of the show when they show a handsome guy talking with some girl, and then the (fat and ugly) host of the program approaches flashing some bills and the girl leaves the other guy for the fat one and they say something like " why do people who are naturally attractive must have more sex than people who are not ", and i totally agree so if you are ugly or shy or whatever you are suppoused to have a poor life and jerk off every day? Just pay some girl and you will be both happy.
Ps: testie your argument on prostitution is only valid if prostitution is illegal, legalization and regulation of prostitution erradicates every single negative aspect of current illegal prostitution.
Violence: on legalized prostituion whore houses have strict security, also its a huge problem that prostitutes can call the police because well, they would go to jail.
Diseases: on legalized prostition the girls are constantly monitored for diseases and always wear protection no matter what.
Human traffic: it will be obviously erradicated when prostitution is legalized, no whore house would jeopardize their bussiness with slavery... Its common nowadays because they already crossed the illegal boundary before.
Indignity: yeah... Cleaning toilets its not a job to brag about either, there are dozens of shitty jobs you wouldnt want ppl to know what you do for a living but they are still honest jobs that should be done.
I dont see can anybody disagree with me here withouth a "eewww filthy" or some religion related bullshit.
I 100% do not agree with this post, and not from either of the bullshit reasons you gave as opposition. Prostitution carries with it a lot of associated deleterious social harms
I mean, okay, point number one - number of prostitutes goes up. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think we can all agree that no matter our stance on whether or not it should be legal, you need to justify its subsequent explosive growth and pervasive impact as occupation of choice for many women, and the massive negatives that come from that. (see hong kong) as far as you accept that the government has any paternalistic obligation whatsoever, then this seems chief among their interests to protect against, and not simply because you're flooding the market with supply, making everyone's life harder. Cleaning toilets is degrading, but honestly, don't even try to argue its as degrading as prostitution.
Second, you need to recognize that you can paint it as 'two mutually consenting adults' all you want, but the same reason we ban incest between 'mutually consenting adults' is the reason prostitution is still banned. 'Mutual consent' is very rarely so. Even absent pimp or absolute coercion (lol human trafficking won't occur? Really? From countries where prostitution isn't legal to countries where it is? Or the other way around? It will still be there, and grow once you create a legal market for it!), economic factors mean what happens with a volunteer military (where only poor people join, because rich people don't need the financial incentives), happens for prostitution, only 100x, and only for women
Third, to assume that a black market for prostutition won't still exist is absurd. Pimps and prostitutes unwilling to be subjected to all this regulation will simply continue doing what they've been doing - operate under the law - and continue to recruit people. It's not a matter of 'Oh no one will go to them because why not just go to a guaranteed government whore?', it's a matter of 'Oh man gov't whores are soooo expensive cause they have to get std checking after every single sex act, which is really expensive for everyone involved, so i'm just going to go to this girl on the street, who swears she's clean'. (Or one can even imagine a black market for 'whores that swear they are clean, so they'll let you have sex without a condom on', which I'm sure many people are willing to take the risk for so that it feels better.)
because they are ignorant retards?, also read your statistics about STDs wearing a condom from a reliable scientific source, no scandal publications plz.
And yes, I know my position is fraught with harms I'll have to bite, like why is porn any different from prostitution, when one is just filming it and the other isn't. Really, I don't have a great answer for that, except that since there's a greater barrier to entry, it is not as lucrative and its effects are isolated to a small portion of the population, therefore not justifying the rights infringement by banning it. Which is empirically borne out.
On November 26 2007 22:36 GrandInquisitor wrote: And yes, I know my position is fraught with harms I'll have to bite, like why is porn any different from prostitution, when one is just filming it and the other isn't. Really, I don't have a great answer for that, except that since there's a greater barrier to entry, it is not as lucrative and its effects are isolated to a small portion of the population, therefore not justifying the rights infringement by banning it. Which is empirically borne out.
I can't imagine fucking a prostitute is any better than winning with maphack. I wouldn't have taken a prostitute if somebody offered to pay for me and she was one hundred percent clean. When a person's having sex with you only for the money, half the pleasure's gone already.
And, then comes the guilt of supporting something as reprehensible as prostitution. I realize some women might actually want to be prostitutes, much like I imagine there could potentially be some 40-old-guy, 8-year-old-boy relationships which both parties enjoy, but for simplicity's sake, I would rather just ban both of them.
Of course, illegal prostitution combined with the police not having the resources to deal with the black market is yet worse than legal prostitution.
I believe our lives need some things to be special. If we are going to ruin the magic of the man-woman relationship with prostitution, I think we lose part of what makes life good. I have trouble seeing how anybody, buyers or sellers, have had their lives bettered by prostitution, but I realize other people must have greatly different values than I do, looking at all the fucked up shit around us.
Noone wants to ruin the magic Zherak. It's just leaving people to do what they want. Yes, the whole picture is somewhat idealistic, but there will still be women with a wish to have a family, and they will still have "the magic". Besides, you offer a girl a drink, go a sightseeing tour with her in your car, then she gets laid, what's so magical about it? Essentially, you play the same game, just with more intricate action. Whether or not this intricateness is the source of the magic is still do be determined.
On November 27 2007 01:52 BluzMan wrote: Noone wants to ruin the magic Zherak. It's just leaving people to do what they want. Yes, the whole picture is somewhat idealistic, but there will still be women with a wish to have a family, and they will still have "the magic". Besides, you offer a girl a drink, go a sightseeing tour with her in your car, then she gets laid, what's so magical about it? Essentially, you play the same game, just with more intricate action. Whether or not this intricateness is the source of the magic is still do be determined.
well, he's talking about the special magic in man-woman relationships. you have to experience it. do you believe in magic? in a young girl's heart? it's like music... it can free you, it can free her, wherever it starts. it's hard to explain, it's like really groovy music, it makes you feel happy like an old-time movie. if you only knew, i'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul.
On November 27 2007 01:36 Zherak wrote: I can't imagine fucking a prostitute is any better than winning with maphack. I wouldn't have taken a prostitute if somebody offered to pay for me and she was one hundred percent clean. When a person's having sex with you only for the money, half the pleasure's gone already.
And, then comes the guilt of supporting something as reprehensible as prostitution. I realize some women might actually want to be prostitutes, much like I imagine there could potentially be some 40-old-guy, 8-year-old-boy relationships which both parties enjoy, but for simplicity's sake, I would rather just ban both of them.
Of course, illegal prostitution combined with the police not having the resources to deal with the black market is yet worse than legal prostitution.
I believe our lives need some things to be special. If we are going to ruin the magic of the man-woman relationship with prostitution, I think we lose part of what makes life good. I have trouble seeing how anybody, buyers or sellers, have had their lives bettered by prostitution, but I realize other people must have greatly different values than I do, looking at all the fucked up shit around us.
Just because someone has different values than you do doesn't make you a "better" human being.
What if I married a money hungry bitch that will only sleep with me when I shower her with gifts? How many relationships are going on like this? What kind of a relationship do you call this? Do you call this a "special" man-woman relationship?
How about all the hoards of women attracted to wealthy rich individuals?
You don't ruin the man-woman relationship with prostitution.... Prostitution is merely a part of it, whether you want to admit it or not. Prostitution is a word people use to explain the act of trading money for sex.
If you take that definition of the word, you can see a host of relationships / marriages that are based around that definition. Man marrying woman for sex / hotness while woman marrying man for the wealth and power, and then they blend that alltogether with a ring on their finger and call it love.
You just can't black and white this issue.
Many of you guys really have high utopian ideals for sex / male - female relationships that simply exist in your minds but doesn't exist in the real world.
On November 27 2007 03:18 Tien wrote: Baal and Strafe pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Seems to be as if society is split in 2 categories:
Those that accept the human nature aspect of it and see life as shades of grey.
And those that want to deny the human nature aspect of it and see everything as either black or white, right or wrong.
I prefer to look at life in colors. Shades of gray leave an opportunity for magnitude comparisons, whereas things around me are so obviously impossible to compare. How do you compare an ocean breeze mixed with the scent of pine leaves (I don't know the english word for pine "leaves", sorry me) to a good movie or a pretty girl's smile in a subway? Comparing things to each other might be a nice way to systemize your views on life, but it essentially simplifies them to the point they hardly bear any sense.
The above is especially true for the relationships between a man and a woman. Sometimes it's absolutely awesome to have sex with a girl whose name you don't even know and never see her ever after, such events may set themselves into your memory forever.
having sex with hookers in asia is a lot different from having sex from hookers anywhere else, in terms of just everything. As for the all women are whores part, it's true if you're rich, your money will be the thing every woman notices first, unless they're rich too. But guys are the same, if they have an opportunity to get more money and have a better life most of them would, but there are some that are satisfied with the life they have although it's not glamorous, same with girls.
On November 27 2007 01:52 BluzMan wrote: Noone wants to ruin the magic Zherak. It's just leaving people to do what they want. Yes, the whole picture is somewhat idealistic, but there will still be women with a wish to have a family, and they will still have "the magic". Besides, you offer a girl a drink, go a sightseeing tour with her in your car, then she gets laid, what's so magical about it? Essentially, you play the same game, just with more intricate action. Whether or not this intricateness is the source of the magic is still do be determined.
well, he's talking about the special magic in man-woman relationships. you have to experience it. do you believe in magic? in a young girl's heart? it's like music... it can free you, it can free her, wherever it starts. it's hard to explain, it's like really groovy music, it makes you feel happy like an old-time movie. if you only knew, i'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul.
Yes, I believed in magic when I was 18, and then I figured out what to do with women.
If freeing soul was that easy, we would all be happy persons everywhere, but we aren't because even the old groovy music makes you bored eventually.
if you believed in magic, you don't bother to choose. it doesn't matter if its jug band music or rhythm/blues, you just go listen and start with a smile, it won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try to justify prostitution.
if you really believed in magic, come along with me, we'll dance until morning 'til there's just you and me, and maybe, if the music is right, i'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night. and we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see, how the magic's in the music and the music's in me. yeah, do you believe in magic. yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl's soul.
On November 27 2007 01:52 BluzMan wrote: Noone wants to ruin the magic Zherak. It's just leaving people to do what they want. Yes, the whole picture is somewhat idealistic, but there will still be women with a wish to have a family, and they will still have "the magic". Besides, you offer a girl a drink, go a sightseeing tour with her in your car, then she gets laid, what's so magical about it? Essentially, you play the same game, just with more intricate action. Whether or not this intricateness is the source of the magic is still do be determined.
well, he's talking about the special magic in man-woman relationships. you have to experience it. do you believe in magic? in a young girl's heart? it's like music... it can free you, it can free her, wherever it starts. it's hard to explain, it's like really groovy music, it makes you feel happy like an old-time movie. if you only knew, i'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul.
Yes, I believed in magic when I was 18, and then I figured out what to do with women.
If freeing soul was that easy, we would all be happy persons everywhere, but we aren't because even the old groovy music makes you bored eventually.
if you believed in magic, you don't bother to choose. it doesn't matter if its jug band music or rhythm/blues, you just go listen and start with a smile, it won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try to justify prostitution.
if you really believed in magic, come along with me, we'll dance until morning 'til there's just you and me, and maybe, if the music is right, i'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night. and we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see, how the magic's in the music and the music's in me. yeah, do you believe in magic. yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl's soul.
The error I see in a lot of this thread is that people confuse a meaningful romantic relationship with a purely sexual relationship. I think prostitution should be legal, and so I essentially agree with Bluzman and others in that regard. I do think it should be regulated and that sex-workers (as opposed to using the word "prostitutes" or "whores") should be treated with respect.
But to say that having sex with your girlfriend is the same as sex with a prostitute is kind of weird, I think.
There is a whole spectrum of possible sexual relationships, from picking up a prostitute, to one night stand situations (which I think many of you are talking about), to friends with benefits situations, to serious monogamous relationships. Sex and love in a real relationship can't be anything like getting it on with a prostitute. Not that love-less sex is bad, but it's just different. The magic of a romantic relationship will not be there in a pay-for-sex arrangement. Then again, others might feel that the magic of casual sex is not there in the romance situation.
All this talk that boils down to all women being prostitutes in one way or another because guys ultimately have to pay for sex is very off-putting to me. You can't compare a relationship with picking up a prostitute.
On November 27 2007 01:52 BluzMan wrote: Noone wants to ruin the magic Zherak. It's just leaving people to do what they want. Yes, the whole picture is somewhat idealistic, but there will still be women with a wish to have a family, and they will still have "the magic". Besides, you offer a girl a drink, go a sightseeing tour with her in your car, then she gets laid, what's so magical about it? Essentially, you play the same game, just with more intricate action. Whether or not this intricateness is the source of the magic is still do be determined.
well, he's talking about the special magic in man-woman relationships. you have to experience it. do you believe in magic? in a young girl's heart? it's like music... it can free you, it can free her, wherever it starts. it's hard to explain, it's like really groovy music, it makes you feel happy like an old-time movie. if you only knew, i'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul.
Yes, I believed in magic when I was 18, and then I figured out what to do with women.
If freeing soul was that easy, we would all be happy persons everywhere, but we aren't because even the old groovy music makes you bored eventually.
if you believed in magic, you don't bother to choose. it doesn't matter if its jug band music or rhythm/blues, you just go listen and start with a smile, it won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try to justify prostitution.
if you really believed in magic, come along with me, we'll dance until morning 'til there's just you and me, and maybe, if the music is right, i'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night. and we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see, how the magic's in the music and the music's in me. yeah, do you believe in magic. yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl's soul.
On November 27 2007 03:27 Tien wrote: Just because someone has different values than you do doesn't make you a "better" human being.
What if I married a money hungry bitch that will only sleep with me when I shower her with gifts? How many relationships are going on like this? What kind of a relationship do you call this? Do you call this a "special" man-woman relationship?
How about all the hoards of women attracted to wealthy rich individuals?
You don't ruin the man-woman relationship with prostitution.... Prostitution is merely a part of it, whether you want to admit it or not. Prostitution is a word people use to explain the act of trading money for sex.
If you take that definition of the word, you can see a host of relationships / marriages that are based around that definition. Man marrying woman for sex / hotness while woman marrying man for the wealth and power, and then they blend that alltogether with a ring on their finger and call it love.
You just can't black and white this issue.
Many of you guys really have high utopian ideals for sex / male - female relationships that simply exist in your minds but doesn't exist in the real world.
You're the only one calling me a better human being. Flattering as that might be, there's no need to put words in my mouth.
And, yes, you are right, there are many other ways to make both sex and relationships less special. Prostitution is one of them. Ad-hoc prostitution, which is essentially what you are describing in your various examples of trading money for sex is another.
It's your description of Utopian relationships which is black and white. I believe that: a) A very intimate relationship between men and women is possible (probably men and men too, for that matter, but I don't swing that way) b) Being part of such a relationship is one of the most satisfying (gratifying?) experiences you can find c) Buying hookers take away part of what can make such a relationship special
As an aside, I view sex to be just as much about appreciating and being appreciated as it is about stimulating your glans. The physical sensation lasts some minutes.
This may sound all Hollywood and silly, but is not very different from how I only eat sweets very rarely, so I do not case to appreciate the, how I only want to celebrate Christmas once a year and how I do not want to study music because I want it to remain only a hobby I can appreciate as such.
It is also my impression than many male posters in this thread fail to realize how differently men and women view sex. One of the most basic evolutionary instincts of any mammalian female is a need to be able to chose who she mates with, and to be reasonably picky about it. In mammals with a long gestation period who form familial bonds to raise their young (i.e. humans) this need is extremely strong. Women can, for evolutionary reasons, not be casual about sex, and birth control does not change this instinct.
Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her.
I have not verified that this is not bullshit statistics, but it sounds reasonable. Prostitution takes away one of the most important rights of a female, that of choosing carefully who she has sex with. Therefore, extremely few women can be content to be prostitutes.
Agreed, not all women can be content to be prostitutes.
Not many people can be content cleaning public toilets... i mean who can enjoy flushing random massive shits and nasty stuff ffs..... But its a job and like 90% of people hate their jobs, atleast prostitution is very well paid and there are many prostitutes that are happy with their job.
On November 26 2007 15:42 Kingkosi wrote: This boy i know dad got him a prostitute for his 18th birthday because he knew his son was a virgin and couldn't get laid on his own. He told us the story and i remember all of us making fun of him because he said he kissed her haha... good times...
On November 26 2007 15:42 Kingkosi wrote: This boy i know dad got him a prostitute for his 18th birthday because he knew his son was a virgin and couldn't get laid on his own. He told us the story and i remember all of us making fun of him because he said he kissed her haha... good times...
wtf? made no sense after the 18 thing.
Think about it for a second. Would you really wanna kiss a prostitute?
Let me simplify this: Would you ever kiss your girlfriend after she gave you head? How bout a random girl who's prolly sucked 25x that amount of dicks in that night?
On November 26 2007 19:56 NotSorry wrote: Me and the wife are planning on getting one when we go to Vegas, only way I could talk her into a 3 way, was if it was someone we didn't know and would never see again. Will probably end up at the Bunny Ranch.
See if Isabella Soprano is still there, I'd pay to see that shit~
Remember, while you have sex, PUERTORICAN IS WATCHING YOU
Do I hear TL's first in house porno in production?
on november 26 2007 18:12 baal wrote: This forum is plain hillarious in the sex threads...
Its actually quite a coincidence because i just had one 2 days ago rofl, i went to party but i got wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasted horribly, i remember making out with some german girl but then i blacked out and did stupid stuff so she left, after several hours i find myself home alone and horny so i call for a hooker, she was a young average looking girl it was ok, i was waaay too drunk for sex so it kinda sucked but she gave me a 50% discount cuz she tought i was cute lol wtf.
Its so weird because its been arround 9 years since i ordered a hooker (i had one when i was very young lol) no idea why i randomly decided to do it.
About the moral issue, i have to say you are all a bunch of fucking retards (as usual), as rekrul said, most women are prostitutes in one way or another, a gold digger is even worse than a prostitue because she fucks for money and not only that but she fools the guy, a prostitute is honst its just a deal between two grown adults.
Seriously people you should watch "penn & tellers bullshit" episode on prositution, there is absolutey nothing wrong in what 2 adults decided to do in a bedroom for any reason, for love, money, pleasure, revenge or any fucking reason, if a girl wants the money and a guy wants the sex whats wrong about it?.
I loved one part of the show when they show a handsome guy talking with some girl, and then the (fat and ugly) host of the program approaches flashing some bills and the girl leaves the other guy for the fat one and they say something like " why do people who are naturally attractive must have more sex than people who are not ", and i totally agree so if you are ugly or shy or whatever you are suppoused to have a poor life and jerk off every day? Just pay some girl and you will be both happy.
Ps: testie your argument on prostitution is only valid if prostitution is illegal, legalization and regulation of prostitution erradicates every single negative aspect of current illegal prostitution.
Violence: on legalized prostituion whore houses have strict security, also its a huge problem that prostitutes can call the police because well, they would go to jail.
Diseases: on legalized prostition the girls are constantly monitored for diseases and always wear protection no matter what.
Human traffic: it will be obviously erradicated when prostitution is legalized, no whore house would jeopardize their bussiness with slavery... Its common nowadays because they already crossed the illegal boundary before.
Indignity: yeah... Cleaning toilets its not a job to brag about either, there are dozens of shitty jobs you wouldnt want ppl to know what you do for a living but they are still honest jobs that should be done.
I dont see can anybody disagree with me here withouth a "eewww filthy" or some religion related bullshit.
I 100% do not agree with this post, and not from either of the bullshit reasons you gave as opposition. Prostitution carries with it a lot of associated deleterious social harms
I mean, okay, point number one - number of prostitutes goes up. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think we can all agree that no matter our stance on whether or not it should be legal, you need to justify its subsequent explosive growth and pervasive impact as occupation of choice for many women, and the massive negatives that come from that. (see hong kong) as far as you accept that the government has any paternalistic obligation whatsoever, then this seems chief among their interests to protect against, and not simply because you're flooding the market with supply, making everyone's life harder. Cleaning toilets is degrading, but honestly, don't even try to argue its as degrading as prostitution.
Second, you need to recognize that you can paint it as 'two mutually consenting adults' all you want, but the same reason we ban incest between 'mutually consenting adults' is the reason prostitution is still banned. 'Mutual consent' is very rarely so. Even absent pimp or absolute coercion (lol human trafficking won't occur? Really? From countries where prostitution isn't legal to countries where it is? Or the other way around? It will still be there, and grow once you create a legal market for it!), economic factors mean what happens with a volunteer military (where only poor people join, because rich people don't need the financial incentives), happens for prostitution, only 100x, and only for women
Third, to assume that a black market for prostutition won't still exist is absurd. Pimps and prostitutes unwilling to be subjected to all this regulation will simply continue doing what they've been doing - operate under the law - and continue to recruit people. It's not a matter of 'Oh no one will go to them because why not just go to a guaranteed government whore?', it's a matter of 'Oh man gov't whores are soooo expensive cause they have to get std checking after every single sex act, which is really expensive for everyone involved, so i'm just going to go to this girl on the street, who swears she's clean'. (Or one can even imagine a black market for 'whores that swear they are clean, so they'll let you have sex without a condom on', which I'm sure many people are willing to take the risk for so that it feels better.)
Wow you arent even posing a challenge dude seriously:
First of all you mention the growth of # of prostitutes as a bad thing, imo it isn but lets not argue about it... i think the fact that all the current prostitutes death, rape and violence ratio would nearly dissapear... also the number of diseases would go down drastically overcomes any possible negative thing you see in an increasing number of regulated prostitutes.
Second you think the state should regulate what 2 concenting adults can do in their bedrooms?, and you compare Incest to it?... first of all incest is illegal mainly because it fucks up the gene pool and there is a HUGE increase in malformations and genetic diseases like down syndrome, and personally i dont think incest should be illegal, as morally wrong u think it is, the state should not legislate based on morality.
You insist of human traffic... regulated prostitution is done in whorehouses, a whorehouse is NOT going to jeopardize their whole bussiness to get a "cheap" illegal girl when they can hire hundreds or legal girls, thats what the hole REGULATION is for!!! the state will constantly check the stablishments for any illegal activity, its nearly impossible to do that and actually there would be no market for illegal girls.
Third first of all its not "government" whore, i never suggested that the state should fucking run whorehouses, it would be private bussinesses.
The funny thing is now you think the prices will go up so much... when a few paragraphs before you stated that there would be much more prostitutes (that would lower the price my friend), ooops.
And even if that would happen do you think many people would just decide to commit a dangerous crime for a few less bucks?, no dummy, they wont... but more importantly there wont be a big black market since it would be a private bussiness, so i can guarantee you there will be a whore for everybody's budget.
Oh and last time i checked whores prices in Amsterdam where quite reasonable.
On November 27 2007 08:09 baal wrote: There are many prostitutes that are happy with their job.
Are there? Skeptical, though curious.
And, regarding your reply to GI: Why are we assuming that enforcement of laws going to work out if prostitution is legalized? Magic is not automatically going to happen, you know. I don't see regulation of a legalized market as inherently simple, while enforcement of a ban is apparently impossible.
Incredibly disgusting to accept prostitution as legal in society. To promote prostitution and viewing it as "normal" is wrong in multiple aspects. There is no need to argue about this, please just look at society right now and where the general perspective stands on prostitution, there are reasons why it is anti-prostitution from the start. There are quite a few members on TL.net that deserve to go on the shit list, wake the fuck up if you are still trying to promote prostitution.
On November 27 2007 08:09 baal wrote: There are many prostitutes that are happy with their job.
Are there? Skeptical, though curious.
And, regarding your reply to GI: Why are we assuming that enforcement of laws going to work out if prostitution is legalized? Magic is not automatically going to happen, you know. I don't see regulation of a legalized market as inherently simple, while enforcement of a ban is apparently impossible.
yes there are, as i said earlier you should watch Bullshit's episode on legalization of prostitution, they interview 3 prostitutes all of them happy with their job, one of them is a politicla activist, an old woman who were a whore for an entire life and she says she is proud and happy about it.
The other is a girl in a legal regularized whore house, she is happy with her job she wins good money and its a pretty safe and clean place.
The third is an illegal prostitute, she says she likes her job because it pays good and it has flexible hours, (she has no pimp obv), but she is afraid that in a future she will have a violent encounter... thing that wouldnt be possible if prostitution were legalized.
On November 27 2007 08:47 LOcDowN wrote: Incredibly disgusting to accept prostitution as legal in society. To promote prostitution and viewing it as "normal" is wrong in multiple aspects. There is no need to argue about this, please just look at society right now and where the general perspective stands on prostitution, there are reasons why it is anti-prostitution from the start. There are quite a few members on TL.net that deserve to go on the shit list, wake the fuck up if you are still trying to promote prostitution.
This is a discussion forum -.- if you say its wrong on many aspects you should expose them or dont post your ignorant opinion at all seriously wtf, especially if you condemnt us all to the "shit list" rofl.
On November 27 2007 08:47 LOcDowN wrote: Incredibly disgusting to accept prostitution as legal in society. To promote prostitution and viewing it as "normal" is wrong in multiple aspects. There is no need to argue about this, please just look at society right now and where the general perspective stands on prostitution, there are reasons why it is anti-prostitution from the start. There are quite a few members on TL.net that deserve to go on the shit list, wake the fuck up if you are still trying to promote prostitution.
Better adjust your posting behavior;/
I like prostitution and I'm gonna do a 4some with 3 girls I ordered from the yellow pages in 30 minutes. I hope you are rooting for me Baal and LocDown
On November 27 2007 08:47 LOcDowN wrote: Incredibly disgusting to accept prostitution as legal in society. To promote prostitution and viewing it as "normal" is wrong in multiple aspects. There is no need to argue about this, please just look at society right now and where the general perspective stands on prostitution, there are reasons why it is anti-prostitution from the start. There are quite a few members on TL.net that deserve to go on the shit list, wake the fuck up if you are still trying to promote prostitution.
Better adjust your posting behavior;/
I like prostitution and I'm gonna do a 4some with 3 girls I ordered from the yellow pages in 30 minutes. I hope you are rooting for me Baal and LocDown
Watch out, I'm going to put you on my shit list and teamliquid will frown on you.
On November 27 2007 10:16 Rayzorblade wrote: I think the most obvious argument is this:
If a woman (without any outside force) WANTS to fuck dudes for money, then WHO the fuck are YOU or the STATE to tell her what to do with her OWN body?
its not really that simple for a lot of prostitutes
that said, if it were legalized and heavily regulated it could be a lot safer for them. its the same truth that applies to a lot of laws that are a result of blind moral crusaders. too bad.
On November 27 2007 10:16 Rayzorblade wrote: I think the most obvious argument is this:
If a woman (without any outside force) WANTS to fuck dudes for money, then WHO the fuck are YOU or the STATE to tell her what to do with her OWN body?
its not really that simple for a lot of prostitutes
that said, if it were legalized and heavily regulated it could be a lot safer for them. its the same truth that applies to a lot of laws that are a result of blind moral crusaders. too bad.
No, heavily regulated does not work, especially in the United States. Stop trying to enlarge the role of an inefficient government, especially where they should have no regards trying to regulate things.
Anyone ever gotten a prostitute from the old soviet bloc? If porn is any kind of indicator of how a prostitute would look like then Eastern Europe has it best.
something liek 70% of titty bars/escort services have girls from the old soviet bloc over here. Im sure my fake russian accent must be flattering to them.
On November 27 2007 10:41 ManaBlue wrote: I'm too afraid of STDs to be with a hooker.
I can't believe that issue isn't dominating this conversation. It's the first thing I thought about when I read the title.
Yeah it's same for me. STD's take all the fun out, cuz you have to be like super careful. Even though my 'evil' side got the best of me a couple of times and still did it, but I avoid prostitution as much as possible for the sheer reason of STDs.
On November 27 2007 10:49 kalami wrote: Anyone ever gotten a prostitute from the old soviet bloc? If porn is any kind of indicator of how a prostitute would look like then Eastern Europe has it best.
Not prostitutes but had a Polish girl once. Agnjieska or w/e! And it sucked
On November 27 2007 10:16 Rayzorblade wrote: I think the most obvious argument is this:
If a woman (without any outside force) WANTS to fuck dudes for money, then WHO the fuck are YOU or the STATE to tell her what to do with her OWN body?
its not really that simple for a lot of prostitutes
that said, if it were legalized and heavily regulated it could be a lot safer for them. its the same truth that applies to a lot of laws that are a result of blind moral crusaders. too bad.
No, heavily regulated does not work, especially in the United States. Stop trying to enlarge the role of an inefficient government, especially where they should have no regards trying to regulate things.
then that is the problem of an inneficient government not prostitution itself, also it would still be much better than the current situation
On November 27 2007 10:41 ManaBlue wrote: I'm too afraid of STDs to be with a hooker.
I can't believe that issue isn't dominating this conversation. It's the first thing I thought about when I read the title.
That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho.
And also it only strenghtens legalization of prostitution to lower the STD rate.
On November 27 2007 11:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Legalizing prostitution as a means of reducing the rate of STD's... man, baal is brilliant. The world needs more policy makers like baal!
yes moron simply because regulated prostition enforces the use of condom and wont allow infected prostitutes to work. and they have constant medical check-ups, eveything current prostitution does NOT have.
Debate how it would incrase STDs instead of making a fool out yourself.
Legalizing prostitution would increase the amount of prostitutes which would increase the amount of people using/being prostitutes. You suggest this means more regulation of STDs with prostitutes. I offer that thats all good and fine. But who is regulating the patrons? Additionally, regulation is not some magical arguement that suddenly solves everything. Even with "regulation" in other industries we still have gross abuses of rules or even complete lack of coherence with rules. If private companies took over prostitution like you say, I would be willing to bet that STDs would just be a part of the game, sure they would gurantee that their prostitutes are all clean and they would check blah blah.. but I still think the increase in prostitutes/use would mean a lot of mistakes which overall would increase STD problems, not decrease.
Also I dont know why you dropped GI's arguement that all these checkups would not increase the price of a prostitute. If they are getting checked after each sexual interaction (the only logical explanation for your belief that STDs would go down) how do you think they are making up for that money? Its not like prostitution makes a huge amount of money as it is. they dont get checkups because they cannot afford it. If you suddenly add the cost of regular checkups (daily lol) they have to increase rates.
This means that the best way for them to make that money is to get the cheapest and most flippant checkups available (or none at all).. which would catch some but not all STDs and with the increase in supply you have an increase in STDs.
On November 27 2007 11:25 baal wrote: That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho.
That statistic is completely meaningless without more context. Are we assuming random partner (most likely not a carrier), prostitute (more likely a carrier) or an actual carrier? Are we talking single-STD or multi-STD? Which STD are we talking about?
I think 1/500 is a very generous - for your argument - estimate, unless we are assuming the partner is randomly selected from the whole populace. Are you telling me I can have unprotected sex with five hundred low-class prostitutes before I am likely to contract an STD?
If so, STDs would have to base themselves on blood-transfusion to get around. Which they obviously don't. Of course, feel free to provide a source.
Ugh I would have never expect anything other than that come out of your mouth Incontrol and I have no clue why I'm even going to respond to it. But just because you love your own logic so much.
According to you there is this: Legalize prostitution->Increase in number of prostitutes-> increase in number of STD's.
Yeah, okay. Because once there are more prostitutes everyone will suddenly go to them! And once there are more of them it sure as hell isn't concentrated as much on a smaller number of girls making infection rates higher.
Oh hi.
Why wou drop GI's argument? If you increase the amount of checkups(They are done periodically and not after every sexual encounter, but it's cute that you would even think such thing, really.) You could take girls that contracted HIV out of business and so restrict them from spreading it. Whereas you have a girl without HIV working for years after contracting it if you keep it in the illegal scene. But I guess this all doesn't make sense to you cuz God forbid it. Oh and Checkups are FREE btw.
But seriously how cute of you to think more girls will enter the sex industry after you legalize it. Overall you are just a cute boy. Fluffy.
On November 27 2007 11:25 baal wrote: That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho.
That statistic is completely meaningless without more context. Are we assuming random partner (most likely not a carrier), prostitute (more likely a carrier) or an actual carrier? Are we talking single-STD or multi-STD? Which STD are we talking about?
I think 1/500 is a very generous - for your argument - estimate, unless we are assuming the partner is randomly selected from the whole populace. Are you telling me I can have unprotected sex with five hundred low-class prostitutes before I am likely to contract an STD?
If so, STDs would have to base themselves on blood-transfusion to get around. Which they obviously don't. Of course, feel free to provide a source.
Ugh. The contraction rates vary a lot. It depends the stage of the infected person is in and the healthy the 'victim' is in at the given moment of intercourse. Then there is a condom, which if you used properly with lots of lube, will almost never tear. Then there is the thing that only a few % of the prostitutes are actually infected with HIV. Unless you go to Zimbabwe.
But just wtf at the bold part. Are you seriously that naive? You can contract it the first time you have it unprotected or you can bang 20 of them every yearh for the rest of your life and never get it. Wanna flip a coin for it?
On November 27 2007 12:19 {ToT}Strafe wrote: Ugh I would have never expect anything other than that come out of your mouth Incontrol and I have no clue why I'm even going to respond to it. But just because you love your own logic so much.
According to you there is this: Legalize prostitution->Increase in number of prostitutes-> increase in number of STD's.
Yeah, okay. Because once there are more prostitutes everyone will suddenly go to them! And once there are more of them it sure as hell isn't concentrated as much on a smaller number of girls making infection rates higher.
Oh hi.
Why wou drop GI's argument? If you increase the amount of checkups(They are done periodically and not after every sexual encounter, but it's cute that you would even think such thing, really.) You could take girls that contracted HIV out of business and so restrict them from spreading it. Whereas you have a girl without HIV working for years after contracting it if you keep it in the illegal scene. But I guess this all doesn't make sense to you cuz God forbid it. Oh and Checkups are FREE btw.
But seriously how cute of you to think more girls will enter the sex industry after you legalize it. Overall you are just a cute boy. Fluffy.
You really dont even make an arguement. If they are done periodically they can contract STDs without being checked which would do almost nothing to check back the issue of increased STDs.
Checkups can be free but if the industry is privatized they need to provide transportation / regulation (both cost money buddy). There are inherent costs with things that seem basic, but when done on a larger scale add up especially when considered with a business plan.
Additionally, your arguement in regard to more = less concentrated use is mitigated by the more people using prostitutes. I think it makes logical sense that a big part of the reason why more people are not using prostitutes is because they are illegal. If I really have to further explain this to you then it becomes rather apparent that you are severely lacking in the thought power department and probably should not be humored with future replies.
And drop the "cute" garbage or whatever. We are discussing a hypothetical situation in which a huge country like USA legalizes prostitution, a situation that has not happened. Comparing it to Amsterdam or other places is silly. If I hypothosize that there could be potential checkups after each interaction I am not being nieve, its not like the functions of prostitution are common knowledge for fuck sakes. Also, the arguement that they get checked periodically is points for me, not you. If they have 1, 2 or 30 patrons between checkups they have a huge potential for contracting and spreading STDs.
And I just noticed you said that its "cute" I think legalizing prostitution would increase the amount of prostitutes. Really? Ok, you just nullified my hopeful optimism that you really werent so dumb to not be able to logically imagine the whole "illegal" aspect of the industry as a determent from a broader participant base.
You contradict yourself Incontrol, im sure you are aware how economy works... you cant say "zomg there will be a flood of prostitutes" and then claim they will be too expensive.
I am positive many girls would go this way if its legalized dropping their charges because the competition is hard.
Then later you say "they will skip the medical checkups" and then you say "they will be expensive for the medical checkups" what the fuck mate... make up your mind.
I agree it wont be perfect, its functionality absolutely depends on the legislation about it, how strict is the regulation, like how the whore house has to declare stuff to the state, also whore houses are liable to lawsuits about unclean girls and pretty much FORCING girls to always wear a condom reduces the STD rate a fucking lot, do you seriuosly believe a significant STD infections are caused by ripped condoms?, or the huge huge huge majority get infected while having unprotected sex.
As i were saying the system is not perfect and there might be some shady places, but if you just stick to the places with good reputation you will be fine, like if you go to Vegas and you want to gamble, you will go to a good casino, you wont go to some dirty building with no signs or anything, common customer's sense.
And drop the fucking prices argument already check up their prices in holland, you see beautiful girls for very reasonable prices.
How about the extremely expensive prostitutes who bill themselves as escorts. They can be extremely hot, but also ridiculously expensive ($600/hr+). Quality vs quantity?
I'd currently rather buy myself some items on d2 market, then get a hooker..
I dont know for others, but no one ever mentioned emotions in this thread? Uhm... would you pay a hooker to give you a hug after you lose 18 bw games in a row and you are full of frustration? I hope you get the point what I meant =P
If you want a hooker for a fast 1 night sex its ok..you can also do the same thing with a 'normal' girl, just with normal girl, she has to be looking for a 1 night sex also (the particular night eventually)
I don't understand the need for regulation in a legalized prostitution industry.
There are arguments already about free choice on part of consumer and supplier so why introduce the government to make sure prostitutes are clean? The free market will do this without aid. If a rich man wants to use a prostitute but is afraid of contracting a STD then, say, a service where the company itself checks their girls and enforces their own policy of safe sex aimed at the wealthy demographic will be provided because the profit incentive is there. Similarly, if a man feels that the risk of getting an STD is low and going to said company is too expensive then he may opt for a cheaper, perhaps riskier (in the sense of getting a STD) prostitute. The monetary difference between quality reflects part of the risk premium (unlikely to be all since many consumers enjoy consumer surplus on purchases) as valued by the end user. Clearly, this valuation is individual specific.
Nor is regulation required because of the danger of human trafficking. Illegal immigrants take various low grade jobs within a Western economy; prostitution merely one of them. If prostitution were legalized in America then I can understand how more women from poorer countries might be forced by traffickers into selling themselves against their will. Yet, this isn't an issue regulation of a legalized industry would resolve. By definition, such people will not exist on governmental records and thus cannot be protected.
On November 27 2007 18:20 MYM.Testie wrote: Here's a reason that has nothing to do with actual reasons: Majority rule, most people don't want it legalized. Win by default.
Really?
So if the majority vote yes for slavery we should re-instate it right?, no testie... freedom, human rights and civil liberties are more important than popular vote.
And yes, what two consenting adults decide to do on the privacy of their bedroom falls under the freedom and civil liberties my friend.
As far as I see it, no matter how many more prostitutes there are, if they are made to be clean, there will be no spread of sexual diseases.
It's like:
Dirty//Illegal.
Clean//Legal.
See if there are unlimited amounts of clean prostitutes, they can never be as dirty as a limited number of illegal prostitutes.
Besides, a clean prostitute might be cleaner than a normal woman who has sex every now and then if they are forced to use protection and get checked up.
Most normal women won't be getting checked up every month or so.
I'm sorry did Freak just bitch about predictability? Because I am pretty sure he ONLY posts in threads that have to do with drugs/sex? He sometimes makes exceptions for other threads, but only if they involve fringe opinions on things that typically involve mainstream comfort levels.
I worked for a good amount of time in the red light district at a bar. And most of the prostitutes i saw there were ugly. I mean really ugly.
I had sex with a prostitute tough. And it is no big deal. Just don't go to places where you pay them overpriced champagne first and walk out with a lot less money than the acctual buissness cost you. There are "clean" and "professional" places, you just need to ask around. And by that i don't mean some random guy on the street.
Escort can be mighty fine. I've been to amsterdam once and had good times with a callgirl. They picked me up (she and the driver), we've gone clubbing and then back to my hotel. If you're on a lone buissness trip and have no girlfriend (at least that's my rule) go crazy man. Sure you pay her, but if your employer comes up with some expenses, why not. Some of you might have this wierd expectation of what might happen. But trust me, if you're not into some wierdo stuff, nothing special is going to happen.
On November 27 2007 11:25 baal wrote: That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho.
That statistic is completely meaningless without more context. Are we assuming random partner (most likely not a carrier), prostitute (more likely a carrier) or an actual carrier? Are we talking single-STD or multi-STD? Which STD are we talking about?
I think 1/500 is a very generous - for your argument - estimate, unless we are assuming the partner is randomly selected from the whole populace. Are you telling me I can have unprotected sex with five hundred low-class prostitutes before I am likely to contract an STD?
If so, STDs would have to base themselves on blood-transfusion to get around. Which they obviously don't. Of course, feel free to provide a source.
Ugh. The contraction rates vary a lot. It depends the stage of the infected person is in and the healthy the 'victim' is in at the given moment of intercourse. Then there is a condom, which if you used properly with lots of lube, will almost never tear. Then there is the thing that only a few % of the prostitutes are actually infected with HIV. Unless you go to Zimbabwe.
But just wtf at the bold part. Are you seriously that naive? You can contract it the first time you have it unprotected or you can bang 20 of them every yearh for the rest of your life and never get it. Wanna flip a coin for it?
Oh my God. More or less at loss for words, but I'll give it a shot:
Yes, the better half of my post detailed how the likelihood of contraction depends on some factors, and that we need to know what assumptions are made in the statistics. If somebody considered getting a prostitute of Eastern European origin in Norway to have unprotected penetrative anal sex with her, then he needs statistics which actually cover that exact situation as precisely as possible, neither statistics detailing the risk of contracting syphilis when having protected sex with your wife for ten years nor statistics giving [total number of STDs transmitted]/[total number of intercourses].
Therefore, I wrote, baal's statistics are nonsensical without the assumed circumstances specified.
On November 27 2007 12:22 {ToT}Strafe wrote: You can contract it the first time you have it unprotected or you can bang 20 of them every yearh for the rest of your life and never get it. Wanna flip a coin for it?
On November 27 2007 12:22 {ToT}Strafe wrote: You can contract it the first time you have it unprotected or you can bang 20 of them every yearh for the rest of your life and never get it. Wanna flip a coin for it?
Double dose of Strafe completely misunderstanding the use of statistics is double delight.
You do realize that statistics are used a metric fuckton, because, well, they provide meaningful information? Especially for a person who, like, wants to weigh the pleasure of whores against having his dick wither and fall off.
On November 27 2007 19:43 Milton Friedman wrote: I don't understand the need for regulation in a legalized prostitution industry.
There are arguments already about free choice on part of consumer and supplier so why introduce the government to make sure prostitutes are clean? The free market will do this without aid. If a rich man wants to use a prostitute but is afraid of contracting a STD then, say, a service where the company itself checks their girls and enforces their own policy of safe sex aimed at the wealthy demographic will be provided because the profit incentive is there. Similarly, if a man feels that the risk of getting an STD is low and going to said company is too expensive then he may opt for a cheaper, perhaps riskier (in the sense of getting a STD) prostitute. The monetary difference between quality reflects part of the risk premium (unlikely to be all since many consumers enjoy consumer surplus on purchases) as valued by the end user. Clearly, this valuation is individual specific.
Nor is regulation required because of the danger of human trafficking. Illegal immigrants take various low grade jobs within a Western economy; prostitution merely one of them. If prostitution were legalized in America then I can understand how more women from poorer countries might be forced by traffickers into selling themselves against their will. Yet, this isn't an issue regulation of a legalized industry would resolve. By definition, such people will not exist on governmental records and thus cannot be protected.
You need to realize that your textbooks on market economics, and, for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan's pages on capitalism, do not actually correspond with reality
You assume that the rich man will go to a service which provides clean girls. The problem is, in the real world, customers never act with perfect information. Even if this rich man goes to the trouble of doing extensive research on pros and cons of various prostitutes, it is ridiculously hard to determine the chances of getting an STD, particularly when every single seller has everything to gain from pretending they are one hundred percent clean.
If your idealized world of economics actually corresponds to the real world, then I should have known how to pick an STD-free whore. However, I do not. I figure trying to find an ethnic Norwegian (seeing as I live in Norway) who does not look completely drug-addicted and actually takes well enough to paid that she doesn't have to fuck thirty-seven guys a day might increase my chances, but all these are guesses, and I have no real means of distinguishing classy whores from pretend-classy whores.
As a customer, I would appreciate having the government help me in selecting whores suited to my needs by regulating the market. Nobody actually wants to have sex with an AIDS infected prostitute, so of course I would like it if these were not around on the market like spider mines in a TvP on Rush Hour.
And, please, seeing as you manage to type coherent sentences arranged in paragraphs, you are not completely retarded. You should realize that not existing in government records != not having a corporeal form. If an FBI agent drops by your brothel, maybe even undercover, and asks to see immigration papers for all those ethnic Mexicans you have employed, you need to either show him the work permits or find yourself a damn good lawyer. Regulation give the business rules to follow, and of course, rules without any attempts at enforcing them are hollow. It is, however, not impossible to enforce these rules. That is the only reason why (I hope) child prostitutes are not available in the US.
I dont understand why men should pay for sex overall, hookers or dates. It's not like the counterpart of deal (the woman) is suffering in the process, and thus demand money benefits in return. If all the male on planet earth would be united and start a campaign worldwide: "no sex for them (woman) until they pay us doing it", I bet we can turn the tables around for our benefit.
On November 28 2007 03:57 sidz wrote: I dont understand why men should pay for sex overall, hookers or dates. It's not like the counterpart of deal (the woman) is suffering in the process, and thus demand money benefits in return. If all the male on planet earth would be united and start a campaign worldwide: "no sex for them (woman) until they pay us doing it", I bet we can turn the tables around for our benefit.
On November 28 2007 03:53 Zherak wrote: You need to realize that your textbooks on market economics, and, for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan's pages on capitalism, do not actually correspond with reality
You assume that the rich man will go to a service which provides clean girls. The problem is, in the real world, customers never act with perfect information. Even if this rich man goes to the trouble of doing extensive research on pros and cons of various prostitutes, it is ridiculously hard to determine the chances of getting an STD, particularly when every single seller has everything to gain from pretending they are one hundred percent clean.
If your idealized world of economics actually corresponds to the real world, then I should have known how to pick an STD-free whore. However, I do not. I figure trying to find an ethnic Norwegian (seeing as I live in Norway) who does not look completely drug-addicted and actually takes well enough to paid that she doesn't have to fuck thirty-seven guys a day might increase my chances, but all these are guesses, and I have no real means of distinguishing classy whores from pretend-classy whores.
As a customer, I would appreciate having the government help me in selecting whores suited to my needs by regulating the market. Nobody actually wants to have sex with an AIDS infected prostitute, so of course I would like it if these were not around on the market like spider mines in a TvP on Rush Hour.
Rational behaviour does not require perfect information. It only requires people use all information available to them. Customers would be aware of the risks and value that risk according to their own preferences and then make the choice about what kind of prostitute to go to, based on that. If you still feel the risk is too high then don't use a prostitute; it's just like using any other good or service.
And, please, seeing as you manage to type coherent sentences arranged in paragraphs, you are not completely retarded. You should realize that not existing in government records != not having a corporeal form. If an FBI agent drops by your brothel, maybe even undercover, and asks to see immigration papers for all those ethnic Mexicans you have employed, you need to either show him the work permits or find yourself a damn good lawyer. Regulation give the business rules to follow, and of course, rules without any attempts at enforcing them are hollow. It is, however, not impossible to enforce these rules. That is the only reason why (I hope) child prostitutes are not available in the US.
Now you are discussing regulation of business as a whole, and your example would apply to many sectors who employ illegal labour. This is not the same as saying there should be regulation of the prostitution industry specifically. Sure, it'd be nice if the law enforcement agencies could close down companies knowingly hiring illegal immigrants but I just don't think they have the resources to do that, hence, the problems of black economy that all governments have.
On November 28 2007 00:51 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I'm sorry did Freak just bitch about predictability? Because I am pretty sure he ONLY posts in threads that have to do with drugs/sex? He sometimes makes exceptions for other threads, but only if they involve fringe opinions on things that typically involve mainstream comfort levels.
This would be the first one that would have to do with sex as far as I'm aware.
Drugs because I'm the most knowledgeable person on the site about it and would like to attempt to educate people about responsible mindset and use. Sue me.
The last few have been about economics, religions and smoking.
Nice try though.
You're so cute when you're being stupid. Which is incredibly often
You're the only one calling me a better human being. Flattering as that might be, there's no need to put words in my mouth.
And, yes, you are right, there are many other ways to make both sex and relationships less special. Prostitution is one of them. Ad-hoc prostitution, which is essentially what you are describing in your various examples of trading money for sex is another.
It's your description of Utopian relationships which is black and white. I believe that: a) A very intimate relationship between men and women is possible (probably men and men too, for that matter, but I don't swing that way) b) Being part of such a relationship is one of the most satisfying (gratifying?) experiences you can find c) Buying hookers take away part of what can make such a relationship special
Reality check 1: human beings like to have sex for the sake of having sex. "special relationships" as you put it often times has nothing to do with 2 humans having sex.
Your definition of sex, or what you yourself want sex to be is an act used only for "special relationship" that is very intimate.
Reality check 2: Your definition of sex is not someone's elses.
Just because I like to have sexual encounters just for the sake of having sexual encounters once in a while doesn't mean I cannot have an intimiate "special relationship" when I meet the right girl.
As an aside, I view sex to be just as much about appreciating and being appreciated as it is about stimulating your glans. The physical sensation lasts some minutes.
This may sound all Hollywood and silly, but is not very different from how I only eat sweets very rarely, so I do not case to appreciate the, how I only want to celebrate Christmas once a year and how I do not want to study music because I want it to remain only a hobby I can appreciate as such.
So you are saving your virginity for marriage.
Reality check 3: people have completely different views towards sex. You want to save sex only for those encounters where you truly love the girl, whereas, the rest of the world will have promiscous sex for the fun of it.
Again, this point of yours is completely moot. Just because you view sex one way doesn't mean another person is obligated to view sex the same way you do.
It is also my impression than many male posters in this thread fail to realize how differently men and women view sex. One of the most basic evolutionary instincts of any mammalian female is a need to be able to chose who she mates with, and to be reasonably picky about it. In mammals with a long gestation period who form familial bonds to raise their young (i.e. humans) this need is extremely strong. Women can, for evolutionary reasons, not be casual about sex, and birth control does not change this instinct.
Reality check 4: there are tons of women out there that are highly promiscuous and do it merely for the act of having fun.
So that makes your entire point there a moot point.
I have not verified that this is not bullshit statistics, but it sounds reasonable. Prostitution takes away one of the most important rights of a female, that of choosing carefully who she has sex with. Therefore, extremely few women can be content to be prostitutes.
Those statistics have nothing to do with any discussion in this thread. Prostitution does not take any rights away from a female. The female deliberately made the decision to give herself away to whomever in return for money. Nobody is pointing a gun at her head so therefore no one is taking away any important right of hers. And plus, just because some fucked up 4 eyed dirty disgusting monster wants to have sex with a prostitute, doesn't mean the prostitute will actually have sex with him. So that means prostitutes do have a choice towards whom they want to exchange sex for money with.
So again, you're making a moot point there.
Wake up buddy. You've been living a way too sheltered life watching these romantic hollywood romantic comedies.
What you think the world should be is often times completely different than what actually is.
If only the people that are so against prostitution would accept this, that their views of what is is often times opposite to reality.
its funny how prostitution is still taboo, considering it has existed at a constant level since first cities were raised. shame on people who argue against it and cant include or accept history in their arguments. Regulation has always worked better then illigalization, and thats a fact.
people who are against it are probably the same people who spend astronomical sums of money on restauraunts, gifts and flowers so they can get a BJ on valentines day ;/ or are obviously living in a rural area with no such service and live in a closet (testie)
Im not so into that kind of thing. I got an girlfriend now. And im the kind of person who likes to be with one girl for like steady.. - WHAT DID HE SAY?? -
Btw for TS, i wound't go to whorehouses cos ur friends do it. For that matter i would never go to whorehouses. I would rather help meself before i need paying for deseases and such.. Likely if you visit taiwan orsummit.
On November 28 2007 03:53 Zherak wrote: You need to realize that your textbooks on market economics, and, for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan's pages on capitalism, do not actually correspond with reality
You assume that the rich man will go to a service which provides clean girls. The problem is, in the real world, customers never act with perfect information. Even if this rich man goes to the trouble of doing extensive research on pros and cons of various prostitutes, it is ridiculously hard to determine the chances of getting an STD, particularly when every single seller has everything to gain from pretending they are one hundred percent clean.
If your idealized world of economics actually corresponds to the real world, then I should have known how to pick an STD-free whore. However, I do not. I figure trying to find an ethnic Norwegian (seeing as I live in Norway) who does not look completely drug-addicted and actually takes well enough to paid that she doesn't have to fuck thirty-seven guys a day might increase my chances, but all these are guesses, and I have no real means of distinguishing classy whores from pretend-classy whores.
As a customer, I would appreciate having the government help me in selecting whores suited to my needs by regulating the market. Nobody actually wants to have sex with an AIDS infected prostitute, so of course I would like it if these were not around on the market like spider mines in a TvP on Rush Hour.
Rational behaviour does not require perfect information. It only requires people use all information available to them. Customers would be aware of the risks and value that risk according to their own preferences and then make the choice about what kind of prostitute to go to, based on that. If you still feel the risk is too high then don't use a prostitute; it's just like using any other good or service.
And, please, seeing as you manage to type coherent sentences arranged in paragraphs, you are not completely retarded. You should realize that not existing in government records != not having a corporeal form. If an FBI agent drops by your brothel, maybe even undercover, and asks to see immigration papers for all those ethnic Mexicans you have employed, you need to either show him the work permits or find yourself a damn good lawyer. Regulation give the business rules to follow, and of course, rules without any attempts at enforcing them are hollow. It is, however, not impossible to enforce these rules. That is the only reason why (I hope) child prostitutes are not available in the US.
Now you are discussing regulation of business as a whole, and your example would apply to many sectors who employ illegal labour. This is not the same as saying there should be regulation of the prostitution industry specifically. Sure, it'd be nice if the law enforcement agencies could close down companies knowingly hiring illegal immigrants but I just don't think they have the resources to do that, hence, the problems of black economy that all governments have.
If you want to achieve a perfect market, you need perfect information. Those things the government is better suited to acquire information on, such as illegal immigrants, HIV, so on and so forth, should be regulated by the government. I think this is nearly every part prostitution - you seem to claim it isn't. Too big a discussion to go into details on.
And, the government does have resources to regulate the business. It does manage to prevent child prostitution, because the government gives a crap and actually invests resources. I think it could do the same in attempt to regulate regular prostitution.
On November 28 2007 04:17 wo0py wrote: Im not so into that kind of thing. I got an girlfriend now. And im the kind of person who likes to be with one girl for like steady.. - WHAT DID HE SAY?? -
Btw for TS, i wound't go to whorehouses cos ur friends do it. For that matter i would never go to whorehouses. I would rather help meself before i need paying for deseases and such.. Likely if you visit taiwan orsummit.
...... It's not a problem on itself that your English blows, but in combination with your blatantly idiotic statement it does annoy me.
And if you want to make a funny statement about any third world country Taiwan is one of your worst picks, try Botswana or Thailand next time.
On November 28 2007 04:32 TheosEx wrote: To Baal and Strafe (who seem to be the major advocaters of legalized prostitution):
You're telling me you wouldn't care AT ALL if I paid your mom, wife/girlfriend, or daughter to have sex with me?
Not trying to be offensive, but I'm just trying to put myself in context to how you guys think...
Hmm interesting question. As for my mom I would care because she is happily married(or so they make me believe ) and she doesn't need the money. So if she would let herself get paid for that I would feel pretty disappointed in her. I can't understand as to why she would ever do it and she will cause a lot of grief to my father. So yes I care. But I think I would care a lot too if she just had sex with any other person for free, but probably to less extent because when she does that her motivations are more clear to me and I could at least understand to some level.
As for my hypothetical daughter I would care too. The first reason would be that I my first purpose is to take care of my children and make sure they get the opportunity to succeed in life in whatever way they feel like most. If my daughter feels the necessity to sell her body in exchange for money I would probably feel as if I failed her. The second reason would be that as a dad you don't want to see your daughter with boyfriends. I mean it's not like you will prevent them, but I guess it's every dad will at least feel a little bit uncomfortable if his daughter dates a guy. That feeling will probably go away over time as you know the guy better and found out he's a nice guy. But when she just dates any guy at random and not only because she likes it but for just money I would hate that a lot yeah.
As for MY girlfriend, I'll just consider it cheating and meh. But you are now asking about people that all have personal intimate relations to me.
Girlfriend as in regular girlfriend, yes sure go ahead. I have a friend that is a prostitute and we get a long fine. I never drink out of the same glass as she does though;)
On November 28 2007 04:18 Zherak wrote: If you want to achieve a perfect market, you need perfect information. Those things the government is better suited to acquire information on, such as illegal immigrants, HIV, so on and so forth, should be regulated by the government. I think this is nearly every part prostitution - you seem to claim it isn't. Too big a discussion to go into details on.
No, I never claimed it wasn't part of prostitution. I admit that illegal sex trafficking, STDs and the such are linked to prostitution, legal or not. Nor have I ever stated any support for the legalization of prostitution. I merely discussed the necessity of regulation given the hypothetical situation in which prostitution was legal. My view is that people can value the risk of going to see a prostitution themselves and decide on their own if it is worth the money or not without having the government step in. Yes, the customer will be facing the danger of catching AIDS or funding a human trafficking syndicate, but it is up to the consumer to make this choice. It is like the smoker who accepts the risks cigarettes pose to health (their own and others, although they probably value other people's health less) yet still choose to smoke anyway because he/she values the pleasure from smoking to be greater. I suspect you believe that the government needs to intervene to prevent people from making "mistakes", whereas I do not. If that is the case we don't have much more to discuss.
And, the government does have resources to regulate the business. It does manage to prevent child prostitution, because the government gives a crap and actually invests resources. I think it could do the same in attempt to regulate regular prostitution.
Regulation of business to make sure they aren't hiring illegal labour would mean the government should check up on all sectors known for doing this, such as construction, cleaning, other manual labour etc. and not just prostitution. Why should the prostitution sector receive any special treatment? Governments do check up on firms to make sure they aren't trying to cheat them, and if prostitution was legal then I would think prostitution, like any other industry, would also be subject to checks. However, the checks arise as a result of regulation on business and not regulation on prostitution, which was my point in the previous post.
Given all the sectors that need to be regulated, the government most likely does not have the resources to check each individual business and even moreso search for every unregistered business using forced labour. This is why I said a significant black economy exists within America.
I do think that sex can make a special relationship better, and that a special relationship can make the sex better. Separating these two will, in my opinion, detract from both. And I do not think you can have it both ways, just like I don't think you can really celebrate Christmas 365 days a year.
Whenever you reduce my view to just an opinion, you do the same to yours. I am not claiming my view is the universal view, I am just pointing out that it does exist.
And I do say that only sex with one person ever is necessarily the right thing, just like I am not saying Christmas once in a lifetime is the way to go. There has to be a balance to prevent the magic from becoming mundane, though.
And I do realize that a lot of women have a lot of sex. Of course, per definition, there has to be as many women engaging in casual sex as men. I am just pointing out that the female sexual drive is very different from the male sexual drive, even when men and women decide to have sex together. Many men in this forum seem to trivialize fucking a man for dollars, but I think it is among the most degrading things a women can do. Much like how rape is among the worst things a woman can experience.
I am living by the views I have presented, and this far I'm a happy man for it.
Furthermore, I think we can both agree that is possible for a person to do something he later comes to regret. I think prostitution does this to a lot of women, therefore I do not want to support it. Much like how I would not want my children to drop out of school.
As for my pornography habits, I find SFW-pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar more than stimulating enough. I don't think she really suffers from doing promo-shoots.
On November 28 2007 04:18 Zherak wrote: If you want to achieve a perfect market, you need perfect information. Those things the government is better suited to acquire information on, such as illegal immigrants, HIV, so on and so forth, should be regulated by the government. I think this is nearly every part prostitution - you seem to claim it isn't. Too big a discussion to go into details on.
Yes, the customer will be facing the danger of catching AIDS or funding a human trafficking syndicate, but it is up to the consumer to make this choice.
Sorry about only replaying to a snip of your post, but: - It is illegal to willfully contract AIDS, or to expose oneself to unreasonable risk of contracting AIDS. - It is illegal to not try to avoid funding human trafficking syndicates
If you are opposed to the concept of laws, we certainly have no more to discuss. It is illegal to do things which significantly cause harm to others. Smoking is not a good analogy, because it primarily hurts yourself. Making yourself a walking AIDS bomb who also requires excessive amounts of treatment or supporting trafficking which certainly hurts women cause significant harm to others. These two matters are different.
Illegal immigrants in prostitution primarily cause harm to themselves. Illegal immigrants in regular jobs primarily cause harm to the national economy.
One of the above is certainly a more urgent matter than the other. Just like child prostitution is more urgent than regular prostitution.
On November 28 2007 05:04 Zherak wrote: Sorry about only replaying to a snip of your post, but: - It is illegal to willfully contract AIDS, or to expose oneself to unreasonable risk of contracting AIDS. - It is illegal to not try to avoid funding human trafficking syndicates
If you are opposed to the concept of laws, we certainly have no more to discuss. It is illegal to do things which significantly cause harm to others. Smoking is not a good analogy, because it primarily hurts yourself. Making yourself a walking AIDS bomb who also requires excessive amounts of treatment or supporting trafficking which certainly hurts women cause significant harm to others. These two matters are different.
Firstly, the issue at hand was that people don't have complete information regarding brothels so they wouldn't know if they are going to get AIDS and they wouldn't know if they would be helping organized crime. This is not the same as knowingly getting AIDS and funding crime. Even if the person did know then that knowledge would be a factor in choosing whether to see a certain prostitute. Furthermore, breaking the law is his/her decision and thus faces the possible consequences of that action - the potential consequences this person is willing to accept when acting.
Illegal immigrants in prostitution primarily cause harm to themselves. Illegal immigrants in regular jobs primarily cause harm to the national economy.
One of the above is certainly a more urgent matter than the other. Just like child prostitution is more urgent than regular prostitution.
Since illegal immigrants can't complain to the government about work standards or pay, it is likely they'll be subjected to unsafe/deleterious working conditions causing themselves harm; what immediately comes to mind is the death of the Chinese cockle pickers back in 2004 (Link). Whether one industry that uses illegal immigrants is more harmful to the individual worker than another is a matter that needs to be left to empirical study.
EDIT: For the record, I'm leaning against the legalization of prostitution given the status quo. If there were some significant reforms in political policy (and such reforms will probably never take place) then legalization would have my support.
On November 28 2007 04:24 Tien wrote: How many of you anti-prostitution guys watch porn????? What the hell is porn anyways besides a girl and a guy getting paid to have sex. So why is porn okay but prostitution is not?
all of us anti-prostitute are porn lover and the reason is porn is free!
On November 28 2007 04:55 Zherak wrote: Mostly in reply to Tien:
I do think that sex can make a special relationship better, and that a special relationship can make the sex better. Separating these two will, in my opinion, detract from both. And I do not think you can have it both ways, just like I don't think you can really celebrate Christmas 365 days a year.
Whenever you reduce my view to just an opinion, you do the same to yours. I am not claiming my view is the universal view, I am just pointing out that it does exist.
And I do say that only sex with one person ever is necessarily the right thing, just like I am not saying Christmas once in a lifetime is the way to go. There has to be a balance to prevent the magic from becoming mundane, though.
And I do realize that a lot of women have a lot of sex. Of course, per definition, there has to be as many women engaging in casual sex as men. I am just pointing out that the female sexual drive is very different from the male sexual drive, even when men and women decide to have sex together. Many men in this forum seem to trivialize fucking a man for dollars, but I think it is among the most degrading things a women can do. Much like how rape is among the worst things a woman can experience.
I am living by the views I have presented, and this far I'm a happy man for it.
Furthermore, I think we can both agree that is possible for a person to do something he later comes to regret. I think prostitution does this to a lot of women, therefore I do not want to support it. Much like how I would not want my children to drop out of school.
As for my pornography habits, I find SFW-pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar more than stimulating enough. I don't think she really suffers from doing promo-shoots.
So are you beginning to see my point?
Your views and oppinions about prostitution are your views exclusively and I am not disputing that it is right or wrong.
My views and other people's views about prostitution are our views and it is almost impossible to dispute whether it is right or wrong, there are just pros and cons.
Which side of the fence you sit on doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is prostitution exists and is not something that will go away because you think it is degrading to women or what not. Instead of trying to push it away as something taboo, you anti-prostitution people need to think about ways to improve the situation i.e legalizing it so that standards can be put in place to regulate and control it.
Simply sitting around saying things like
"Prostitution is bad" "Prostitution should be abolished" "Prostitution should be illegal"
Add no value whatsoever to the discussion or the current situation with prostitution.
On November 28 2007 05:58 BluzMan wrote: Wtf it's illegal to have flu?
Because like young kids actually die from it at times.
You have a very strange concept of what is legal, Zherak.
It's hardly illegal to have a flu.
But to intentionally expose oneself to AIDS, Ebola, Syphilis is surely illegal. Unless you have a very good argument for why you are not going to pose a risk as a carrier. It is also illegal to not seek treatment for some diseases, Syphilis included, if you know you carry them. Furthermore, it is a serious crime to have intercourse without informing your partner(s) of your disease(s) if they are sexually transmittable. (Norwegian law, might differ somewhat from other ones, but I am fairly certain the essentials are the same.)
Much like how it's not illegal to die, but committing suicide is (surprisingly enough, though it is difficult to enforce, for obvious reasons).
Tien: Well, when it is reduced to different viewpoints, it is not evident which should be supported by the law. Guns / no guns is also pretty much a matter of opinion, but neither of the parties shut up about how the ruling should be.
I have not intended to state prostitution bad, marriage good, two legs bad, four legs good as an absolute, but I have made it clear that I myself view prostitution as an evil and will have no part in it.
Edit: Figure I should try to be clearer on this matter. There takes a bit of actual intention or major negligence for it to actually become something worth talking about.
On November 28 2007 00:51 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I'm sorry did Freak just bitch about predictability? Because I am pretty sure he ONLY posts in threads that have to do with drugs/sex? He sometimes makes exceptions for other threads, but only if they involve fringe opinions on things that typically involve mainstream comfort levels.
This would be the first one that would have to do with sex as far as I'm aware.
Drugs because I'm the most knowledgeable person on the site about it and would like to attempt to educate people about responsible mindset and use. Sue me.
The last few have been about economics, religions and smoking.
Nice try though.
You're so cute when you're being stupid. Which is incredibly often
I was no more "stupid" than you who would presume to generalize a general opinion as "stupid." People who are uncomfortable with prostitution may actually have reasons for that. You assuming its because they are not as "open minded" or "educated" as you is fucking stupid. You probably never discussed sex, I dont hound you so I just assumed. That was "cute" or stupid of me, I am sorry.
I also think you are very important for this website because you articulate your opinion very well. It usually is an opinion that people do not necessarily agree with and I think that is valuable. But do not get pigheaded about it. Else my dumbass will be forced to goad you into needless flamewars.
On November 28 2007 04:13 uiCk wrote: its funny how prostitution is still taboo, considering it has existed at a constant level since first cities were raised. shame on people who argue against it and cant include or accept history in their arguments. Regulation has always worked better then illigalization, and thats a fact.
The fact that prostitution always existed doesnt change how morally wrong and dangerous it is. lets also legalize rape or murder according to your logic -_-
On November 28 2007 04:13 uiCk wrote: its funny how prostitution is still taboo, considering it has existed at a constant level since first cities were raised. shame on people who argue against it and cant include or accept history in their arguments. Regulation has always worked better then illigalization, and thats a fact.
The fact that prostitution always existed doesnt change how morally wrong and dangerous it is. lets also legalize rape according to your logic -_-
Holy shit that was the dumbest post in this entire thread.
On November 28 2007 00:51 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I'm sorry did Freak just bitch about predictability? Because I am pretty sure he ONLY posts in threads that have to do with drugs/sex? He sometimes makes exceptions for other threads, but only if they involve fringe opinions on things that typically involve mainstream comfort levels.
This would be the first one that would have to do with sex as far as I'm aware.
Drugs because I'm the most knowledgeable person on the site about it and would like to attempt to educate people about responsible mindset and use. Sue me.
The last few have been about economics, religions and smoking.
Nice try though.
You're so cute when you're being stupid. Which is incredibly often
I was no more "stupid" than you who would presume to generalize a general opinion as "stupid." People who are uncomfortable with prostitution may actually have reasons for that. You assuming its because they are not as "open minded" or "educated" as you is fucking stupid. You probably never discussed sex, I dont hound you so I just assumed. That was "cute" or stupid of me, I am sorry.
A never generalized an opinion as stupid.
I never said there was anything wrong with being uncomfortable with prostitution.
I never assumed it was because they weren't as open minded or as educated as I.
I simply said that the sheer ignorance coming from the anti side of the argument was amusingly predictable. It's pretty common during arguments where one side is often emotionally or morally driven while the other is not. They fail to think things through entirely and base things off assumptions with no grounds for why that assumption should be believed above any other. They view their emotionally and morally driven views as being constant and true which the often are not.
I never said anything about either side of the opinion being better, smarter or more correct than the other. The pro side(or more so the "I'm not really for or against it but since it exists the following things should be accepted and carried out) tends to think it's ideas and opinions out more simply because they aren't driven by an idea of right or wrong, good or bad, light or dark. That sort of approach makes that part more coherent as a whole.
The entire reason I don't join into many arguments on this website is simply because most people are basing opinions more on a very narrow view of the situation as opposed to looking at the whole picture. They simplify things which aren't really all that simple. When you try and show them that they usually simply blow you off. The conversations never really get anywhere so I don't waste my breath.
Instead I sit on a high horse with occasional one liners content in my near omnipotent knowledge of everything and swoop in to mock people for their ignorance now and again. It's a petty existence but a good one.
Anywho, goad away. We all know how easily I am lured into flame wars.
If a woman wants to do it, or feels that it is the best way for her to make money, so be it. It's her decision. Who are you (society) to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body? She is not outwardly "harming" anyone or her community and if you are a man who wishes her company on lonely nights, then it's your responsibility to choose one you feel would not be "harming" to you in the sense of STD's or whatnot. If you do not care for that and only have X amount of dollars/euros/won/whatever, then that is your choice to take what you can get or to be picky.
edit: I really hate the word 'whore'. Double standards for the lose.
On November 28 2007 00:51 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I'm sorry did Freak just bitch about predictability? Because I am pretty sure he ONLY posts in threads that have to do with drugs/sex? He sometimes makes exceptions for other threads, but only if they involve fringe opinions on things that typically involve mainstream comfort levels.
This would be the first one that would have to do with sex as far as I'm aware.
Drugs because I'm the most knowledgeable person on the site about it and would like to attempt to educate people about responsible mindset and use. Sue me.
The last few have been about economics, religions and smoking.
Nice try though.
You're so cute when you're being stupid. Which is incredibly often
I was no more "stupid" than you who would presume to generalize a general opinion as "stupid." People who are uncomfortable with prostitution may actually have reasons for that. You assuming its because they are not as "open minded" or "educated" as you is fucking stupid. You probably never discussed sex, I dont hound you so I just assumed. That was "cute" or stupid of me, I am sorry.
A never generalized an opinion as stupid.
I never said there was anything wrong with being uncomfortable with prostitution.
I never assumed it was because they weren't as open minded or as educated as I.
I simply said that the sheer ignorance coming from the anti side of the argument was amusingly predictable. It's pretty common during arguments where one side is often emotionally or morally driven while the other is not. They fail to think things through entirely and base things off assumptions with no grounds for why that assumption should be believed above any other. They view their emotionally and morally driven views as being constant and true which the often are not.
I never said anything about either side of the opinion being better, smarter or more correct than the other. The pro side(or more so the "I'm not really for or against it but since it exists the following things should be accepted and carried out) tends to think it's ideas and opinions out more simply because they aren't driven by an idea of right or wrong, good or bad, light or dark. That sort of approach makes that part more coherent as a whole.
The entire reason I don't join into many arguments on this website is simply because most people are basing opinions more on a very narrow view of the situation as opposed to looking at the whole picture. They simplify things which aren't really all that simple. When you try and show them that they usually simply blow you off. The conversations never really get anywhere so I don't waste my breath.
Instead I sit on a high horse with occasional one liners content in my near omnipotent knowledge of everything and swoop in to mock people for their ignorance now and again. It's a petty existence but a good one.
Anywho, goad away. We all know how easily I am lured into flame wars.
Dude common. You know damn well what it infers when someone says "haha the arguement supporting the opinion in contrast to mine are so predictable and its amusing." You would shock me if you honestly didnt mean to undermine the opinion base with that comment. I mean really, who are we kidding? Perhaps its just me being cute again.. but I really dont think you are so unique that you stated what is commonly interpreted as bemeaning but actually meant nothing in the realm of how people typically read said comments.
On November 28 2007 10:24 lilsusie wrote: Have I ever had a prostitute? No.
If a woman wants to do it, or feels that it is the best way for her to make money, so be it. It's her decision. Who are you (society) to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body? She is not outwardly "harming" anyone or her community and if you are a man who wishes her company on lonely nights, then it's your responsibility to choose one you feel would not be "harming" to you in the sense of STD's or whatnot. If you do not care for that and only have X amount of dollars/euros/won/whatever, then that is your choice to take what you can get or to be picky.
edit: I really hate the word 'whore'. Double standards for the lose.
I really despise the arguement "its my body I can do what I want." I mean sure, it is your body, hell you can do what you want. But if its fucking stupid, illogical and destructive people will advise against it and even conduct actions to prevent it. This is not some radical new concept. We will blow a dudes finger off if hes trying to shoot himself in the head. We will tackle a person who is playing with fire. The list goes on so does the varied array of examples. If a person wants to enter themselves into a (mostly) illegal market that has a tremendous increase in risk of bodily harm people will advice against it or even pass policies that prevent those people from legally engaging in said activities.
In contrast to mine? I never stated an opinion. Assuming my opinions is rather pigheaded of you, is it not?
Both sides have merit.
The people arguing one side happen to be arguing based on morals and emotion. One can never argue based on morals and emotion for the big picture doesn't care what your morals are or how you feel about them. You must work within that structure. A refusal to do so is ignorance incarnated. I'm undermining the people, not the opinion or the view.
The display of their ignorance is pretty amusing. It usually is on this particular topic.
And you are being cute again. Incessantly calling me out with attempts to 'read between the lines'. It almost makes me giddy. Take words for as they are presented. Assumptions will get you no where.
The "assumptions get you nowhere" cliche doesnt apply. We make assumptions on a daily basis (the "we" is all encompassing, everyone does it and yet we progress!).
I assumed your opinion because you targeted one "side" of the debate and characterized it in a belittling fashion which allows me to assume you are in disagreement with it (which you are, so what the fuck are we really debating here?).
I dunno where this "calling out" or shit is happening but I simply dont care enough to continue with you. You are being a prick. By all means, continue.
On November 28 2007 10:24 lilsusie wrote: Have I ever had a prostitute? No.
If a woman wants to do it, or feels that it is the best way for her to make money, so be it. It's her decision. Who are you (society) to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body? She is not outwardly "harming" anyone or her community and if you are a man who wishes her company on lonely nights, then it's your responsibility to choose one you feel would not be "harming" to you in the sense of STD's or whatnot. If you do not care for that and only have X amount of dollars/euros/won/whatever, then that is your choice to take what you can get or to be picky.
edit: I really hate the word 'whore'. Double standards for the lose.
I really despise the arguement "its my body I can do what I want." I mean sure, it is your body, hell you can do what you want. But if its fucking stupid, illogical and destructive people will advise against it and even conduct actions to prevent it. This is not some radical new concept. We will blow a dudes finger off if hes trying to shoot himself in the head. We will tackle a person who is playing with fire. The list goes on so does the varied array of examples. If a person wants to enter themselves into a (mostly) illegal market that has a tremendous increase in risk of bodily harm people will advice against it or even pass policies that prevent those people from legally engaging in said activities.
Stop looking at things black and white man. It just doesn't work that way.
Following your logic of passing policies to prevent people from "hurting" themselves, you must also pass the following policies:
1) Ban alcohol (Number one cause of drunk driving and car collision). 2) Ban cigarettes 3) Ban meat 4) Ban cage fighters 5) Ban a billion other things that involve people hurting or harming their bodies.
Maybe the next time you are getting drunk off your ass someone should blind side tackle you and haul you home so you can stop harming your body.
Because the assumptions comment has nothing to do with the sentence preceding it. Nothing at all.
I targeted one side because the other side wasn't doing anything worth pointing out besides baal being a dumb mexican. But baal is always a dumb mexican so it seemed not worth typing.
Am I in disagreement with it? Says who? I lean more to one side than the other but I could argue for or against either of them. One would be more philosophical while the other would be more as an application to the world as it exists. A concession that results in my working within the structure of the world does not dictate how I feel about a subject but merely what is reasonable. There is nothing wrong with that approach.
My morals, views and thoughts on the subject based on morality have nothing to do with it so I leave them out. That's what a philosophy discussion is for. There is a huge difference between the way I'd like things to be and the way things are. I understand that so I work with it.
Don't judge my opinion based on what you think you know about me or the intent of the things that I say. What you actually know appears to be very little. Take my words as they are and leave it at that. This is hardly the occasion to begin attempting to peer into my mind and try to decipher what I really mean. More direct modes of conversation are best suited for that sort of thing.
Tien you are blowing my arguement to impossible proportions. Smoking a cig or drinking some booze is not comparable to licking the asshole of a whore. BUT guess what? If someone drinks TOO much and is being fucking stupid they will get in trouble... just as I said. Its "my body" but if you drink so much it becomes dangerous for others around you or you are literally self destructing people WILL stop you.
You guys need to understand that whether or not you think prostitution is right / wrong has NOTHING TO DO THE SITUATION.
Prostitution is something that WILL NEVER GO AWAY. It's a part of human nature and it is here to stay until the extinction of humanity.
As long as humans exist, there will be humans that are okay with trading their vagina for money and humans that are okay with paying money to have a vagina for a night.
Nothing you do in terms of legislation / policies / bla bla bla will ever change that.
Instead of trying to shut your eyes and blinders to the situation, open your eyes and realize that you'd do a lot more for the prostitutes and the entire industry by accepting it and help introduce proper legislation to regulate it.
All in all, you guys would be surprised how "clean" a prostitute is compared to some other "normal" girls.
Its inevitable that it will be here! Embrace it! Dont try and fight it?! hahah Stealing, murder, incest etc.. all are things human beings have and will do for all of time! So instead of fighting it just fucking embrace it!
Disagree with me? You must have blinders on! You must be ignorant! Dont do these things, open your mind! Free your selves!
I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Thats fine. The way you were talking about it leaves me very little in terms of considering your opinion. I started off by saying you have a valid and important opinion. You responded by calling me a moron some more and generally being a prick! So in reply I will respond to Tien's amazingly retarded logic with some "cute" logic of my own as you would put it.
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
I was far from being a prick. How was I anything but thorough in the representation of my thoughts? I may have side stepped the debate but when asked why I said what I said I answered clearly and thoroughly without insulting you.[EDIT: Insulting(see: Poking Fun At) you came on responding to different sections of the post. The answering and the insults are separate thoughts ]
I insulted your methods and your behavior. I've said you are cute when you are being stupid. You act very stupidly when you get this way. It's somewhat unfortunate that you are so argumentative, stubborn and passionate, it seems to keep you from thinking clearly. Those aren't really bad qualities, but when they get in the way of you clearly and rationally having a discussion they are. I don't actually think you're stupid, you just behave stupidly a lot of the time. There is a difference.
I love how you were going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
I don't have an opinion on either side of the argument, but we had a similar debate in class the other day. I think I actually lean slightly toward legalizing it.
Just to play devil's advocate to Freak & the pro-legalization side, studies have shown that at least in America, prostitution has very closely been tied to women who have psychological problems and a history of physical abuse. Whether these are causes or effects of illegal prostitution we are not sure. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of prostitutes who tolerate or even like their job, but I find this as the minority--most of these women are forced through dire circumstances to do this.
It can be argued that it's impossible to separate these sorts of problems that plague women in (either driving them to or originating from) the prostitution profession.
Now, wouldn't you find it more efficient to use the resources we have to actually stop the systemic problems that cause women to go into prostitution? That legalizing it would be basically ignoring the larger, underlying problem of womens' rights in the United States? That until this grander, more systemic problem is fixed, legalizing prostitution is simply not an option?
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Usually, people have sex when with a prostitute. You might want to try that first.
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Usually, people have sex when with a prostitute. You might want to try that first.
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Those assumptions are where?
None at all! I Made it up. Your entire post is factual and brilliant as usual! Oh freak, you are so adorable!
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
After the first 2 sentences you basically gave me no desire to respond to this. What are you expecting from this post? Your suggestion is horrible and you already know it is.
Please post something a bit less ridiculous if you actually want to have a debate. I'm not trying to be offensive but seriously...
On November 28 2007 10:24 lilsusie wrote: Have I ever had a prostitute? No.
If a woman wants to do it, or feels that it is the best way for her to make money, so be it. It's her decision. Who are you (society) to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body? She is not outwardly "harming" anyone or her community and if you are a man who wishes her company on lonely nights, then it's your responsibility to choose one you feel would not be "harming" to you in the sense of STD's or whatnot. If you do not care for that and only have X amount of dollars/euros/won/whatever, then that is your choice to take what you can get or to be picky.
edit: I really hate the word 'whore'. Double standards for the lose.
This argument really does not hold, for the reasons I stated in my post a few posts up. It's not really a free choice made by a fully-aware adult, as a lot of the time it's psychologically disturbed women with histories of abuse.
Society definitely has the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Are you saying that if someone wanted to mutilate themselves and eat their own flesh, we shouldn't have laws preventing this? It's their own body and they are making their own decision.
However, from a public policy standpoint, there exists a level of moral depravity that WILL damage society regardless of how localized the "damage" is to one individual.
Whether prostitution gets to that level of moral depravity is another question, but the whole "it's her decision, what's society's place to tell her no??" is just not a good argument.
What about selling organs? Should people be allowed to sell their own organs? After all, it's their own body! We could have thousands of cheap Indonesian kidneys on the American market right now, because hey, they value their organs at $5 a pop since they are so poor.
Hey guys, let's stop all this and talk about how good BBQ Pork Bulgogi is, I just found out they sold it at my local shops...normally I have to go the next suburb up to get it, but this is awesome.
Lilsusie, I'd probably talk with her and see where she's at...see if I was rich I think I'd go on a mission saving all these prostitutes world wide and returning them to their families in smaller and poorer Eastern European countries.
There would be some scraps, shoot-out situations, run ins with the law, bribes...dark alleys, snow and a general sense of adventure filled with adrenaline, but the satisfaction with liberating an unlimited amount of girls who are forced to be hookers would be cool.
I guess they'd want to have sex with you for being so nice to them, but then you'd really be wary, possibly even inclined to say no.
So I guess if I were rich the reward would be the philanthropic qualities of freeing slaves basically.
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Those assumptions are where?
None at all! I Made it up. Your entire post is factual and brilliant as usual! Oh freak, you are so adorable!
Are we speaking of my commenting on my own actions? Can't be, since I can't make assumptions about my own actions.
Or is it my saying you are argumentative, stubborn and passionate. Also not an assumption. You have been endlessly argumentative, stubborn and passionate for as long as I've seen you post.
On November 28 2007 11:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote: YES
Its inevitable that it will be here! Embrace it! Dont try and fight it?! hahah Stealing, murder, incest etc.. all are things human beings have and will do for all of time! So instead of fighting it just fucking embrace it!
Disagree with me? You must have blinders on! You must be ignorant! Dont do these things, open your mind! Free your selves!
.............
Wow you should really think a bit before saying things like that.
It is extremely foolish to try and equate prostitution with stealing / murdering / etc.
If I paid a prostitute 10 000$ to sleep with me overnight and we both walk away from the encounter perfectly content with it, what does that night have anything to do with murder / stealing? Do you realize nobody is pointing a gun to her head to sleep with me?
Murder and stealing are doing things AGAINST someone's will.
Prostitution is two consenting adults agreeing to exchange money for sex WILLINGLY.
Please, don't ever bring up murder / stealing on the same level as prostitution ever again.
Tien you are blowing my arguement to impossible proportions. Smoking a cig or drinking some booze is not comparable to licking the asshole of a whore. BUT guess what? If someone drinks TOO much and is being fucking stupid they will get in trouble... just as I said. Its "my body" but if you drink so much it becomes dangerous for others around you or you are literally self destructing people WILL stop you.
I am not blowing your arguments into impossible proportions. I am merely using your arguments against you to show you how rediculous your arguments were.
The point you made about "stopping people who harm their bodies" is extremely vague and can be applied to a thousand legal activities that people engage themselves in that harm their bodies.
And who are you to decide whether or not a prostitute is "harming" her body? Have you ever talked to one? What do you know about the prositution industry in your own country? What do you know about how a prostitute in your country lives? What do you know about how clean they REALLY are? What do you know about how often they check themselves up?
Freak really nailed the point when he said:
The people arguing one side happen to be arguing based on morals and emotion. One can never argue based on morals and emotion for the big picture doesn't care what your morals are or how you feel about them. You must work within that structure. A refusal to do so is ignorance incarnated.
"And who are you to decide whether or not a prostitute is "harming" her body?"
This is simply not a good argument. You seem to be very concerned with an argument that is more grounded in realism and less in morals, yet that this argument is one really doesn't take into consideration what truly happens on a ground level in the prostitution industry.
On November 28 2007 12:01 Hot_Bid wrote: I don't have an opinion on either side of the argument, but we had a similar debate in class the other day. I think I actually lean slightly toward legalizing it.
Just to play devil's advocate to Freak & the pro-legalization side, studies have shown that at least in America, prostitution has very closely been tied to women who have psychological problems and a history of physical abuse. Whether these are causes or effects of illegal prostitution we are not sure. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of prostitutes who tolerate or even like their job, but I find this as the minority--most of these women are forced through dire circumstances to do this.
It can be argued that it's impossible to separate these sorts of problems that plague women in (either driving them to or originating from) the prostitution profession.
Now, wouldn't you find it more efficient to use the resources we have to actually stop the systemic problems that cause women to go into prostitution? That legalizing it would be basically ignoring the larger, underlying problem of womens' rights in the United States? That until this grander, more systemic problem is fixed, legalizing prostitution is simply not an option?
This is pretty common in virtually every hierarchal illegal trade. It creates a tiered structure where the higher you are the more you are rewarded for being ruthless and greedy. The lower you are the more you are controlled, manipulated and exploited. The only way to stop this sort of thing from happening is to create a society where the incentive for such a market isn't there. Either it isn't able to exist due to a saturated legal market or because the risk/reward for the higher tiers of the hierarchy isn't worthwhile enough to engage in the market.
Otherwise it just gets progressively more violent and chaotic as the good guys attempt to fight the bad. Unless you can stop there from being money and power involved with it, more people will enter the market.
This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
On November 28 2007 12:13 Hot_Bid wrote: Tien, what about my two posts on page 13?
"And who are you to decide whether or not a prostitute is "harming" her body?"
This is simply not a good argument. You seem to be very concerned with an argument that is more grounded in realism and less in morals, yet that this argument is one really doesn't take into consideration what truly happens on a ground level in the prostitution industry.
Perhaps we should use the legal sex houses that exist in Nevada or the legal prostitutions that many escort agencies dabble in as references as opposed to street walkers.
I really don't think Tien is talking about a black market prostitution system. I think he is arguing for the hypothetical legal prostitution establishments that are regulated and controlled. Reference to the establishments that are similar to what he's suggesting that exist as opposed to the illegal ones.
It's a good place to start anyway.
And sorry for derailing the thread. I can get carried away from time to time
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
Unfortunately you can't separate high end escorts from corner girls in prostitution. There will always be a continuum of cost vs. quality in every business, and there will always exist a market for the cheap street walker.
There's a good argument in STD testing and revenue regulation, these are positives that could come from legalizing prostitution. However, there will always be that large group of women who are either too ugly or too beaten down to live the life of a high end (or even just average) prostitute.
Legalizing it would have a huge impact on the already very screwed up gender issues at play in the industry. You cannot separate women's rights from prostitution. It'd be nice and clean to debate in a vacuum like that, but in the real world it doesn't happen this way.
If I paid a prostitute 10 000$ to sleep with me overnight and we both walk away from the encounter perfectly content with it, what does that night have anything to do with murder / stealing? Do you realize nobody is pointing a gun to her head to sleep with me?
On November 28 2007 12:01 Hot_Bid wrote: Just to play devil's advocate to Freak & the pro-legalization side, studies have shown that at least in America, prostitution has very closely been tied to women who have psychological problems and a history of physical abuse. Whether these are causes or effects of illegal prostitution we are not sure. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of prostitutes who tolerate or even like their job, but I find this as the minority--most of these women are forced through dire circumstances to do this.
I do not agree with forced prostitution. I think forced prostitution, forcing someone to do something against their will is just as bad a crime as murdering / stealing. Child / forced prostitution is something that makes my skin crawl and makes me want to puke.
But two consenting adults agreeing to do something without harming each other (safe sex / no violence / no depravity) is perfectly fine with me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Taking normal prostitution into consideration, meaning a prostitute that consents to be a prostitute. She has all the free will in the world to stop / continue what she is currently doing. Nobody is pointing a gun at her head forcing her to spread her legs and accept a dick inside.
It can be argued that it's impossible to separate these sorts of problems that plague women in (either driving them to or originating from) the prostitution profession.
Now, wouldn't you find it more efficient to use the resources we have to actually stop the systemic problems that cause women to go into prostitution? That legalizing it would be basically ignoring the larger, underlying problem of womens' rights in the United States? That until this grander, more systemic problem is fixed, legalizing prostitution is simply not an option?
Yes and no. Yes meaning we definately should use resources to help women that don't want to be in the business to get out of the business, or women who have no business being prostitutes to become prostitutes.
You do realize that in Vegas and Rhode Island prostitution is legal. You must also realize Australia / Germany / Netherlands / Canada (YES!!) / Hungary / New Zealand / and a host of other countries have legalized prostitution without any problems at all.
Prostitution itself is not a problem, it is merely an act of exchanging sex for money. What drives people to do such a thing has nothing to do with prostitution itself. You see a host of degenerates with the same kind of history problems in gambling / alcohol / legal drugs.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The male portion of the prostitution industry would be so small that it's not even worth mentioning in an argument about it. From a theoretical standpoint yes, prostitution is "gender neutral" since men can do it too, but frankly we all know why that argument doesn't hold.
Second, there does exist a line between prostitution and pornography/stripping. I'm not saying there's a great argument there, because there isn't and it's one of the main reasons why I actually lean towards legalization.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
On November 28 2007 12:27 Hot_Bid wrote: Unfortunately you can't separate high end escorts from corner girls in prostitution. There will always be a continuum of cost vs. quality in every business, and there will always exist a market for the cheap street walker.
There's a good argument in STD testing and revenue regulation, these are positives that could come from legalizing prostitution. However, there will always be that large group of women who are either too ugly or too beaten down to live the life of a high end (or even just average) prostitute.
Legalizing it would have a huge impact on the already very screwed up gender issues at play in the industry. You cannot separate women's rights from prostitution. It'd be nice and clean to debate in a vacuum like that, but in the real world it doesn't happen this way.
Firstly, not all escorts are high end. Secondly, why does it matter if there are a large group of women are too ugly or too beaten down to live the life of a high end prostitute? Just because somebody is too stupid to become a lawyer should we not have lawyers?(I know that might be stretching it but I think the idea is there) An industry is an industry. You pay top dollar for top quality, less for lower quality.
Yes, you can separate them. That's why I disagree with you. The sex industry is a niche market. The way it is largely kept private(to some extent) will keep it that way. Niche markets don't often define a gender as a whole or greatly influence a society's outlook on them. If it did, it would be relatively small and go away in a generation or two. You have to look at the long run, not the right now.
But that's really all speculation and opinion. Neither of us can really tell the outcome unless it happens. It'll just degenerate into a long winded discussion that goes "Yuh-huh, Nuh-uh, Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh!" but with flowery words. Not sure how much you want to engage in that
If I paid a prostitute 10 000$ to sleep with me overnight and we both walk away from the encounter perfectly content with it, what does that night have anything to do with murder / stealing? Do you realize nobody is pointing a gun to her head to sleep with me?
On November 28 2007 11:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote: YES
Its inevitable that it will be here! Embrace it! Dont try and fight it?! hahah Stealing, murder, incest etc.. all are things human beings have and will do for all of time! So instead of fighting it just fucking embrace it!
Disagree with me? You must have blinders on! You must be ignorant! Dont do these things, open your mind! Free your selves!
.............
Wow you should really think a bit before saying things like that.
It is extremely foolish to try and equate prostitution with stealing / murdering / etc.
If I paid a prostitute 10 000$ to sleep with me overnight and we both walk away from the encounter perfectly content with it, what does that night have anything to do with murder / stealing? Do you realize nobody is pointing a gun to her head to sleep with me?
Murder and stealing are doing things AGAINST someone's will.
Prostitution is two consenting adults agreeing to exchange money for sex WILLINGLY.
Please, don't ever bring up murder / stealing on the same level as prostitution ever again.
Tien you are blowing my arguement to impossible proportions. Smoking a cig or drinking some booze is not comparable to licking the asshole of a whore. BUT guess what? If someone drinks TOO much and is being fucking stupid they will get in trouble... just as I said. Its "my body" but if you drink so much it becomes dangerous for others around you or you are literally self destructing people WILL stop you.
I am not blowing your arguments into impossible proportions. I am merely using your arguments against you to show you how rediculous your arguments were.
The point you made about "stopping people who harm their bodies" is extremely vague and can be applied to a thousand legal activities that people engage themselves in that harm their bodies.
And who are you to decide whether or not a prostitute is "harming" her body? Have you ever talked to one? What do you know about the prositution industry in your own country? What do you know about how a prostitute in your country lives? What do you know about how clean they REALLY are? What do you know about how often they check themselves up?
The people arguing one side happen to be arguing based on morals and emotion. One can never argue based on morals and emotion for the big picture doesn't care what your morals are or how you feel about them. You must work within that structure. A refusal to do so is ignorance incarnated.
I dont agree with that whole "embrace prostitution because its been here for a long time". wtf seriously There are a lot of examples also I can give you that is morally wrong and is not against someone's will, like buying drugs from a dealer ,etc. Its morally wrong.
And a prostitute IS harming her body wheter she realizes it or not in what she does. She is exposing herself to an endless amount of diseases and degrading herself as a person having sex with people for money. Since whores dont ask for people to go take a blood exam before having sex, no matter how clean, carefull they are exposing and threatening their own lives.
Yes, there's no way to really tell how it will work the United States. I was simply being the devil's advocate to you and Tien and making arguments several people said in class in a much more eloquent and better way than I did here. I can't really elaborate much more on them because, to be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable in that field.
I just wanted to you guys know there are very legitimate reasons for opposing prostitution than simply believing it is "morally wrong" or "bad" as many have stated here.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
On November 28 2007 12:41 Hot_Bid wrote: Yes, there's no way to really tell how it will work the United States. I was simply being the devil's advocate to you and Tien and making arguments several people said in class in a much more eloquent and better way than I did here. I can't really elaborate much more on them because, to be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable in that field.
I just wanted to you guys know there are very legitimate reasons for opposing prostitution than simply believing it is "morally wrong" or "bad" as many have stated here.
Oh I know, I already admitted there are more reasons to opposing prostitution. I was saying the issue with the people opposing it are they are acting on the grounds of it being morally wrong or bad. As I said earlier, the world doesn't care about your morals or how you feel about them. I could argue the side opposing prostitution all day. But I'd do it more philosophically than by believing it to be how the real world would best operate as it currently exists. The opposing side has points, but I think it is obliterated by the side advocating it.
Though neither side has made really great arguments on this forum so far. I think the dominating factor is putting an end to an incredibly violent, dangerous, manipulative and profitable black market. You accomplish that by regulation not prohibition. You take the power out of the bad guys hands and put it into the hands of a regulated industry. It makes society as a whole safer. The other factors pale in comparison to this, in my opinion.
it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded
That's probably the strongest point against prostitution.
Yeah it's really a grey issue, since I don't think if I sleep with a prostitute I am degrading women in any way but others view it differently.
An entire industry based on "objectifying" / "degrading women" exists but in my oppinion, I think the feminists are taking this out of proportion, men are just hardwired completetly different than women.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
why not?
oh wait, because if heroin was legal everyone would use it, abuse it, overdose on it and die. forgot about that. good thing we're controlling our neighbor's lives by babysitting them with the gun of a 10 year prison sentence pointed at their head, or the whole world would collapse, right?
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
Having a regulated and controlled drug market(would be combined with the alcohol market because lets face it, alcohol is a drug) would be great for society as it currently exists. Destroying the market that revolves around the current drug would would be a huge step forward. It would make substances able to be more readily researched and make the general population more educated about drugs. It would largely remove the stigma caused by the underground nature of much of the drug culture and bring society more together. It would keep from poor substance quality from causing deaths and would keep people safer(both due to the non-existence of the black market, the greater education and the guaranteed quality of the substances). That really only scrapes the surface of it. Anybody who really wants to get drugs can get them. Prohibitions don't stop that. Regulations wouldn't change that. Unless you are going to disagree with this by doing anything more than an emotional outburst of some form or another, don't bother. The issue goes far beyond what you think it does and involves a lot more than "drugs are bad, mmmkay". It has to do with how societies work and react to prohibitions and how people work. It has more things tied in to it than you are apparently aware of.
But I've been told not to derail the thread so I'll leave it at that. If this was inappropriate, delete this Hot_Bid. I thought the point tied in with prostitution some what. The drug market and the prostitution market are fairly similar. The society effects would be in different areas but are similar in some ways.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
why not?
oh wait, because if heroin was legal everyone would use it, abuse it, overdose on it and die. forgot about that. good thing we're controlling our neighbor's lives by babysitting them with the gun of a 10 year prison sentence pointed at their head, or the whole world would collapse, right?
Oh definitely. If we allowed people to do as they pleased rather than enforcing prohibition the world would quickly degrade into endless debauchery. Not only you, me and my dying grand mother, but the kids at the playground would have heroin needles protruding from the many arteries, there skin would be ravaged by the meth and there lips would be permanently melded to the crack pipes. We would be chasing the pink dragon forever more while having our way with an endless line of female and/or male prostitutes. The world as we know it would collapse as surgeries and law enforcement were carried out in the nude and amputation was considered a way of saying "Hey, I like you". The economy would collapse. School wouldn't matter. Genital mutilation would be all the rage. People would slowly revert back into apes but with all sorts of new appendages and mutations. The world would be a horrible horrible place.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
Having a regulated and controlled drug market(would be combined with the alcohol market because lets face it, alcohol is a drug) would be great for society as it currently exists. Destroying the market that revolves around the current drug would would be a huge step forward. It would make substances able to be more readily researched and make the general population more educated about drugs. It would largely remove the stigma caused by the underground nature of much of the drug culture and bring society more together. It would keep from poor substance quality from causing deaths and would keep people safer(both due to the non-existence of the black market, the greater education and the guaranteed quality of the substances). That really only scrapes the surface of it. Anybody who really wants to get drugs can get them. Prohibitions don't stop that. Regulations wouldn't change that. Unless you are going to disagree with this by doing anything more than an emotional outburst of some form or another, don't bother. The issue goes far beyond what you think it does and involves a lot more than "drugs are bad, mmmkay". It has to do with how societies work and react to prohibitions and how people work. It has more things tied in to it than you are apparently aware of.
But I've been told not to derail the thread so I'll leave it at that. If this was inappropriate, delete this Hot_Bid. I thought the point tied in with prostitution some what. The drug market and the prostitution market are fairly similar. The society effects would be in different areas but are similar in some ways.
What part of your brain says to you that legalizing drugs would be better for the society? You dont destroy a market by "embracing it", you destroy it by isolating it and setting laws against it. And define having a control market of drugs. ill go to sleep
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
After the first 2 sentences you basically gave me no desire to respond to this. What are you expecting from this post? Your suggestion is horrible and you already know it is.
Please post something a bit less ridiculous if you actually want to have a debate. I'm not trying to be offensive but seriously...
Are you kidding me? There's nothing ridiculous about my post, and you dismissing it does not make it so.
I'm trying to be good natured and continue the debate. Being shitty like this is what started your tiff with inc and nearly ruined the thread.
Nobody has addressed the fact that prostitute-cum will drench your balls, despite a condom. And that's a big fucking deal with a prostitute, maybe 1000x moreso than with any other type of woman. Gross, yucky. Warts and herpes FTL
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
After the first 2 sentences you basically gave me no desire to respond to this. What are you expecting from this post? Your suggestion is horrible and you already know it is.
Please post something a bit less ridiculous if you actually want to have a debate. I'm not trying to be offensive but seriously...
Are you kidding me? There's nothing ridiculous about my post, and you dismissing it does not make it so.
I'm trying to be good natured and continue the debate. Being shitty like this is what started your tiff with inc and nearly ruined the thread.
Learn from your mistakes buddy, seriously.
I was not shitty to inc, but to each their own.
There is no mistake to learn from. You suggested a ridiculous smear campaign against the clients as a suggestion for a "best exist" scenario? I can't possibly take you seriously if that's how you're going to debate. If that is honestly how you view best exist you are a terrible individual who has a very unfortunate view of what is good and is not.
Best exist would be a situation in which all parties who are not committing harm or exploiting others come out ahead in some fashion, as well as the rest of society being either progressed in some fashion or remaining unchanged. Maybe some variation of that explanation but that would be the general idea anyway.
You honestly expect me to take somebody seriously who wants me to debunk how a giant smear campaign against a group of people who are (for the most part) not hurting anybody to scare people into not feeding the black market. It wouldn't work and if you can't see that you're blind. Black markets don't respond to scare tactics. The people who use black markets don't respond to scare tactics. You're hurting people. People who are undeserving. People who are largely innocents. You suggest hurting them above hurting the bad guys. You suggest something that harms a large number of people rather than one that assimilates the industry, gets rid of the black market and leaves society largely unaffected.
What's the matter with you?
EDIT: I mean, I just thought you were being over the top for the sake of argument. If you're actually sincere...I just don't know =\
Newsflash... alcohol probably kills 100,000 to 1 ratio compared to Hookers...
But lets focus on the other samples, lets ban any extreme sport, these idiots are putting their own bodies willingly in danger, lest stop them!!!!! Hey, tackle me i risk my life racing rallies, putting my life at risk and also spectators at risk.
Yeah lets tackle any adult who willingly and understanding the risks take a decision thats puts him in danger.
Incontrol you gotta realize when you are just saying dumb shit, be honest with yourself i get you dont like prostitute, but thats because you are a fat prude dumbass and you dont have a strong argument about it, just read your post.
And if you want to protect people so much then common sense would say that yo ushould agree with the legalizaiton and regulation of prostitution so that prostitutes would be forced to have medical check-ups and practice safe sex... YAY now we got less people dying that apparently its ur goal.
i remember watching something on t.v. about Germany having legal prostitution it was around the time of the world cup(fifa). anyways, i found this link on wiki that talks about current situations about prostitution.
btw, i think when i watched it on real sports(hbo show about how sports changes ppl lives :/) they talked about how Germany has a drive thru for sex. pretty crazy.
Freak, your posts toward Inc (however justified you feel them to be) and ManaBlue show a lack of minimum respect toward others. You can express your views without being so condescending. It's not "just them" because a lot of people see this in your posts.
I Love how this became a discussion on tackling and shit
Also Hey Hot_Bid. Why dont you give baal the same warning? He doesnt need to add "Fat prude" shit to his posts.. that is sidetracking and running the risk of derailing the thread. If that kind of stuff is ok just say the word so I can respond with hilarious sarcasm (paradox?)
On November 28 2007 14:35 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I Love how this became a discussion on tackling and shit
Also Hey Hot_Bid. Why dont you give baal the same warning? He doesnt need to add "Fat prude" shit to his posts.. that is sidetracking and running the risk of derailing the thread. If that kind of stuff is ok just say the word so I can respond with hilarious sarcasm (paradox?)
baal you get the same warning. are you happy now incontrol?
See I wasn't warned, so good. I'm J/k though incontrol. I love you. You just have heavy bones and aren't necessarily a prude for thinking backwards and being incredibly stubborn at all times.
Incontrol gets the same preferential treatment as a veteran member as you do, baal, otherwise you'd both have been banned a long time ago. No more on the personal vendettas please.
On November 28 2007 15:21 baal wrote: Hot_Bid the 10 tl.net commandments say stupidity is a bannable offence Incontrol needs atleast a warning ffs.
He said we should stop people from willingly put their bodies in danger... seriously that deserves a stupidity warning.
Hot_Bid made the same argument only he chose to describe it as people eating their own flesh. Me talking about people using fire or drinking so much they are a danger to others was simply an elaboration of the same thing. Do you think Hot_Bid should be banned for being dumb? IF so please say so to him so I can watch you get banned
On November 28 2007 13:45 JudgeMathis wrote: i remember watching something on t.v. about Germany having legal prostitution it was around the time of the world cup(fifa). anyways, i found this link on wiki that talks about current situations about prostitution.
btw, i think when i watched it on real sports(hbo show about how sports changes ppl lives :/) they talked about how Germany has a drive thru for sex. pretty crazy.
Because of your link and an hour or so of surfing wikipedia I now know there are 14 different kinds of ice.
On a related note... I've never had a prostitute, but I plan to when I'm so old that I can no longer find attractive women to have sex with me on my own.
On November 28 2007 15:21 baal wrote: Hot_Bid the 10 tl.net commandments say stupidity is a bannable offence Incontrol needs atleast a warning ffs.
He said we should stop people from willingly put their bodies in danger... seriously that deserves a stupidity warning.
Hot_Bid made the same argument only he chose to describe it as people eating their own flesh. Me talking about people using fire or drinking so much they are a danger to others was simply an elaboration of the same thing. Do you think Hot_Bid should be banned for being dumb? IF so please say so to him so I can watch you get banned
If he thinks exactly the way you do then yes he is also stupid, i doubt he does tho.
Dangers to "others" ding ding ding, key word there pal, when you ride your BMX bike and brake your spine, its your problem and nobody has the right to stop you, especially not the state, when you decide to race cars and you die because u crash into a wall nobody has the right to stop you either, its your fucking life, your body.
And once again you are dodging the fact that legalization would probide a lot of health benefits so by regulating and controling it we are actually "tackling" those fools u so much want to save withouth infringing their freedom -_-
On November 28 2007 15:21 baal wrote: Hot_Bid the 10 tl.net commandments say stupidity is a bannable offence Incontrol needs atleast a warning ffs.
He said we should stop people from willingly put their bodies in danger... seriously that deserves a stupidity warning.
Hot_Bid made the same argument only he chose to describe it as people eating their own flesh. Me talking about people using fire or drinking so much they are a danger to others was simply an elaboration of the same thing. Do you think Hot_Bid should be banned for being dumb? IF so please say so to him so I can watch you get banned
If he thinks exactly the way you do then yes he is also stupid, i doubt he does tho.
Dangers to "others" ding ding ding, key word there pal, when you ride your BMX bike and brake your spine, its your problem and nobody has the right to stop you, especially not the state, when you decide to race cars and you die because u crash into a wall nobody has the right to stop you either, its your fucking life, your body.
And once again you are dodging the fact that legalization would probide a lot of health benefits so by regulating and controling it we are actually "tackling" those fools u so much want to save withouth infringing their freedom -_-
Er I wouldnt promote stopping people from riding bikes or anything like that. But if a dude tried to jump the grand canyon on a mountain bike yes, I would try and stop him. That is the distinction you are missing that Hot_Bid and I essentially made. Stop over generalizing and dumbing down my argument then calling me dumb for the argument you manifested.
And you used "tackling" out of the context it was being used previously which is a shame, I thought it was getting funny.
Anyways I dont need to try and word it any better than Hot_bid did. Go read his post and look for the reference to "eating your own flesh" that was where he made the argument that I was making as well.
Unfortunately baal, that's not how society works. People simply cannot do whatever they want because they are "only harming themselves." There are always consequences for the rest of society.
In your example, let's say instead of BMX bike riding it was taking a knife and cutting out your own intestines to eat. Now you are only harming yourself, but does society and law in general have an interest in stopping it? Should there be an age limit on deciding when someone is fit mentally to decide whether they can eat their own intestines? Should we try to counsel these people and teach them not to do this, or should we simply let them kill themselves? You may say the latter, but society has an interest in rehabilitation, because that person could contribute to society later.
In reality, his death and the horror of his actions DO impact society, even if you see it only as an injury on himself. For example, his little brother may decide that he wants to try intestine eating. Or on a larger level, the act is so "morally depraved" that it negatively impacts society on a whole. For example, the story of an epidemic of intestine-eating is on TV, and people are so sickened and scared of it that they stop going out to eat and going to movies and the economy crashes. These results may sound far-fetched, but that's exactly what happened after September 11th (the act was so morally "bad" that it had immeasurable consequences on society outside of the scope of the actual damage).
So instead of worrying about all these issues, we would just ban knife-intestine-carving-eating. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis, are the risks (all those things I mentioned) and costs to figure out how to enforce and regulate intestine eating worth the benefit (idiosyncratic pleasure for the few in society who wish to eat their own intestines). I think the law and society would generally say that the risks, dangers, and cost of worrying/enforcing self-mutilation and intestine eating far outweigh any benefit it could give society. Thus we ban it. It doesn't matter that "its your own intestines, you can do what you want with them."
On November 28 2007 15:21 baal wrote: Hot_Bid the 10 tl.net commandments say stupidity is a bannable offence Incontrol needs atleast a warning ffs.
He said we should stop people from willingly put their bodies in danger... seriously that deserves a stupidity warning.
Hot_Bid made the same argument only he chose to describe it as people eating their own flesh. Me talking about people using fire or drinking so much they are a danger to others was simply an elaboration of the same thing. Do you think Hot_Bid should be banned for being dumb? IF so please say so to him so I can watch you get banned
If he thinks exactly the way you do then yes he is also stupid, i doubt he does tho.
Dangers to "others" ding ding ding, key word there pal, when you ride your BMX bike and brake your spine, its your problem and nobody has the right to stop you, especially not the state, when you decide to race cars and you die because u crash into a wall nobody has the right to stop you either, its your fucking life, your body.
And once again you are dodging the fact that legalization would probide a lot of health benefits so by regulating and controling it we are actually "tackling" those fools u so much want to save withouth infringing their freedom -_-
Er I wouldnt promote stopping people from riding bikes or anything like that. But if a dude tried to jump the grand canyon on a mountain bike yes, I would try and stop him. That is the distinction you are missing that Hot_Bid and I essentially made. Stop over generalizing and dumbing down my argument then calling me dumb for the argument you manifested.
And you used "tackling" out of the context it was being used previously which is a shame, I thought it was getting funny.
Anyways I dont need to try and word it any better than Hot_bid did. Go read his post and look for the reference to "eating your own flesh" that was where he made the argument that I was making as well.
Because BMXing is dangerous... jumping from the Grand Canyon is nearly suicidal.... so is eating your own intestines.
So its a matter of quantity... how dangerous the act is, you can skydive, you cant skydive withouth a parachute am i right?
Well i hope you both are aware that a motor racing is much much much dangerous than sleeping with a prostitute, so are a countless number of extreme sports... and not only recreational activities but actual jobs are much more dangerous like those giant crab fishers etc.
So please drop the argument about "its for your health" argument, if the reason why prostitution is illegal its because of health then its retarded since the market wont ever dissapear and they are only making it more unhealthy, and they are increasing the risks for the prostitute and the costumer a shit load by making it illegal.
That legislation is about morality and you both know it -_-
On November 28 2007 18:39 baal wrote: Because BMXing is dangerous... jumping from the Grand Canyon is nearly suicidal.... so is eating your own intestines.
What about eating your own limbs then? That's not suicidal, you think we should allow people to cut off their own limbs (medically) and eat them, as long as its "not suicidal"?
Baal, I don't think you can distinguish BMXing from eating your own limbs without resorting to some sort of moral argument.
My point is there are many valid reasons for wanting to legalize prostitution, but when you say "she should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body, who is the state to come tell her no," it's simply not a good argument. There are many instances where you would want the state to say no to something someone is doing to their own body.
On November 28 2007 18:39 baal wrote: Because BMXing is dangerous... jumping from the Grand Canyon is nearly suicidal.... so is eating your own intestines.
What about eating your own limbs then? That's not suicidal, you think we should allow people to cut off their own limbs (medically) and eat them, as long as its "not suicidal"?
Baal, I don't think you can distinguish BMXing from eating your own limbs without resorting to some sort of moral argument.
My point is there are many valid reasons for wanting to legalize prostitution, but when you say "she should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body, who is the state to come tell her no," it's simply not a good argument. There are many instances where you would want the state to say no to something someone is doing to their own body.
Again with dumb comparitions... so you rather cut and eat your leg than fuck a prostitute? you think they are in the same level of hazzard? no you dont so stop making dumb examples.
And yeah i believe you should be able to do with your body whatever the fuck you want, however a person cutting his body in parts to eat them is definitelly mentally ill and he should be institutionalized, same reason why i believe drugs should be legal, the state shall not say what i can and cannot do with my body.
and AGAIN you are dodging the fact that if it were a health issue and not a morality issue then it would be insta legalized and regulated since its obvious it would lower all the dangers in it
On November 28 2007 20:50 baal wrote: Again with dumb comparitions... so you rather cut and eat your leg than fuck a prostitute? you think they are in the same level of hazzard? no you dont so stop making dumb examples.
Did I at any point say that I personally would rather do any of those things? Did I say it's the "same level of hazard?" I even said that there are valid reasons for legalizing prostitution, nowhere did I say I felt there were valid reasons for legalizing eating your own body parts. You need to learn how to read other people's posts without randomly making things up.
I'm saying the "levels of hazard" you are using to distinguish cutting body parts and fucking prostitutes eventually boil down some sort of moral judgment. It's not some objective test.
And yeah i believe you should be able to do with your body whatever the fuck you want, however a person cutting his body in parts to eat them is definitelly mentally ill and he should be institutionalized, same reason why i believe drugs should be legal, the state shall not say what i can and cannot do with my body.
Really? someone cutting his body is definitely mentally ill? What about tatoos? Body piercings? What about really deep tatoos? That's permanent scarring, isn't cutting large pieces of skin off just one step further than tatoos? And then cutting chunks of skin off? According to you, shouldn't people be able to do "whatever they want with their body?" Where do you draw the line between getting tatoos and piercings and taking large chunks of flesh out of your body? Are all people who get tatoos mentally ill?
My point is you are trying to distinguish "doing whatever the fuck you want with your body" and my cutting body parts off example by saying "oh, the latter is only done by someone who is mentally ill" when it's clearly just a blurry line drawn with morality too. If you really believe you can do anything you want with your body, you wouldn't have any problem with people cutting off their own limbs.
and AGAIN you are dodging the fact that if it were a health issue and not a morality issue then it would be insta legalized and regulated since its obvious it would lower all the dangers in it
I'm not dodging the issue, I already said many times that there are valid reasons for supporting the legalization of prostitution, Tien and Freak presented a lot of them. I'm saying YOUR reasoning, that "you should be able to do whatever you want with your body" is a really stupid argument. I gave lots of reasons why and you responded with the statements I quoted above, so clearly you didn't fully understand what I was saying.
I don't know if you're purposely trying to troll me with the stuff you say or if you genuinely don't understand the points I'm making. With Tien and Freak, I think we reached some point of mutual understanding, but with you I just think all that went right over your head.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4336/safesexzr0.gif)
![[image loading]](http://p3.focus.de/img/gen/b/p/HBbp4sko_Pxgen_r_311xA.jpg)
And you made a good point! 
