|
On August 02 2011 15:32 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:31 MrDudeMan wrote:
If all the man is getting from the relationship is sex, then yes I suppose. So if you pay money for sex and the other person cooks you a meal, that's also not prostitution? How about if the guy dates you and takes you to movies every week?
The point is not to say that anything more than just sex does not constitute prostitution. The point was that in cases of a gold digging wife, the woman may only be with the man for just the money, and he may only be with her just for the sex. You could say that is prostitution. However things get more complicated when the woman means more to the man then just a means for sex, then you enter into the realms of a dysfunctional relationship.
On August 02 2011 15:36 ErMaCsc2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2011 15:29 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:24 acker wrote:On August 02 2011 15:23 MrDudeMan wrote:
It is also not prostitution, just a case of ulterior motives. Prostitution implies that a business transaction was arranged where one party pays another party and receives a sexual service in return (knowingly). That's what marrying someone for money is... No because in the case of a prostitute both parties are fully aware of what is going on. I guess you could argue that in some cases rich men are fully aware their wives are goldiggers, but generally they are not. A definition was posted earlier in this thread of what a prostitute is:
1. a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money
2. a man who engages in such activity, esp in homosexual practices
3. a person who offers his talent or work for unworthy purposes
vb (tr)
1. to offer (oneself or another) in sexual intercourse for money
2. to offer (a person, esp oneself, or a person's talent) for unworthy purposes
Please indicate in this definition where intent or awareness is referenced. As far as I can tell, the definition is purely based on action. Whether a woman engages in sexual intercourse for money conciously or otherwise doesn't make a difference, based on the definition posted.
The definition may not state it, but its widely accepted that both parties are knowledgeable of the exchange during the act of prostitution.
|
On August 02 2011 15:37 lizzard_warish wrote:
One is having sex for money, the other is marrying for money.
The sex is obviously bonus material. Gold-diggers who never marry their targets but have sex with them are also prostitutes, I assume.
|
OK after reading the article I don't see what the big fuss is. If men are willing to pay these women it seems perfectly appropriate that they should be able to do so if there is a level of mutual agreement. Huffington Post isn't particularly known for its journalism but I'll just ignore that for now.
On August 02 2011 12:11 Malgrif wrote:
I think the concept is sorta neat, but feel sort of cheated as I'm a guy lol.
I also think the site emphasizes the fact that people who go to college now a days aren't as successful as they have been in the past. I don't understand how girls can think this isn't prostitution though, it's pretty much implied that if the guy didn't give her money that they would not be seeing each other. Are people these days really that desperate?
What don't you understand one of the girls clearly explained why she didn't think it was the same thing. These guys are paying for more than just sex was basically the point of it. She said that the money was pretty much for a relationship and the sex was more like a by product of that than the sole reason for the payment. What I don't understand is why you feel cheated. If you don't want to pay for a relationship then don't do it. The only thing you could be "losing" is the ability to date one of these girls because you lack the money. But that isn't in your control. If these women want to date rich people you're not cheated out of anything. That's like blaming Brad Pitt for not having a girlfriend because he set a pretty high standard for being hot. That's like saying you got cheated out of lottery money when you refused to buy the tickets.
As for the topic of prostitution:
There are actually a number of good reasons for legalizing prostitution:
1. Reduce the spread of STDs
2. Governments can tax it.
3. It gives some people a way to generate income.
Imagine this scenario: You walk into a brothel choose a woman you want to have sex with. Examine her health record to ensure she is STD free (much like how restaurants must pass a health inspection). You and the sex worker then meet to ensure that the sex is completely consensual. Then you have sex after being searched for weapons ect... You pay the fee then a tip as well as any applicable taxes and then you leave the brothel.
By legalizing prostitution you can effectively protect both parties and the government can make revenue off of it. It provides a much safer alternative to the underground sex trade.
|
On August 02 2011 15:39 MrDudeMan wrote:
The point is not to say that anything more than just sex does not constitute prostitution. The point was that in cases of a gold digging wife, the woman may only be with the man for just the money, and he may only be with her just for the sex. You could say that is prostitution. However things get more complicated when the woman means more to the man then just a means for sex, then you enter into the realms of a dysfunctional relationship.
Not all prostitution is done just for sex (or, on the converse, just for money). Sometimes it's also done for companionship (more common with women looking for male prostitutes), sometimes for political power, sometimes even something as simple as a roof over the head. That doesn't mean that it isn't prostitution, or that it's just a "dysfunctional relationship".
Nor can you claim, as you previously have, that gold diggers may or may not have sex in mind and prostitutes always do. A simple Google Search reveals that most alleged "prostitutes" actually have disclaimers saying that any sex that happens in a "meeting" is strictly voluntary and, if it happens, happens out of setting and attractiveness. It's just as easy to claim the same for such alleged prostitutes the same you're claiming for gold-diggers...
(why am I the one doing research?! FBI's gonna find me...)
The trouble is, any definition you can come up with that is not a tautology can be applied to plenty of real life, perfectly legal, systems. That's because such systems exist just to evade prostitution laws. Kind of like the Cayman Islands of sex...
|
On August 02 2011 15:40 G_Wen wrote:
By legalizing prostitution you can effectively protect both parties and the government can make revenue off of it. It provides a much safer alternative to the underground sex trade.
This.
And yet, hilariously, the people who oppose legalized prostitution often claim to be 'looking out for' those girls.
|
On August 02 2011 12:30 oldgregg wrote:
its a transaction and they are both consenting adults so i dont see a problem
yo thats also my opinion
|
On August 02 2011 15:45 acker wrote:
The trouble is, any definition you can come up with that is not a tautology can be applied to plenty of real life, perfectly legal, systems. That's because such systems exist just to evade prostitution laws.
Accordingly, I'd describe prostitution as a normal part of human interaction and not something to be criminalized or looked down upon.
Fact is, most human relationships involve some degree of mutually beneficial exchange. Whether it's sex for money or something as simple as doing favors for your friends in return for the same, most humans engage in this to some degree. It's taboo to think about it this way, but how many of us could honestly say that we don't gain something from our friends and give back in return? Even our relationships with other species are predicated on an exchange of our resources in return for labor, companionship, or entertainment.
However, making transactions explicit is considered distasteful by our society, whether it's money for sex or explicitly asking for invites to a party in return for tutoring. Instead, we like to think that we simply like certain other people enough to do things for them, without ever examining why. Hence the opposition to prostitution.
|
At the risk of putting myself up for flames, I would like to chime in about this type of topic.
Prostitution has been an age old profession since the dawn of civilization. Its been recorded in history books, and despite attempts throughout different times and civilizations to eliminate it, continues to exist as an underground profession.
The act of selling sexual services for money is the most basic way to encompass all forms of prostitution. Be it on the street, advertising on the internet as incall or outcall, working in a brothel, or in this case as a "university student" escort that you hire for a date first and dinner before the actual sex.
The current law in Canada states that the act of soliciting for sex is illegal, as well as hosting any form of brothel, but it does not cover anything else that one would probably associate as prostitution, in this case, hiring an escort to spend a date and night with you. The problem comes from how it works. If everything happens behind closed doors, what two consenting adults do is up to them. Unless the police has a warrant they can not simply bust through the door and arrest them for soliciting a prostitute. There are alot of better things to do then to go through the trouble of proving to a judge the validity of acquiring the warrant in the first place, and then setting up to bust a person soliciting a escort behind closed doors. Sometimes the escorts will ask you to pay through other channels which causes further trouble as no money was exchanged on the scene. In essence, if two consenting adults choose to do this type of service, its perfectly fine although it is strictly prostitution, as there are better things for police to do such as investigating cases where actual victims have occurred as opposed to two people who really aren't victims of anything, except to the economy in this case for the escort, or sex slavery if the escort was brought here illegally.
How one feels about this subject really depends on which side of the fence they are put on. The rich men are bored with excess wealth to spend and college studenst need to get out of her loan situation. She took the easy way out by spending nights with various of these sugar daddies, getting paid in the process. The idea is amoral, but it is a victimless crime, as both sides consent to this type of agreement behind closed doors/channels, as opposed to street hookers, where their presence is obviously amoral to the society in general and is worth police effort to catch.
At least that is my 2cents.
|
On August 02 2011 15:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:45 acker wrote:
The trouble is, any definition you can come up with that is not a tautology can be applied to plenty of real life, perfectly legal, systems. That's because such systems exist just to evade prostitution laws. Accordingly, I'd describe prostitution as a normal part of human interaction and not something to be criminalized or looked down upon. Fact is, most human relationships involve some degree of mutually beneficial exchange. Whether it's sex for money or something as simple as doing favors for your friends in return for the same, most humans engage in this to some degree. It's taboo to think about it this way, but how many of us could honestly say that we don't gain something from our friends and give back in return? Even our relationships with other species are predicated on an exchange of our resources in return for labor, companionship, or entertainment. However, making transactions explicit is considered distasteful by our society, whether we're talking about prostitution or explicitly asking for invites to a party in return for tutoring. Instead, we like to think that we simply like certain other people enough to do things for them, without ever examining why. Hence the opposition to prostitution.
To be honest, I think prostitution has roots in biology. To make a long story short, males generally look for women who can sex successfully, women generally look for males who can raised sexed offspring safely, and neither sex has evolved past birth control. Of course, this isn't always the case, but I'm guessing there is a reason why most prostitutes are female and most buyers are male.
Social stigma (or existence thereof) varies across societies, so I don't think it's that simple.
|
On August 02 2011 15:45 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:39 MrDudeMan wrote:
The point is not to say that anything more than just sex does not constitute prostitution. The point was that in cases of a gold digging wife, the woman may only be with the man for just the money, and he may only be with her just for the sex. You could say that is prostitution. However things get more complicated when the woman means more to the man then just a means for sex, then you enter into the realms of a dysfunctional relationship. Not all prostitution is done just for sex. Sometimes it's also done for companionship (more common with women looking for male prostitutes), sometimes for political power, sometimes even something as simple as a roof over the head. That doesn't mean that it isn't prostitution, or that it's just a "dysfunctional relationship". Nor can you claim, as you previously have, that gold diggers may or may not have sex in mind and prostitutes always do. A simple Google Search reveals that most alleged "prostitutes" actually have disclaimers saying that any sex that happens in a "meeting" is strictly voluntary and, if it happens, happens out of setting and attractiveness. It's just as easy to claim the same for such alleged prostitutes the same you're claiming for gold-diggers... (why am I the one doing research?! FBI's gonna find me...) The trouble is, any definition you can come up with that is not a tautology can be applied to plenty of real life, perfectly legal, systems. That's because such systems exist just to evade prostitution laws. Kind of like the Cayman Islands of sex...
Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are writing but I think you are misinterpreting what I am writing (lol?). In your first block of text, in all three cases the person selling themselves is considered a prostitute, because there is no relationship between person A and person B besides the sex. However if you are saying that person A and person B are in a relationship that goes beyond sex, then I agree with you. My example of a dysfunctional relationship applies in the case that a woman (or man) is in a relationship simply for the money, but the other person in the relationship likes the other person beyond sex and wants to pursue a normal relationship (living together, talking, all that good stuff). In which case the relationship clearly is not healthy.
As for the second block, I don't really understand it. Are you saying that prostitutes are voluntarily having sex? If they are, then that does not change the fact that it is prostitution, unless they are not getting payed.
|
I see a lot of you are ok with this, but I really want to make sure.
If your mother used this method to pay for her college, are you still ok with it?
if you had a daugher and you couldn't pay for her college, will you be ok if she used this method to pay for her college fees?
let's say your father (divorced) is rich and uses this method to help those poor female college students, are you still ok with it?
you are a man, let's pretend there aren't any rich females, but there are this gay and rich males that would like to spend a lovely evening with you, in exchange for money that you would use to pay for your college fees, would you do it?
I don't want to start an argument but I really want to know how would feel if this affected you directly in some way or another.
If you feel this is still ok, then I have nothing to say anymore and I respect your honesty. Perhaps, can I blame society too, for my way "puritan" of thinking?
I know it's their choice but it's only because it pays a lot, it doesn't take a lot of time and it's easy. I'm sure they wouldn't sell their bodies if they didn't need it, right? After all there is people that work hard and for a long time just to pay their fees and find this way of prostitution disgusting, I wonder if they are idiots, or puritans, or just different people with different opinions...
|
On August 02 2011 15:59 acker wrote:
To be honest, I think prostitution has roots in biology. To make a long story short, males generally look for women who can sex successfully, women generally look for males who can raised sexed offspring safely, and neither sex has evolved past birth control. Of course, this isn't always the case, but I'm guessing there is a reason why most prostitutes are female and most buyers are male.
Social stigma (or existence thereof) varies across societies, so I don't think it's that simple.
I agree it's rooted in biology and that social stigma varies across societies.
My argument is that the stigma against prostitution in our society (especially in contrast to our relative acceptance of things such as gold-digging) is at least partly rooted in our general stigma against explicitly formalizing transactional aspects of human relationships.
|
On August 02 2011 16:00 MrDudeMan wrote:
Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are writing but I think you are misinterpreting what I am writing (lol?). In your first block of text, in all three cases the person selling themselves is considered a prostitute, because there is no relationship between person A and person B besides the sex. However if you are saying that person A and person B are in a relationship that goes beyond sex, then I agree with you. My example of a dysfunctional relationship applies in the case that a woman (or man) is in a relationship simply for the money, but the other person in the relationship likes the other person beyond sex and wants to pursue a normal relationship (living together, talking, all that good stuff). In which case the relationship clearly is not healthy.
No, I'm saying that types of prostitution exist that do, in fact, have aspects greater than sex. All three references are historically accurate and are, in fact, larger than simply having sex for cash (for one thing, "political control" and "companionship" are not sex or money). Therefore, your definition for prostitution does not work, no matter how you try to exclude it.
Google shows that at least one high-end escort in Amsterdam requires her "dates" to be able to hold a coherent philosophical debate. That's certainly beyond sex, but it certainly is prostitution. I wish I was joking.
(This is the last time I'm Googling something like this on this computer without installing TOR, wiping history...)
On August 02 2011 16:00 MrDudeMan wrote:
As for the second block, I don't really understand it. Are you saying that prostitutes are voluntarily having sex? If they are, then that does not change the fact that it is prostitution, unless they are not getting payed.
I'm merely replying to your gold digger defense that relies on unknowns.
On August 02 2011 16:05 sunprince wrote:
My argument is that the stigma against prostitution in our society (especially in contrast to our relative acceptance of things such as gold-digging) is at least partly rooted in our general stigma against explicitly formalizing transactional aspects of human relationships.
This makes sense. I also think it's Puritan values from American founding, considering how society here treats ALL forms of sex (or sexual implication, even).
|
thats proposterous!
I wish i could earn that kind of cash for a days work and get free food and lodging no strings attached.
With that kind of cash, who needs college anyway?
Edit: and no boss?
|
On August 02 2011 16:03 Pejelagarto wrote:
I see a lot of you are ok with this, but I really want to make sure.
If your mother used this method to pay for her college, are you still ok with it?
if you had a daugher and you couldn't pay for her college, will you be ok if she used this method to pay for her college fees?
let's say your father (divorced) is rich and uses this method to help those poor female college students, are you still ok with it?
you are a man, let's pretend there aren't any rich females, but there are this gay and rich males that would like to spend a lovely evening with you, in exchange for money that you would use to pay for your college fees, would you do it?
I don't want to start an argument but I really want to know how would feel if this affected you directly in some way or another.
If you feel this is still ok, then I have nothing to say anymore and I respect your honesty. Perhaps, can I blame society too, for my way "puritan" of thinking?
I know it's their choice but it's only because it pays a lot, it doesn't take a lot of time and it's easy. I'm sure they wouldn't sell their bodies if they didn't need it, right? After all there is people that work hard and for a long time just to pay their fees and find this way of prostitution disgusting, I wonder if they are idiots, or puritans, or just different people with different opinions...
In all of these situations (except the last because I am not gay) I would be ok with it as long as both parties involved are doing it voluntarily (these women do not have to resort to this if they are uncomfortable with it, they can pay the debts the way most people do). The whole argument against prostitution is basically that sex is something important and holy, really it comes from a religious point of view. Whether you are ok with this is your decision, but if it does not harm either party, what is so wrong about it?
|
I guess I'll need to make some money then .-.
|
On August 02 2011 12:11 Malgrif wrote:
"I'M NOT A WHORE."
Jennifer doesn't label what she's doing as prostitution. "I'm not a whore. Whores are paid by the hour, can have a high volume of clients in a given day, and it's based on money, not on who the individual actually is. There's no feeling involved and the entire interaction revolves around a sexual act," says Jennifer, who wears a $300 strapless dress purchased with money from her most recent conquest. The rest of the money, she says, went towards paying down her student loans.
"My situation is different in a number of different ways. First of all, I don't engage with a high volume of people, instead choosing one or two men I actually like spending time with and have decided to develop a friendship with them. And while sex is involved, the focus is on providing friendship. It's not only about getting paid."
Jennifer and many of the other young women realize the clock is ticking -- and it’s not ticking in their favor. In these circles, youth and beauty reign supreme, with most men preferring the company of a sugar baby in their early-to-mid twenties.
"I realize I'm not going to have it forever," Jennifer says, brushing her blond, wavy hair off to one side. "While I've still got it, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth. I mean, maybe I'll get swept off my feet. Really, anything could happen."
Andrew Lenoir contributed reporting.
Yeah, right. The only difference between what a whore does and what she does is the payment method. Whores are paid by the hour, she is paid for every single rendezvous. Still, the only reason for the entire act is money, no feelings involved either (or rather her feelings get replaced depending on how many benjamins take part of the deal).
I love the part when she says that the focus is on providing friendship. These people are doing this for only a single reason: Benjamins. Without their presence, there would be no focus, no act, no interaction, no anything. She would dump the guy in a small fraction of a milisecond. So, she means that even if the money wasn't involved, she would see these people. I don't think so.
Sorry for being harsh, but these people are just prostitutes.
About being legalized or not, they are free to do whatever imo, either sex labor, or just legitimate work. The only thing that should not be legalized is their complaints about being labeled as prostitutes.
On August 02 2011 16:11 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 16:03 Pejelagarto wrote:
I see a lot of you are ok with this, but I really want to make sure.
If your mother used this method to pay for her college, are you still ok with it?
if you had a daugher and you couldn't pay for her college, will you be ok if she used this method to pay for her college fees?
let's say your father (divorced) is rich and uses this method to help those poor female college students, are you still ok with it?
you are a man, let's pretend there aren't any rich females, but there are this gay and rich males that would like to spend a lovely evening with you, in exchange for money that you would use to pay for your college fees, would you do it?
I don't want to start an argument but I really want to know how would feel if this affected you directly in some way or another.
If you feel this is still ok, then I have nothing to say anymore and I respect your honesty. Perhaps, can I blame society too, for my way "puritan" of thinking?
I know it's their choice but it's only because it pays a lot, it doesn't take a lot of time and it's easy. I'm sure they wouldn't sell their bodies if they didn't need it, right? After all there is people that work hard and for a long time just to pay their fees and find this way of prostitution disgusting, I wonder if they are idiots, or puritans, or just different people with different opinions...
In all of these situations (except the last because I am not gay) I would be ok with it as long as both parties involved are doing it voluntarily (these women do not have to resort to this if they are uncomfortable with it, they can pay the debts the way most people do). The whole argument against prostitution is basically that sex is something important and holy, really it comes from a religious point of view. Whether you are ok with this is your decision, but if it does not harm either party, what is so wrong about it?
As if being OK or not would make any slight difference. Governments prohibiting this kind of action or not wouldn't make a slightest difference. Prostitution existed since god knows when. No amount of control/prohibition/anything could stop it. At least, girls do this in their own desire, they aren't forced.
|
On August 02 2011 12:16 Nothingtosay wrote:
You shouldn't feel cheated there are plenty of older rich women who would do the same for you.
I feel sorry for you.
|
On August 02 2011 16:15 Manacakes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 12:16 Nothingtosay wrote:
You shouldn't feel cheated there are plenty of older rich women who would do the same for you. I feel sorry for you.
Check hotness of older woman before saying this 
|
I've never understood how prostitution being illegal makes sense when there are huge loopholes like this that can be exploited. It's amazing to me also that you can do pay a girl money and do whatever you want with a girl as long as you are filming her (porn) but if you did the same thing without a camera you're committing a crime and would go to jail.
Making prostitution illegal has never stopped it from happening and never will and far from protecting women it actually makes things worse for them and gives more power to pimps. People don't understand that you can be against prostitution in moral terms but still be in favor of legalizing it. Focusing the laws and police activity on human trafficking and pimping rather than general prostitution would be far more useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
