|
On August 02 2011 17:47 Piledriver wrote:
I hope to god that I never meet such a girl in my life. Their moral bankruptcy is absolutely astounding, and such a person wouldn't probably think twice before lying about her past. Disgusting creatures, unworthy of being called human beings.
And dehumanizing your fellow man makes you?.....
|
This is terrible but seems like it will only get worse with the cost of education in the United States and the bad job prospects coming out of school. Honestly, I think this is going to create some serious issues down the road. We are going to have a whole generation of females and eventual mothers that have had to sleep with old decaying men just to fund their way through school. Things like this will scar somebody for life and it can't be good for the moral fabric of society.
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands.
Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils.
|
If college girls want to whore themselves rather than pay their dues, let them. If old men can buy sex from consenting college girls, let them. For the life of me, I can't see why two consenting adults can't buy sex from each other.
|
On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils.
You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it".
But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from.
I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this.
Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society.
|
shit... I hope that site is still online, when i'm fifty...
lol 
i don't see anything bad with it:
1. there's no rape, no underage girls, no violence ( i suppose)...
2. the girls can justify it and tell themselves "I'm not a prostitute...". and imo they're not really, cause they don'T do 20 guys a day. same goes for the old dudes, they get a nice and "unused" chick, which additionally should be intelligent to some extent.
i actually even like the idea.
|
On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves.
The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post.
also i don't think its called exploitation. these are college students or grads. they are of legal age AND well educated and informed. they are willing participants. college education is not a human right. if they can not afford it, they can quit school.
i too graduated a few years back. and as a guy, selling my body for money wasn't an option. not had i considered it anyways. instead i've made my choices and lived within my means. there are cockroaches and centipedes in the place i am renting right now and there is no toilet paper in the bathroom. but hey, its a tough economy.
|
On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves.
I think the title is appropriate, the only reason the site survives is because the girls on there are looking for a quick way out of debts. The girls are not indebted to the old men. If anything perhaps the title should read "High student loans cause girls to go into prostitution". But it is really not the old men who are the villains here.
|
So we have: old wealthy men looking for sex and poor young women looking for money and not afraid to sell their body. I see no problems.
No one is getting hurt, so I don't see how this would be immoral, in fact, all the parties involved greatly benefit from this exchange. The girls know what they are getting into.
|
On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post.
That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms.
also i don't think its called exploitation. these are college students or grads. they are of legal age AND well educated and informed. they are willing participants. college education is not a human right. if they can not afford it, they can quit school.
why is college education not a human right? Should it be? The fact is we didn't always think that being free from slavery was a human right. Free access to healthcare wasn't always considered a human right (and still isn't in some places!). Hell, free primary/secondary education wasn't always considered a human right, but now it is in most places-- why the artificial divide at the end of secondary education?
i too graduated a few years back. and as a guy, selling my body for money wasn't an option. not had i considered it anyways. instead i've made my choices and lived within my means. there are cockroaches and centipedes in the place i am renting right now and there is no toilet paper in the bathroom. but hey, its a tough economy.
Its a tough economy for everyone but the top 2%-- highest average corporate profits since... forever. Record income growth continues for the top 2%. Think about that.
|
On August 02 2011 12:31 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
I think this is horribly disgusting, and the men involved should be locked up for awhile.
Then again, shutting this junk down wouldn't solve the real issue at hand. I dunno what will.
ageist crap. you're talking about legal ramifications for people who are doing nothing wrong legal-wise. I hope you're trolling.
|
The imagination of every college girl possibly being fucked by a middle aged- really old man on a regular basis is kinda disgusting but on the other hand I can understand them... Your higher education system really seems fucked up and i hope it's being regulated in the future somehow for you...
For me this is btw prostitution, as well, lol at the girls in the article denying it, though I'm actually not against prostitution because it's kind of a business deal between two adults, so I don't understand why it's illegal. WIth girls < 18 it's of course another issue, thats just sick.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 03 2011 02:27 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils. You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it". But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from. I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this. Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society.
Until the day we can program machines to do our tasks like cooking, cleaning, inspecting, ect, ect, there will always be jobs that are required to be done by people who'd probably rather not do that. It's the reason I think it's ridiculous to think that it's reasonable/possible for society to exist where we're all highly educated with high paying jobs that we enjoy. There has to be someone to do the dirty work. They probably don't want to do that dirty work either, but it's the best way they have to make money and support themselves. I don't know of any society system where these jobs don't exist and the people doing them wouldn't rather be doing something else.
BTW, I'm an engineer who, more or less, enjoys his job. But if it came down to a job I enjoy, or no job at all, I'm pretty sure I would choose no job at all.
|
On August 03 2011 02:55 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:27 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Automation of labour has not dissolved or even lessened this class divide, which suggests that its an issue with the way society is structured, not with any problem of there being too much work. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils. You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it". But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from. I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this. Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society. Until the day we can program machines to do our tasks like cooking, cleaning, inspecting, ect, ect, there will always be jobs that are required to be done by people who'd probably rather not do that. It's the reason I think it's ridiculous to think that it's reasonable/possible for society to exist where we're all highly educated with high paying jobs that we enjoy. There has to be someone to do the dirty work. They probably don't want to do that dirty work either, but it's the best way they have to make money and support themselves. I don't know of any society system where these jobs don't exist and the people doing them wouldn't rather be doing something else. BTW, I'm an engineer who, more or less, enjoys his job. But if it came down to a job I enjoy, or no job at all, I'm pretty sure I would choose no job at all.
Why do you assume that there must be a division of labour with some people having to do 'dirty work' (i.e. labour, non-creative, non-managerial work) and others being able to do comfortable relaxing work (or creative work), and make all the decisions. The most hypothetically efficient way of running an organization would be to maximize the computational/creative power of that organization, but the current means of dividing labour essentially ignores all creative/computational power of any but the top management. Under a more participatory framework, you eliminate the need to divide work into 'dirty' vs. 'clean' (or whatever) and also maximize the potential of the organization.
Unfortunately this results in a reduction of agency by those who are currently in management/top tier positions, who also happen to be the people who have the most control over an organization, so its not something that can just happen.
Lots of co-ops use a participatory framework however, with pretty beneficial results.
The tendency to assume there needs to be this kind of divide in society stems from outdated notions of efficiency that are based on a paradigm that a priori assumes the societal relations outlined above, but this is more a means of propagating power than an actual descriptive/analytical account of a society and a means to structure it.
|
Give me a break. If she felt so "dirty" afterwards, why did she do it?
Quite clearly, prostituting is for people who don't have a problem prostituting. If you are not that sort of person, don't do it. Boohoo my student loans got paid off while every other psych student works for $10 serving coffee.
|
Pimping ain't easy.. man this is something regular dudes,I mean well at least now it's documented.. but before in the past me and my homeboys would look for this bitches in colleges that need to pay for their tuition and shit.. We would pay them bitch-ass around 80 USD and ddddeeeeyyymmm do things you don't expect em to do yo..
|
How is a girl finding a rich guy who ends up buying all kinds of things to her different from this?
Actually I always found amusing how it's perfectly normal for a girl to date a guy just because of good look, but if she dates a guy just because he's powerful and wealthy, she's automatically a whore. Anybody of this opinion care to explain it to me?
|
On August 03 2011 02:09 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 17:47 Piledriver wrote:
I hope to god that I never meet such a girl in my life. Their moral bankruptcy is absolutely astounding, and such a person wouldn't probably think twice before lying about her past. Disgusting creatures, unworthy of being called human beings. And dehumanizing your fellow man makes you?.....
On August 03 2011 02:11 Regulate140 wrote:
This is terrible but seems like it will only get worse with the cost of education in the United States and the bad job prospects coming out of school. Honestly, I think this is going to create some serious issues down the road. We are going to have a whole generation of females and eventual mothers that have had to sleep with old decaying men just to fund their way through school. Things like this will scar somebody for life and it can't be good for the moral fabric of society.
all based on the implication that sex is morally wrong and shameful, instead of natural.
|
On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. Show nested quote +
also i don't think its called exploitation. these are college students or grads. they are of legal age AND well educated and informed. they are willing participants. college education is not a human right. if they can not afford it, they can quit school.
why is college education not a human right? Should it be? The fact is we didn't always think that being free from slavery was a human right. Free access to healthcare wasn't always considered a human right (and still isn't in some places!). Hell, free primary/secondary education wasn't always considered a human right, but now it is in most places-- why the artificial divide at the end of secondary education? Show nested quote +
i too graduated a few years back. and as a guy, selling my body for money wasn't an option. not had i considered it anyways. instead i've made my choices and lived within my means. there are cockroaches and centipedes in the place i am renting right now and there is no toilet paper in the bathroom. but hey, its a tough economy.
Its a tough economy for everyone but the top 2%-- highest average corporate profits since... forever. Record income growth continues for the top 2%. Think about that.
1. no further comment.
2. it is true that our definition of human right changes and varies greatly. nonetheless, in today's society and norms, college education is considered a privilege not a right.
3. as always in history of mankind, being in the top 2% is always good. whether you are a billionaire in today's world or a nobility member in feudal times, being at top is always good. regardless of the time period we can always climb to the top if we play our cards right and we can always fall from the top if we play our cards wrong. being poor means you have fewer options in hand but it is always up to us to make best use of those options or throw it away in vain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
