|
I have no qualms with this site, the women who sell their bodies there, or the men who pay for them.
The women voluntarily sign up and have an idea of what they're getting into. They can get out at any time if they do not like it. If she finds she enjoys it and doesn't feel significant emotional, physical, spiritual, etc damage - good for her. She found a good source of income from tolerable or possibly enjoyable work.
The men also voluntarily do this. They have a tremendous amount of wealth. They do not need to spend women on any of these women - this is just how they choose to spend their money. I know I am jealous they have the luxury to afford this choice (it may not be what I would do with that money, but that's personal preference).
With all that said... I also agree that this being "easy money" is deceiving. I cannot imagine what it feels like to continuously put yourself through having sex with strangers primarily for money. I know it sounds like heaven to some of you to get paid while having sex - but think about it a bit more, especially in the long term. There is some risk of physical harm (such as consenting to rougher sex than you're comfortable with - just to make the money), and significant risk of emotional harm (cannot emphasize that part enough).
If someone close to me wanted to get involved with this, like my sister, I would certainly ask what's going on (turning to sex for money is pretty drastic) and has she thought this through. Part of it is because it's part of our culture to view this wrongly. The main part though is I love my family and think doing this would be very risky, so I'd be concerned for her.
|
|
|
Although I respect the girls' choice to do whatever that is that they do, I HIGHLY doubt that many will be able to transition smoothly into their professional lives and normal relationships from prostitution. .
|
My knee-jerk objection is to think these guys are getting sex they don't deserve, and the women are getting cash they didn't earn. But I think the appropriate solution is to tax the exchange, not to outlaw it.
|
One point made in the article and in this thread is that women won't be able to transition out into a normal life. At least most won't.
The last girl we hear from (Jennifer?) has a $300 dress and lives lavishly. How will she cope with a lesser paying job once she hits 25 and less men want her? (suger-baby to daddy ratio 7:1). She hints in the article (and the writer does an excellent job hinting at things all throughout) that she may get "swept off her feet." She may become a trophy wife. That's pretty cool, you don't ever have to work, just stay home, cook, clean, and sex. I just wonder if the life is really on par with one where you just got a regular job now. Sure you won't have as much free time, but you'll marry someone that you love and enjoy spending time with. And there'll be less regards for looks and money. I have to wonder if the long term tradeoffs are worth it for most of the sugar babies.
|
this is actually pretty short sited, because in reality its trying to show how ridiculous this is kinda of thing is. In reality this is increasing the amount of users that sites like these will have, and to the males that are most likely to read this are older and more high clas therefore more people will most likely join in on this "thing"
|
Lol, bad times. I was feeling sorry for myself because I'm struggling to get a job out of college (and made a shitty blogpost about it), but I have practically no debt and don't have to go bang somebody twice my age to pay any of them off.
What are you going to do? I'm kinda glad this site is allowed to exist. I don't think the prostitution laws right now are morally right and I think this behavior is perfectly ethical in which two human beings engage in a voluntary transaction where they're both better off afterword.
On August 03 2011 10:40 Severedevil wrote:
My knee-jerk objection is to think these guys are getting sex they don't deserve, and the women are getting cash they didn't earn. But I think the appropriate solution is to tax the exchange, not to outlaw it.
Why? What makes you the decider of who deserves sex or money? Both parties have to be willing for this exchange to occur and there's no harm done to people outside the transaction. You have to state your marital status on the website so there's little chance of willful cheating and harm.
|
That poor girl from the articles first story, only $350 dollars... LOL!!! for a 20something young girl to sleep with a old dude with a "college girl" fetish standard rate prostituted get much more then that lolol
|
On August 02 2011 15:23 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:20 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 02 2011 15:18 lizzard_warish wrote:
TLDR: Those 5 situations are not prostitution by the definition of prostitution and the definition of those words, unless further context is provided.
What about the final case? Marrying someone for the money? 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).
you can prostitute yourself without people knowing its for that reason alone. Most of the time people figure out the person they're sleeping with is a gold digger though, and they either boot them or accept it because they just wanted sex in the first place. In essence, think of the spy vs spy where white and black are walking away from each other grinning like maniacs thinking they got the upper hand on the other when both have bombs strapped to their backs about to explode.
|
On August 02 2011 15:24 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:20 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 02 2011 15:18 lizzard_warish wrote:
TLDR: Those 5 situations are not prostitution by the definition of prostitution and the definition of those words, unless further context is provided.
What about the final case? Marrying someone for the money? That wasnt even in your last post. Anyway, lets clear up this silliness: prostitute [ˈprɒstɪˌtjuːt] n 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 purposesvb (tr) 1. to offer ( oneself or another) in sexual intercourse for money2. to offer (a person, esp oneself, or a person's talent) for unworthy purposes[from Latin prōstituere to expose to prostitution, from prō- in public + statuere to cause to stand] prostitution n prostitutor n Marrying someone for money does not meet the def. of prostitution, it is being a whore, it is being a royal cunt and a host of other fair, derogatory terms, but it is not being a prostitute. This is, again, by the simple meaning of the word and the reality that they are engaging in. This isnt an ethical debate, or some difficult abstraction, its simply applying words to their correct contexts. Sorry to all you post modernists out there, language actually can be used accurately to convey specific ideas. Shocking, I know.
again, yes it does. quite simply because you are choosing to pretend to be interested in the person (which DOES lead to sex) for their money. That is prostitution, even when the mark is not aware of it. And I also bolded the other parts which help solidify it as prostitution. Are you a gold digger and thats why you're so intent on claiming its not prostitution when its clear as day? Aren't all women prostitutes anyway, cause you end up paying one way or another? rings, jewelry, all these things are what women have expected from their husbands since the early 1900's. "Get married, you'll get jewelry and be taken care of (bills, finance)"
thats what old mothers say to their daughters.
get a clue about the world around you man...
User was banned for this post.
|
On August 02 2011 16:07 acker wrote:Show nested quote +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...) Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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).
what is wrong with you though? I mean, you cant be jailed for looking at information. You are jailed for ACTS, not thoughts. There are things illegal to do or say in public that are capably found on the internet and you will not get in trouble for. Like, for instance, a racist website. It's hate speech may be illegal in public, but on the website, its considered private enough that you can enter or NOT enter it, and therefore isnt touched by law. Conversely, looking up prostitution isnt a crime simply because prostitution is illeegal where you live. if you go to another country oR even state where it is perfectly legal, there's not a thing they can do to stop you. prostitution legal in Nevada, age 18+. Prostitution Legal in Maine (under strict circumstances), age 16+. In both cases you can travel to that state for the sex trade, and not be breaking any laws. it should now be clear that if you live in the states, The U.S. government sets some general standards at the federal level, and States are free to remove/add increase/decrease law specifications based on their own sense of direction in right/wrong.
|
On August 03 2011 09:37 acker wrote:
People actually do keep the future in mind when making estimates of what's right or what isn't. I'm not going to claim their estimates are perfect, but they certainly aren't as shortsighted as that.
You give people too much credit. Especially ones who choose make the decision to become "sugar babies" as a way to get out of debt. You seem to think these individuals sit at their work table and plan out the next 10 years of their life prior to becoming "sugar babies". If they were thinking about the future so hard they would try and focus on their current employment situation and use good networking and/or job hunting tactics to work their way up the ladder to eventually free themselves of their financial burdens... (no one is saying it's going to be easy, but it's far from impossible, otherwise everyone the planet would be a whore).
But on the contrary, the vast majority of the women who make the decision to enter the "sugar daddy/baby" world don't think that far ahead. If they thought about the future as much as you think they do, then they wouldn't make the decision to be in such potentially dangerous, health-harming, life-changing, and morally questionable situations as the ones we're talking about.
So yes, their estimates are as short-sighted as that... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more short-sighted.
But, I'm glad you now know what I meant by the whole "addiction to prostitution" comment I had made in a previous post... or at least I'm assuming you did since you didn't respond to my explanation of it.
To be more clear, see this quote below for an example of a conclusion reached when one "keeps the future in mind":
On August 03 2011 16:46 SB.Legendary wrote:
I find such things really sad. It's bad sign for an educational system if people have to sell out to manage paying for college. I wouldn't do such things, because I would feel filthy and "honorless". I'm in the same spot (not being able to pay for my studies by myself), but I'm going to take a huge debt instead. Well that defines my pride, I'm going to work my ass off when I'm done to pay my ~40-50 grand debt, but I will at least be at peace with myself. Life is hard, accept the challenge and be proud of what you have accomplished without selling yourself to old "pervs". I don't want to be old, look back and regret the things I have done. Later when my kids ask me how my studying years were, I don't want to tell them "well daddy visited some old women, made something he wouldn't do and got paid for it". But that's just MY point of view.
This post which is directly below mine is only one example of "keeping the future in mind". If one actually does "keep the future in mind", one is more likely to reach a conclusion similar to that of this poster, rather than the women who end up choosing to become "sugar babies".
|
I find such things really sad. It's bad sign for an educational system if people decide to sell out to manage paying for college. I wouldn't do such things, because I would feel filthy and "honorless". I'm in the same spot (not being able to pay for my studies by myself), but I'm going to take a huge debt instead. Well that defines my pride, I'm going to work my ass off when I'm done to pay my ~40-50 grand debt, but I will at least be at peace with myself. Life is hard, accept the challenge and be proud of what you have accomplished without selling yourself to old "pervs". I don't want to be old, look back and regret the things I have done. Later when my kids ask me how my studying years were, I don't want to tell them "well daddy visited some old women, made something he wouldn't do and got paid for it". But that's just MY point of view.
|
On August 03 2011 16:46 SB.Legendary wrote:
I find such things really sad. It's bad sign for an educational system if people have to sell out to manage paying for college.
They don't have to; it's a choice. There are a variety of ways to reduce your living costs to a small fraction of what they are for most people, if that's the issue. In the absolute worst case scenario you'll simply default on your student loans, which, again, is not the end of the world.
|
On August 03 2011 16:53 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 16:46 SB.Legendary wrote:
I find such things really sad. It's bad sign for an educational system if people have to sell out to manage paying for college. They don't have to; it's a choice. There are a variety of ways to reduce your living costs to a small fraction of what they are for most people, if that's the issue. In the absolute worst case scenario you'll simply default on your student loans, which, again, is not the end of the world.
Wrong word, edited.
|
On August 03 2011 16:24 Kahuna. wrote:
You give people too much credit. Especially ones who choose make the decision to become "sugar babies" as a way to get out of debt. You seem to think these individuals sit at their work table and plan out the next 10 years of their life prior to becoming "sugar babies". If they were thinking about the future so hard they would try and focus on their current employment situation and use good networking and/or job hunting tactics to work their way up the ladder to eventually free themselves of their financial burdens... (no one is saying it's going to be easy, but it's far from impossible, otherwise everyone the planet would be a whore).
I don't know if it's true for the general populace, but people who can get into top colleges have a decent understanding of what the "long run" entails. I don't think this is a very controversial viewpoint.
The bolded part is a clear case of failing economics or insane troll logic. "If everybody could not find a job, everyone would be a prostitute" makes no sense whatsoever. That, combined with failing to notice the largest recession in the United States since the Great Depression*...your assumption is fairly broken.
*What you're saying, that everyone who tries can find a decent job, is a mathematical impossibility. That's how bad the recession is. I've posted BLS data on page 11 or something.
On August 03 2011 16:24 Kahuna. wrote:
But on the contrary, the vast majority of the women who make the decision to enter the "sugar daddy/baby" world don't think that far ahead. If they thought about the future as much as you think they do, then they wouldn't make the decision to be in such potentially dangerous, health-harming, life-changing, and morally questionable situations as the ones we're talking about.
So yes, their estimates are as short-sighted as that... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more short-sighted.
You're starting off with the viewpoint "no one with common sense would get into the business, therefore everyone who gets into the business has no common sense". This is moralizing plain and simple. Roofing and garbage pickup are two of the most dangerous, harmful jobs in the United States. Both jobs offer an inordinately large amount of money compared to the skills required for various reasons, safety being among them. However, I don't think you'd collectively condemn people who do either job to pay for college bills as a shortsighted, dumb bunch incapable of thinking ahead.
Whether or not it's "life changing" or "morally questionable" is to be determined by the individual in question. Not by you. Everyone thinks differently about moral beliefs and attitudes. Working at Macdonalds would be morally questionable and life-changing for a Hindu, but not for many other people. And I'm still overgeneralizing, different Hindus have different moral attitudes towards handling animal fat or even beef.
On August 03 2011 16:24 Kahuna. wrote:
But, I'm glad you now know what I meant by the whole "addiction to prostitution" comment I had made in a previous post... or at least I'm assuming you did since you didn't respond to my explanation of it.
I really didn't understand your explanation.
|
You have only one life... How can you accept to become a prostitute when you had the possibility to do something else, even if it mean work harder ?
The easiest route yeah, but also the less honorable.
|
On August 03 2011 17:24 WhiteDog wrote:
You have only one life... How can you accept to become a prostitute when you had the possibility to do something else, even if it mean work harder ?
The easiest route yeah, but also the less honorable.
Probably because you could be doing other stuff with time and energy you save.
Like studying more than all those other people who work harder and longer hours. Kind of important in college, especially in top schools.
I really wouldn't know.
|
Title should be- Wealthy men using poor college girls for sex
|
On August 03 2011 16:53 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 16:46 SB.Legendary wrote:
I find such things really sad. It's bad sign for an educational system if people have to sell out to manage paying for college. They don't have to; it's a choice. There are a variety of ways to reduce your living costs to a small fraction of what they are for most people, if that's the issue. In the absolute worst case scenario you'll simply default on your student loans, which, again, is not the end of the world.
I don't think you actually can default on student loans, at least in the US. If you don't pay, I think the IRS takes it from you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
