|
On August 03 2011 15:32 BlizzrdSlave wrote: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. thats what old mothers say to their daughters. get a clue about the world around you man...
Vote for most ignorant post ever.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin to say you are wrong. So I just say it once:
You are wrong. If you don't know why, I am so sorry.
|
haha why are people even surprised?
|
On August 03 2011 17:52 Baby_Seal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 16:53 WhiteNights wrote: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.
Well, if the IRS takes it from you, it means you had money or assets for them to take away. Or they'll garnish your wages, or whatever. So you have less money to make ends meet, oh well. Unless you're in a situation where you have to take care of a parent or child, or medical problems arise, it shouldn't break your back.
|
The whole situation is sad. You cannot really blame the girls in any possible way. The comparison with housewives is actually kind of enlightening. It shows what's wrong: women having less possibilities and no means of earning enough money. If a society expects someone to stay home with the children (as in, if there is no public (free/ subsidized) daycare) it is always going to be the women that stays home. They are forced into a situation where they have to make a choice that was not really their's to begin with.
In that way, college girls selling their bodies is kind of similar.
|
Eh, regardless of what the money is for or how it is paid or how much money is involved the fact is these women are being paid for sex and are prostitutes, whores, sluts, whatever you want to call it. They can justify it all they want and at the end of the day it's their bodies so they can do what they want, but if they think that they aren't whores then they are just deluding themselves.
I did have to lol at a line one of the old guys said 'I can't go up to a 25 year old girl in a bar, they'd think I'm a pervert'. Lol? So the fact that you are desperate and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for exactly the same thing makes you any less of a pervert?
Personally I think it's pretty wrong, but of these whores are too lazy to earn money the honest, real way then good for them.
edit: spelling
|
On August 03 2011 16:56 acker wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
Whether or not its "life changing" or "morally questionable" isn't a viewpoint... it's a fact. Going from being a college student working a 9-5 job to being a "sugar baby" is by definition a life changing moment (actually it's quite a drastic life-changing moment) whether you think it is or not. The same goes for it being "morally questionable"... had I said it is "morally wrong" or "morally right", then your point would hold.
The whole roofing/garbage pickup comparison is different because roofing and garbage pickup are widely accepted as legal jobs that a person can have. Here we're talking about students going to college and then deciding to become what many would consider prostitutes (engaging in potentially illegal work).
Also, I find it interesting that you accuse me of the following:
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".
...when you in fact are doing the same thing with statements like "people who can get into top colleges have a decent understanding of what the "long run" entails". To present this view of yours in your way, you're basically saying, "no one who gets into a top college would be bad at planning for the future, therefore everyone who gets into a top college is a good planner of their future". I attend one of the world's top institutions... UofT... but I know many students at the school who don't neccessarily have a decent understanding of what the "long run" entails and are stupid in many other ways as well. If you're going to harp on others about "broken" assumptions at least consider your own, which are actually even more "broken". For example, it is probably a reasonable assumption to think that people who attend top colleges don't intend to become prostitutes. On the other hand, it is probably a very poor assumption to think that people who attend top colleges and get their degrees in useless fields (with no job prospects upon their graduation) have a good understanding of what the "long run" entails. In fact, their poor choice of academic degree/diploma is actually indicative of their inability to plan well for their future... and this poor planning eventually causes some of them to eventually become "sugar babies".
Further argument is pointless though, since we're bound to disagree. But don't knit-pick about "broken" assumptions when yours are equally, if not more flawed.
|
Wait! Actually, I found a better way to solve their problems!
1. Find a hot and rich boyfriend who is interested in a long term relationship.
2. Live with that person and get close to that person, if he isn't a keeper, then repeat step 1.
3. Marry that person and have a normal relationship and marraige.
4. Ask him to pay for your tuition.
5. ???
6. Profit.
|
On August 03 2011 18:55 WindCalibur wrote:
Wait! Actually, I found a better way to solve their problems!
1. Find a hot and rich boyfriend who is interested in a long term relationship.
2. Live with that person and get close to that person, if he isn't a keeper, then repeat step 1.
3. Marry that person and have a normal relationship and marraige.
4. Ask him to pay for your tuition.
5. ???
6. Profit.
Lol, I like it. Hopefully he doesn't reject paying your tuition after marriage though... that would be a shitty long-term committment!
|
On August 03 2011 17:28 Nightmare1795 wrote:
Title should be- Wealthy men using poor college girls for sex
rofl... Yeah you're right they're pretty much putting a gun to their heads and raping them. This clearly isn't an example of two consenting individuals engaging in transactions that don't negatively affect anyone else. Those girls aren't going out and looking for wealthy men or anything. Good point dude, and everything is a man's fault always and anyone who disagrees is a SEXIST PIG and should be castrated immediately. How DARE any of the people in the thread suggest that two ADULTS be able to engage in voluntary transactions between each other. I see the error of my ways now, I feel profound shame and disgust for seeing absolutely nothing wrong with a service that matches people with people they want to be matched with. I'm going to go fucking kill myself now.
|
On August 03 2011 18:55 WindCalibur wrote:
Wait! Actually, I found a better way to solve their problems!
1. Find a hot and rich boyfriend who is interested in a long term relationship.
2. Live with that person and get close to that person, if he isn't a keeper, then repeat step 1.
3. Marry that person and have a normal relationship and marraige.
4. Ask him to pay for your tuition.
5. ???
6. Profit.
Marriage and relationships take years to develop, and most of these gals would rather endure a few years or months of discomfort and continue shopping around for long term partners than shackling themselves to a partner when they're in their prime. And of course the sooner you pay off your loans the better.
|
On August 03 2011 19:16 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 17:28 Nightmare1795 wrote:
Title should be- Wealthy men using poor college girls for sex I'm going to go fucking kill myself now.
You won't be missed.
|
On August 03 2011 18:54 Kahuna. wrote:
Whether or not its "life changing" or "morally questionable" isn't a viewpoint... it's a fact. Going from being a college student working a 9-5 job to being a "sugar baby" is by definition a life changing moment (actually it's quite drastic life-changing moment) whether you think it is or not. The same goes for it being "morally questionable"... had I said it is "morally wrong" or "morally right", then your point would hold.
On the contrary, it is a viewpoint. Some people will consider it morally questionable, others won't (from both sides). Whether or not it's morally right has absolutely nothing to do with my point, that considering it "morally questionable" is, in fact, your point of view. Much the same way it's "morally questionable" to some people to work at MacDonalds.
On August 03 2011 18:54 Kahuna. wrote:
The whole roofing/garbage pickup comparison is different because roofing and garbage pickup are widely accepted as legal jobs that a person can have. Here we're talking about students going to college and then deciding to become what many would consider prostitutes (engaging in potentially illegal work).
Legal and illegal have absolutely nothing to do with your argument. You claimed prostitution to be hazardous and, therefore, demonstrably shortsighted for the collective. I listed alternative jobs that are definitely hazardous that you have not claimed shortsighted for the collective. And by the collective, I mean college students paying off their loans.
If prostitution was legalized, would that render your judgment void? Would it suddenly become the equivalent of roofing and garbage pickup duties in your point of view? Is this, for some reason, ok in Nevada but nowhere else in the United States?
On August 03 2011 18:54 Kahuna. wrote:Also, I find it interesting that you accuse me of the following: Show nested quote +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". ...when you in fact are doing the same thing with statements like "people who can get into top colleges have a decent understanding of what the "long run" entails". To present this view of yours in your way, you're basically saying, "no one who gets into a top college would be bad at planning for the future, therefore everyone who gets into a top college is a good planner of their future". I attend one of the world's top institutions... UofT... but I know many students at the school who don't neccessarily have a decent understanding of what the "long run" entails and are stupid in many other ways as well. If you're going to harp on others about "broken" assumptions at least consider your own which are actually even more "broken". For example, it is probably a reasonable assumption to think that people who attend top colleges don't intend to become prostitutes. On the other hand, it is probably a very poor assumption to think that people who attend top colleges and get their degrees in useless fields (with no job prospects upon their graduation) have a good understanding of what the "long run" entails. In fact, their poor choice of academic degree/diploma is actually indicative of their inability to plan well for their future... and this poor planning eventually causes some of them to eventually become "sugar babies". Further argument is pointless though, since we're bound to disagree. But don't knit-pick about "broken" assumptions when yours are equally, if not more flawed.
If you want to accuse me of the same problem...well, you're right; my two sentences are invalid. Your second paragraph is invalid. Unfortunately, it does not excuse your use of troll logic and failure of basic economics, both of which underlie the assumptions behind the first paragraph.
I certainly don't attend a top university, but everyone on my dorm floor has a longer-term view than the idiots you've mentioned, even the philosophy major. What on earth is wrong with the University of Toronto?
On August 03 2011 18:54 Kahuna. wrote:
On the other hand, it is probably a very poor assumption to think that people who attend top colleges and get their degrees in useless fields (with no job prospects upon their graduation) have a good understanding of what the "long run" entails. In fact, their poor choice of academic degree/diploma is actually indicative of their inability to plan well for their future... and this poor planning eventually causes some of them to eventually become "sugar babies"
I've got to comment on this, actually. If you're defining "useless field" as something that has no job prospects on graduation, almost every single profession currently has a jobs problem due to the recession. Poor choice of diploma, in normal times, would mean something. These aren't normal times. No one planned for the recession.
And, quite frankly, if their degree was useless anyways, then the short view and long view solution is identical; your "planning for long-view" argument must rely on the fact that gains for a different long term solution have to be greater than gains in the short term, but unforeseeable for the worker in question.
|
On August 03 2011 19:24 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 19:16 Drowsy wrote:On August 03 2011 17:28 Nightmare1795 wrote:
Title should be- Wealthy men using poor college girls for sex I'm going to go fucking kill myself now. You won't be missed.
totally bro, ironic username. Defend people from their own choices at all turns, especially if they're women.
Here's why this is NOT equivalent to prostitution as it happens in reality (it is certainly a form of prostitution): The people on these websites choose who they interact and transact with, both the Johns and the girls can choose to refuse a transaction with an individual. When people are actually prostituted, they very rarely have a choice in who their clients are.
|
It's funny how people try to convince others of their point of view in threads like these and spend so much time in an argument that'll very unlikely have any other outcome than "you have your opinion, I have mine".
How can anybody try to justify their point on assumptions about people they have never met in their life? Nobody in here can assume that these girls have a long-time plan behind this "service" or not. Or that they don't want a serious relationship "in their prime time".
Oh and OP thanks for posting this. I know someone from UCLA and it will be quite epic to discuss this with her. :D
|
On August 03 2011 19:49 SB.Legendary wrote:
It's funny how people try to convince others of their point of view in threads like these and spend so much time in an argument that'll very unlikely have any other outcome than "you have your opinion, I have mine".
It certainly isn't going to have an answer different from "your POV, my POV" in the end. No one wins on the Internet, there was a good thread about that on TL...
But that's what makes it interesting. It's more like figuring out how and why other people feel about issues so differently...
I wonder if that'd be a better way to structure a forum. Less like consensus-building, more like opinion branching.
|
Surely this is a better alternative to...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14379215
Hard-up students should be allowed to pay off their debts by selling a kidney, an academic has argued.
Sue Rabbitt Roff, a researcher at Dundee University, said it was time to "explore" kidney donors being paid as an "incentive"
The BBC hits a new low , by reporting this crap....
|
On August 03 2011 19:48 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 19:24 WhiteNights wrote:On August 03 2011 19:16 Drowsy wrote:On August 03 2011 17:28 Nightmare1795 wrote:
Title should be- Wealthy men using poor college girls for sex I'm going to go fucking kill myself now. You won't be missed. totally bro, ironic username. Defend people from their own choices at all turns, especially if they're women. Here's why this is NOT equivalent to prostitution as it happens in reality (it is certainly a form of prostitution): The people on these websites choose who they interact and transact with, both the Johns and the girls can choose to refuse a transaction with an individual. When people are actually prostituted, they very rarely have a choice in who their clients are.
No it is prostitution, I don't even understand how you can argue against that.
|
On August 03 2011 18:45 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 17:52 Baby_Seal wrote:On August 03 2011 16:53 WhiteNights wrote: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. Well, if the IRS takes it from you, it means you had money or assets for them to take away. Or they'll garnish your wages, or whatever. So you have less money to make ends meet, oh well. Unless you're in a situation where you have to take care of a parent or child, or medical problems arise, it shouldn't break your back.
in australia you can either pay upfront and receive a 25% discount or the tax office will automatically deduct it from your wages once you start working, however the amount is tax deductible
|
I'm glad I live in a country where everyone can get an education without having to do this shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
