Seeking Arrangement: College Students Using 'Sugar Daddies' To Pay Off Loan Debt
NEW YORK -- On a Sunday morning in late May, Taylor left her Harlem apartment and boarded a train for Greenwich, Conn. She planned on spending the day with a man she had met online, but not in person.
Taylor, a 22-year-old student at Hunter College, had confided in her roommate about the trip and they agreed to swap text messages during the day to make sure she was safe.
Once in Greenwich, a man who appeared significantly older than his advertised age of 42 greeted Taylor at the train station and then drove her to the largest house she had ever seen. He changed into his swimming trunks, she put on a skimpy bathing suit, and then, by the side of his pool, she rubbed sunscreen into the folds of his sagging back -- bracing herself to endure an afternoon of sex with someone she suspected was actually about 30 years her senior.
Taylor doubted that her client could relate to someone who had grown up black and poor in the South Bronx. While he summered on Martha's Vineyard, she'd likely pass another July and August working retail in Times Square.
A love match it wasn't. But then again, this was no ordinary date.
A month prior, faced with about $15,000 in unpaid tuition and overdue bills, Taylor and her roommate typed "tuition," "debt," and "money for school" into Google. A website called SeekingArrangement.com popped up. Intrigued by the promise of what the site billed as a "college tuition sugar daddy," Taylor created a "sugar baby" profile and eventually connected with the man from Greenwich. ("Taylor" is the pseudonym she uses with men she meets online. Neither she nor any of the other women interviewed for this article permitted their real names be used.)
In her profile on the site, Taylor describes herself as "a full-time college student studying psychology and looking to meet someone to help pay the bills." Photos on the site show her in revealing outfits, a mane of caramel-colored hair framing her face. But unlike other dating sites, where a user might also list preferred hobbies or desired traits, Taylor instead indicates preferences for a "sugar daddy" and an "arrangement" in the range of $1,000 to $3,000 a month.
Saddled with piles of student debt and a job-scarce, lackluster economy, current college students and recent graduates are selling themselves to pursue a diploma or pay down their loans. An increasing number, according to the the owners of websites that broker such hook-ups, have taken to the web in search of online suitors or wealthy benefactors who, in exchange for sex, companionship, or both, might help with the bills.
The past few years have taken an especially brutal toll on the plans and expectations of 20-somethings. As unemployment rates tick steadily higher, starting salaries have plummeted. Meanwhile, according to Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a professor of psychology at Clark University, about 85 percent of the class of 2011 will likely move back in with their parents during some period of their post-college years, compared with 40 percent a decade ago.
Besides moving back home, many 20-somethings are beginning their adult lives shouldering substantial amounts of student loan debt. According to Mark Kantrowitz, who publishes the financial aid websites Fastweb.com and Finaid.org, while the average 2011 graduate finished school with about $27,200 in debt, many are straining to pay off significantly greater loans.
Enter the sugar daddy, sugar baby phenomenon. This particular dynamic preceded the economic meltdown, of course. Rich guys well past their prime have been plunking down money for thousands of years in search of a tryst or something more with women half their age -- and women, willingly or not, have made themselves available. With the whole process going digital, women passing through a system of higher education that fosters indebtedness are using the anonymity of the web to sell their wares and pay down their college loans.
"Over the past few years, the number of college students using our site has exploded," says Brandon Wade, the 41-year-old founder of Seeking Arrangement. Of the site's approximately 800,000 members, Wade estimates that 35 percent are students. "College students are one of the biggest segments of our sugar babies and the numbers are growing all the time."
Wade identifies clients who might be students on his site by a .edu email address, which the site verifies before it will allow a profile to become active. Currently, 82,510 profiles on the site contain one or more of the following keywords: school, college, university, money for school, student debt, college debt, tuition or college expenses. Wade says 110,126 women and 25,363 men list "student" as their occupation.
Wade rewards students who use a .edu email address to register on Seeking Arrangement by automatically upgrading their free, basic membership to a premium membership, allowing them to send unlimited free messages and granting them exclusive access to the site's cadre of VIP sugar daddies. The site also includes a complimentary stamp on sudent profiles, certifying them as a "college sugar baby."
Wade sees his company as providing a unique service, a chance for "men and women living through tough economic times to afford college." He bristles at the notion that he's merely running a thinly veiled, digital bordello, choosing instead to describe his site as one that facilitates "mutually beneficial relationships."
Taylor doesn't explicitly refer to what she was doing in Greenwich as prostitution, but she now allows that her primary motivation was, indeed, money. She and her host ended up in his bedroom, where he peeled off her bikini.
"I just wanted to get it over and done with as quickly as possible," recalls Taylor, forcing out a nervous smile. "I just wanted to get out of that situation as safely as possible, pay off my debt, and move on."
While she and her host hadn't agreed to a set amount of money, on the drive back to the train station in Greenwich he handed her $350 in cash. She pocketed the envelope, seeing it as decent money for half a day's work. But once on the train and no longer worried for her safety, she started to agonize over what she had just done.
"I never thought it would come to this. I got on the train and I felt dirty. I mean, I had just gotten money for having sex," says Taylor, who never heard from the guy in Greenwich again. "I guess I accomplished what I needed to do. I needed the money for school. I just did what needed to be done."
And she's still doing what needs to be done. With tuition due in September to pay for her last semester of college, Taylor's back on the hunt for other, more lucrative online hookups.
WHO ARE THESE GUYS?
"It's a very expensive job," says Jack, a 70-year-old sugar daddy, who describes himself as a "humanitarian" interested in helping young women in financial need. Jack isn't the name that appears on his American Express black card, but an identity he uses when shopping online for companionship and sex.
Jack says he meets up twice a week with a young woman from Seeking Arrangement. He typically forks over about $500 a night -- and that's not including lavish dinners at Daniel or shopping excursions on Madison Avenue.
"Unlike a traditional escort service, I was surprised to find such an educated, smart population," says Jack, during cocktail hour recently at the Ritz-Carlton in Manhattan. He said he lives next door in a penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park South and pays $22,000 a month in rent.
In his profile on Seeking Arrangement, Jack describes himself as a 67-year-old with a bachelor's degree. Prior to retiring, the divorced Charleston, S.C., native says he founded four financial services companies. But after taking a big hit in the financial crisis and being forced to downsize, Jack says he had to part ways with his private jet due to what he describes as "reduced circumstances." On the site, he lists his annual income as $1 million and his net worth as something between $50 and $100 million.
While sugar babies can create profiles on Seeking Arrangement free of charge and a regular sugar daddy membership costs $50 each month, Jack pays $2,400 a year to belong to the Diamond Club. For a sugar daddy willing to pay up, the site says it verifies his identity, annual income, and net worth and then ensures his profile gets the most traction by continually allowing it to pop up in the top tier of search results.
Educated, debt-ridden 20-somethings happen to be an age demographic that intersects nicely with Jack's preferences. "I only go out with girls 25 and under," says Jack, whose thick head of white hair and bushy eyebrows form a halo around a red, flushed face. "But I can't walk into a bar and go up to a 25-year-old. They'd think I'm a pervert. So, this is how I go about meeting them."
As he continues, he repeatedly glances over his shoulder to make sure no one is listening.
"Most of these young women have debt from school," says Jack, who finds most young women also carry an average of $8,000 in credit-card debt. "I guess I like the college girls more because I think of their student debt as good debt. At least it seems like I'm helping them out, like I'm helping them to get a better life."
"By the way, how old are you?" he asks, inching closer.
"Older than 25," I respond.
Wade, who started Seeking Arrangement back in 2006, can easily identify with the Jacks of the world. He created the site for fellow high-net-worth individuals who "possess high standards but don't have a lot of time to date the traditional way."
Wade, whose legal name is Brandon Wey, says he changed his name to better appeal to his clientele. "They're more familiar with Hugh Hefner than with some Asian guy from Singapore," he explains. Wade got the idea for Seeking Arrangement more than 20 years ago, while in college at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Watching from the sidelines as his beautiful dorm mates pursued significantly older, moneyed men, Wade fantasized about someday becoming one such man. After business school at MIT and stints at General Electric and Microsoft, Wade dabbled in various start-ups before finally creating his own.
Awkward and shy, he started Seeking Arrangement in part because of his own inability to attract younger women. "To get the attention of the girl I really wanted to meet, I was kind of at the mercy of the statistics of traditional dating sites. I'd write hundreds of emails and only get one or two replies," says Wade, who is now divorced. He says married men account for at least 40 percent of the site's sugar daddies. Sugar babies outnumber sugar daddies by a ratio of nearly 10 to 1. Wade declined to disclose how much money he makes from the site. With more than 115,000 sugar daddies averaging $50 a month in membership fees, and some paying more to belong to the exclusive Diamond Club, it's safe to assume Wade's investment has more than paid off -- and that's not even including advertising revenue.
Debt-strapped college graduates weren't included in his original business plan. But once the recession hit and more and more students were among the growing list of new site users, Wade began to target them. The company, which is headquartered in Las Vegas, now places strategic pop-up ads that appear whenever someone types "tuition help" or "financial aid" into a search engine. And over the past five years, Wade says he's seen a 350 percent increase in college sugar baby membership -- from 38,303 college sugar babies in 2007 to 179,906 college sugar babies by July of this year.
At The Huffington Post's request, Seeking Arrangement listed the top 20 universities attended by sugar babies on the site. They compiled the list according to the number of sugar babies who registered using their .edu email addresses or listed schools' names on their profiles. New York University tops the list with 498 sugar babies, while UCLA comes in at No. 8 with 253, and Harvard University ranks at No. 9 with 231. The University of California at Berkeley ranks at No. 13 with 193, the University of Southern California ranks at No. 15 with 183, and Tulane University ranks at No. 20 with 163 college sugar babies.
Amanda M. Fairbanks Amanda M. Fairbanks amanda.m.fairbanks@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this reporter GET UPDATES FROM Amanda Like 276 Seeking Arrangement: College Students Using 'Sugar Daddies' To Pay Off Loan Debt
First Posted: 7/31/11 10:51 PM ET Updated: 8/1/11 10:08 AM ET React Amazing Inspiring Funny Scary Hot Crazy Important Weird Follow Video , College Students , Debt , Financial Aid , Money For School , Mutually Beneficial Relationships , Seeking Arrangement , Sugar Babies , Sugar Baby , Sugar Daddies , Sugar Daddy , The-Lost-Generation , Tuition , Tuition Help , Women News share this story 6,415 842 1,950 Get Women Alerts Sign Up Submit this story
Wade, who started Seeking Arrangement back in 2006, can easily identify with the Jacks of the world. He created the site for fellow high-net-worth individuals who "possess high standards but don't have a lot of time to date the traditional way."
Wade, whose legal name is Brandon Wey, says he changed his name to better appeal to his clientele. "They're more familiar with Hugh Hefner than with some Asian guy from Singapore," he explains. Wade got the idea for Seeking Arrangement more than 20 years ago, while in college at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Watching from the sidelines as his beautiful dorm mates pursued significantly older, moneyed men, Wade fantasized about someday becoming one such man. After business school at MIT and stints at General Electric and Microsoft, Wade dabbled in various start-ups before finally creating his own.
Awkward and shy, he started Seeking Arrangement in part because of his own inability to attract younger women. "To get the attention of the girl I really wanted to meet, I was kind of at the mercy of the statistics of traditional dating sites. I'd write hundreds of emails and only get one or two replies," says Wade, who is now divorced. He says married men account for at least 40 percent of the site's sugar daddies. Sugar babies outnumber sugar daddies by a ratio of nearly 10 to 1. Wade declined to disclose how much money he makes from the site. With more than 115,000 sugar daddies averaging $50 a month in membership fees, and some paying more to belong to the exclusive Diamond Club, it's safe to assume Wade's investment has more than paid off -- and that's not even including advertising revenue.
Debt-strapped college graduates weren't included in his original business plan. But once the recession hit and more and more students were among the growing list of new site users, Wade began to target them. The company, which is headquartered in Las Vegas, now places strategic pop-up ads that appear whenever someone types "tuition help" or "financial aid" into a search engine. And over the past five years, Wade says he's seen a 350 percent increase in college sugar baby membership -- from 38,303 college sugar babies in 2007 to 179,906 college sugar babies by July of this year.
At The Huffington Post's request, Seeking Arrangement listed the top 20 universities attended by sugar babies on the site. They compiled the list according to the number of sugar babies who registered using their .edu email addresses or listed schools' names on their profiles. New York University tops the list with 498 sugar babies, while UCLA comes in at No. 8 with 253, and Harvard University ranks at No. 9 with 231. The University of California at Berkeley ranks at No. 13 with 193, the University of Southern California ranks at No. 15 with 183, and Tulane University ranks at No. 20 with 163 college sugar babies.
Seeking Arrangement is hardly the only website with a business model that revolves around the promotion of sugar daddy and sugar baby relationships. More than half a dozen websites advertise such services.
For instance, SeekingTuition.com offers college students "who need that special education from wealthy benefactors. Find that special someone to help you with books, dorm, rent or tuition today!" Meanwhile, SugarDaddyMeet.com defines a sugar baby as an "attractive and young woman. Beautiful, intelligent, and classy college students, aspiring actresses or models."
While more conventional dating site Match.com claims 20 million members and OkCupid.com claims 3.5 million members, "sugar websites" generally contend with more modest, though growing, user bases. According to online dating entrepreneur Noel Biderman, unlike conventional dating sites, "arrangement-seeking" websites are the only ones where women consistently outnumber men. Biderman says the lone exception to this rule is eHarmony.com, where far fewer men ultimately complete its lengthy, required questionnaire.
Biderman, the 39-year-old founder and CEO of Avid Life Media, runs a number of arrangement-seeking sites. He's also the creator of AshleyMadison.com, which is a website for married people looking to have affairs.
Currently, Avid Life Media operates two websites that promote what the company calls "mutually beneficial relationships." Over the past year in particular, Biderman says he's seen college-educated women signing up in droves.
On one such site, EstablishedMen.com, Biderman estimates that 47 percent of its 1.3 million members are women currently enrolled in college. And on ArrangementSeekers.com, he says 31 percent of its 387,000 members are female college students.
Much like Seeking Arrangement's Google ads, Biderman advertises his arrangement-seeking websites on MTV and VH1, since both television stations appeal to the demographic he covets.
After sampling the profiles of some of the women on his sites, Biderman concludes their debt, combined with a weak economy, has many clamoring for a sugar daddy to call their own. Their search makes sense to Biderman, who volunteers that, while now married, he would have made for an excellent sugar daddy in his younger days.
"Let's say you're a recent graduate, with $80,000 in debt and a job that pays $35,000 a year. It's tough to pay that amount of debt down, live in a decent city and still be able to socialize and do fun things. At some point, you'll have to start making major sacrifices," he says. "But what if all of a sudden, the only sacrifice is the age or success level of your boyfriend or some guy you occasionally hang out with? That becomes a real game-changer in how you get to live your life."
Biderman finds some women seek arrangements to help get them through a particularly difficult week or month, while others saddled with significantly more debt might search for a longer-term, more lucrative hookup. Either way, Biderman sees men wanting "young, vivacious arm candy while women want a guy who can take them out for a Michelin two-star dinner, take them on the trip of their dreams, or who knows, maybe they'll even find some guy to pay off their debt."
IS IT PROSTITUTION?
When Barb Brents, a professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, conducts research in various legal brothels in the state, she finds women hailing from a variety of different backgrounds. "The women tend to be from working-class or middle-class backgrounds, but a good number are from upper-class families, too," she says. Brents often finds that women turn to sex work when, in their professional lives, they're unable to make ends meet.
Brents equated modern-day college students seeking online sugar daddies to a phenomenon among young, working women nearly a century ago. During the 1910s and 1920s, some young women who worked at minimum-wage jobs during the day would supplement their meager paychecks by meeting up with male suitors at night. They'd swap companionship and sex in exchange for either a clothing allowance or rent money. Such women, explains Brents, never referred to themselves as prostitutes.
"When people think about sex work, they think of a poor, drug-addicted woman living in the street with a pimp, down on their luck," says Brents, who co-authored "The State of Sex: Tourism, Sex and Sin in the New American Heartland." "In reality, the culture is exceedingly diverse and college students using these sites are but another example of this kind of diversity."
With the exception of women who consider sex work their profession, Brents finds that nearly all the women she encounters in her research describe it as a temporary, part-time, stopgap kind of measure.
"These college women didn't see themselves as sex workers, but women doing straight-up prostitution often don't see themselves that way either," says Brents. "Drawing that line and making that distinction may be necessary psychologically, but in material facts it's quite a blurry line."
"I was thinking about going on Match but I needed help financially," says a 25-year-old student at a trade school in New York. When meeting men online, she sometimes goes by the name of Suzanne. "I guess what finally pushed me over the edge was that I needed help to pay off my loans from school."
Earlier this spring, after Suzanne got fired from her job as a waitress at a diner on the Upper East Side, a girlfriend suggested she create a profile on Seeking Arrangement. Suzanne had grown desperate after falling behind on rent. She also needed to come up with $3,000 for a trimester's worth of paralegal classes.
Suzanne already has an associate's degree in elementary education from a community college in New Jersey. Unable to find a job as a teacher's aide, she decided to enroll in paralegal classes at night. But after losing her job, the extra debt proved more than she could afford. She took out $10,000 in loans to pay for a year of school and promptly went on the hunt for a sugar daddy.
Over the past few months, Suzanne says she's gone on more than 40 dates with men from the site. She's not interested in getting wined and dined every single time. At a minimum, she hopes for at least a modicum of attraction. She's already turned down a man who weighed 400 pounds, as well as the advances of countless married men. Though desperate, Suzanne says a homewrecker she is not.
Following numerous emails and chats on the phone, Suzanne generally schedules a first meeting with a man in a public place -- a crowded restaurant, cafe or bar.
After nearly giving up on finding an arrangement, Suzanne recently met a 39-year-old college professor from Dover, N.J. So far, the two have gone on three dates. They typically meet at his house, where he usually cooks her dinner. Afterwards, they have sex.
"After all the assholes I've met, this guy's a real gentleman," says Suzanne, during a break before class. "At the end of the night, he usually gives me $400 or $500 bucks. It's not bad money for a night." While the men typically pay per meeting, Suzanne is hoping to set up an ongoing hookup. Mostly, she doesn't want the men thinking she's only seeing dollar signs, pegged to when her rent or tuition money is due.
While she does not label herself a prostitute, Suzanne's not one to mince words: "If this isn't what prostitution is called, I don't know what is."
"Under the banner of sugar daddy and sugar baby arrangements, a lot of prostitution may be going on," says Ronald Weitzer, a professor of sociology at George Washington University, where he studies the sex industry.
Weitzer says arrangement websites operate lawfully since simply advertising for a sugar daddy or sugar baby is within the realm of legality. "The only illegal aspect would be if the individual receives some kind of direct payment or material compensation for sex."
Allen Lichtenstein, a private attorney in Las Vegas who specializes in first amendment issues, affirms that in order for an exchange to be classified as prostitution there has to be a clear "meeting of the minds" that the arrangement is a quid pro quo, or exchange of sex for money. Absent an immediate sex-for-pay exchange, the legal waters grow far murkier.
"One could even consider certain marriages where there are unequal financial resources to not be overly dissimilar," says Lichtenstein. "But any relationship that is an ongoing one that's not purely about sex but may have a sexual aspect to it, you can't really classify as prostitution. It would simply cover too much ground."
But Weitzer views more extended, involved relationships -- say, a monthly stipend or dinner and occasionally having sex -- as ways for both "college girls and sex workers to camouflage what's very likely prostitution."
Weitzer sees college women as particularly susceptible to entering such an arrangement, especially during times of economic distress. "I could easily see people who have been in college at an elite university, who are paying a lot of money and racking up a ton of debt -- perhaps law school or medical students -- being more attracted to something like this, rather than someone who went to a state school or someone with little or no debt."
Weitzer also sees a potential danger for young women getting sucked into making large sums of money and later finding it difficult to abandon such a lifestyle. "The more you make, the harder it becomes to transition away from," says Weitzer, "just like high-end sex workers anywhere."
DOUBLE LIVES AND SPLIT PERSONALITIES
A year ago, Dayanara started dating an older, married executive while working as a summer intern at an investment bank in New York. The relationship quickly blossomed into a sugar daddy relationship, with him sending her a monthly allowance of $5,000 when she returned to Florida International University in the fall. The two would meet up once every few weeks, for a night out in Miami or a romantic weekend in the Caribbean.
Dayanara, now 23, would set some of the money aside for school and living expenses, often sending the remainder home to her parents in Puerto Rico. Eventually, the relationship soured. And after graduating in May with $30,000 in student loan debt and another $10,000 in credit card debt, she grew increasingly desperate.
In May, Dayanara moved back to New York. Rather than look for a job on Wall Street, she began an elaborate online hunt for other hookups. She says she's now engaged in three separate sugar daddy relationships, in addition to working part time as a topless masseuse on the Lower East Side. On her profile on Seeking Arrangement, she describes herself as a M.B.A. student from Bahrain.
An entertainment industry executive she met on the site regularly gives her $2,500 for a night of dinner and sex. Meanwhile, she's paying off her debt and saving for her dream graduate school: a Ph.D. in finance from the London School of Economics.
Her biggest fear is that one of these days she'll run into one of the bankers from her former life. "The decision was a hard one to make because if I do this and get found out, I will never have a career in this industry again," says Dayanara, whose dark eyes and tan skin allow her pretend whichever fantasy her client desires, be it a Spanish, Indian or Middle Eastern mistress.
Six of the eight women interviewed for this article mentioned the longer-term psychological toll of pretending to be someone else. Double lives and dual identities are common for both the women and men involved in sugar relationships. Lately, when Dayanara catches her reflection in a storefront window, she says she sometimes doesn't know which version of herself is staring back.
To play it safe, Dayanara and most of the women generally tell one friend where they're going. In the case of Suzanne, neither her father, who works as an emergency room physician, nor her mother, who works as a registered nurse, knows about her new job. Both Suzanne and Dayanara also have to keep their work hidden from most of their friends, fearing the stigma associated with revealing their secret.
"Some people can have difficulty integrating those two lives. You're involved in both a secret world and a public world," says Weitzer. "This type of concealment can create a lot of stress for people involved in these types of relationships. The question becomes how well you can manage this cognitive dissonance."
Besides the stress, Weitzer mentions other challenges for the college student hoping to leave sex work behind and eventually assume a nine-to-five gig. Gaps on resumes notwithstanding, the difference in pay can come as quite a shock. "For someone who's been doing it for a while, it can be difficult to stop doing it and suddenly transition into a normal job or date men without as many resources."
As two enterprising anthropology undergraduates at George Washington University, Elizabeth Nistico and Samuel Schall tackled the phenomenon of sugar daddy culture for a recent school project. Schall studied young, gay sugar babies, and Nistico explored the straight scene. Of their study's 100 participants, more than half said the money they received financed their education. On average, the relationships lasted between three and four months.
Nistico found that some of the sugar babies used the excuse of the economic downturn for behavior she thinks they would still have otherwise condoned. "We concluded that people who say they have a sugar daddy to pay off their loans are people who would already contemplate being in that relationship if the economy was doing just fine," says Nistico, whose subjects frequently mentioned the recession, a bad economy or debt as motivating factors in their decisions.
Outside the U.S., a handful of scholars in the United Kingdom recently examined shifting patterns of sexual behavior among college students tied to rising amounts of debt. Ronald Roberts and Teela Sanders, two social science professors in the U.K., contend that a combination of rising tuition, increased debt, a culture of mass consumption and low-wage work are luring students to the sex industry in greater and greater numbers. They fear that as college costs continue to rise, more students will pursue sex work.
Roberts asked 315 college students at a university in London about their participation in sex work. The findings were stark. Nearly 17 percent said they would be willing to participate in the sex trade in order to pay for their education, while 11 percent indicated a willingness to work directly as escorts. A decade ago, only 3 percent answered in the affirmative. Today's respondents are far more likely to have peers who are working in the industry.
This past spring, two researchers at Berlin's Humboldt University reported somewhat similar findings in other parts of Europe. In Berlin, a city where prostitution is legal, they found that one in three university students would consider sex work as a viable means of financing their studies. Nearly 30 percent of students in Paris similarly responded in the affirmative. Finally, of the 3,200 Berlin students sampled, 30 percent of students working in the sex industry reported being in some amount of education-related debt.
"I attribute it to the rising cost of college and ease of loans, especially in an economy where the buying and selling of emotions and companionship is increasingly easy to afford," says Sanders, who teaches at the University of Leeds.
Roberts fears arrangement-seeking websites are but another invitation for rich men to abuse young, vulnerable women. "It's really the perfect storm of debt and a down economy, not to mention a generation of middle-class women coming of age who were raised to believed that their sexuality isn't something to be afraid of," says Roberts, a professor at Kingston University.
"I'M NOT A WHORE."
"I'm honestly surprised there aren't more college students doing this," says Jennifer, not blinking. She's a 23-year-old recent graduate of Sarah Lawrence College.
Fed up with young, unemployed men her own age, Jennifer recently began trawling for a sugar daddy to pay down about $20,000 in student loan debt. She also wouldn't mind a clothing allowance or rent money for her studio apartment in New York's East Village.
A week ago, she boarded a plane to Florida to spend the weekend with a 30-something banker she met on SugarDaddie.com. He told her his house was undergoing a renovation and instead drove her to a nearby hotel, where they spent the night together.
"Yeah, sure, he could have been a psycho, a killer," says Jennifer over breakfast. At nine o'clock in the morning, she's in a full face of makeup. On her profile she describes herself as a yoga teacher and personal trainer. "Barring rape or death, what's the worst thing that could happen to me?"
At the end of the weekend, the man handed her 10 crisp $100 bills. They next plan to rendezvous in Orlando in August.
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."
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?
Anyways you guys think this should be illegal? Or is this a totally justified and fair way in society to make money to pay off debt and whatever else?
tl;dr: there's a website that lets you make a profile stating weather you're seeking a sugar daddy or if you're a sugar baby. sugar babies on the site has a high concentration of college students looking to pay off debt. sugar daddies are old rich guys. the sugar babies trade a date and sex for money.
Doesn't really come as a shock to me, but it's still a shame that lots of women in particular will turn to this to pay off student loans. It's another sign that there's a growing problem with our higher education system in regards to the value of a degree and the tuition of schools.
BTW, I believe you accidentally pasted the first page of the article twice in the OP. Just a friendly heads up.
On August 02 2011 12:17 Malgrif wrote: yeah lol but WHY WOULD I WANT an odl lady
you also live in canada, and here it's not as bad as the US, the horror stories I hear from folks i know over there really makes me think their entire system is fucked up and will fail at some point
On August 02 2011 12:19 Docta Spaceman wrote: Doesn't really come as a shock to me, but it's still a shame that lots of women in particular will turn to this to pay off student loans. It's another sign that there's a growing problem with our higher education system in regards to the value of a degree and the tuition of schools.
BTW, I believe you accidentally pasted the first page of the article twice in the OP. Just a friendly heads up.
I'd do an old lady to pay off a student loan. Girls can pretend to enjoy it anyway and take the money and buck. I'd have to do work and stuff. obvi no foreplay cause I wouldn't touch that cooter with this mouth, but idk. I'm sure there are worse things in life, like getting shot. Imagine being a necrophiliac
Lol at the first girl, what a whore. Have fun not finding a job with that psychology degree.
I encourage you guys to watch this video. It discusses how college degrees are becoming less and less valuable and more and more expensive, largely due to government-backed student loans vastly inflating the price of attendance, as well as other scams, that ultimately leave us all in debt. Consider a statistic from the video: in the 70s, college students could pay for their education by working part time jobs during the school year or working fulltime during the summer. Who could say that now? The average family income in the US can't pay all the yearly costs for a full-freight education at an elite school.
I don't consider myself a hypocrite since I have a scholarship and am in the country's #1 program of its type, hence I am getting value for money. But I see a lot of rich kids wasting their parents money to party, or worse, gullible kids who think they're getting an education but will graduate with their worthless major into joblessness and debt.
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote: Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
How does porn? Lol. Porn actresses are paid to have sex on camera. Prostitution laws are bogus, as one would expect any law regulating actions between consenting adults to be.
I'm surprised more college girls aren't doing this...
A week ago, she boarded a plane to Florida to spend the weekend with a 30-something banker she met on SugarDaddie.com. He told her his house was undergoing a renovation and instead drove her to a nearby hotel, where they spent the night together.
"Yeah, sure, he could have been a psycho, a killer," says Jennifer over breakfast. At nine o'clock in the morning, she's in a full face of makeup. On her profile she describes herself as a yoga teacher and personal trainer. "Barring rape or death, what's the worst thing that could happen to me?"
At the end of the weekend, the man handed her 10 crisp $100 bills. They next plan to rendezvous in Orlando in August.
The ridiculousness is just ASTOUNDING it hurts my brain.
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote: Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
Probably says that it's a dating site?
And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault).
"By the way, how old are you?" he asks, inching closer.
"Older than 25," I respond.
Ahahahaha.
But seriously, this sort of thing is an unfortunate side effect when the gap between the haves and the have-nots increases: the have-nots need help making ends meet, so they start offering everything they have to make it happen.
I think a better question is why is prostitution illegal? It's a mutually beneficial exchange..
As far as I know, the reason is because groups with power find it morally objectionable. Although, on the flip side, it would be a lot better for the women and clients who do so anyways to make it legal and regulated.
Well, they wrote the article in a fairly pleasant light, selecting people that seem to have relatively good intentions regarding the whole set-up. I'm kind of hesitant to form an opinion off of such a limited source of information, but so far:
Personally I think that this is illegal, but so is marijuana, and we all know how that's working out. I do not think this is morally wrong in most cases. Certainly there are likely to be some horror stories, but you could find the same from standard dating sites as well. In this case, everyone is going into the situation as close to completely informed as you could be.
I wish i could have the benefit of easy sex, get free money, and go to school. Just think about allt he benefits. To bad the wealth is all divided mostly among the male population.
I am ok with that, but I am also pro prostitution so no big deal to me. Whatever two consenting adults want to do with each other is fine by me regardless of exchange of money. But I see some lawsuits incoming, maybe police raids as well. We'll see how good SugarDaddie's lawyers are.
I guess really the effects of this depend on the woman herself. If they are okay with selling their body then this is a great opportunity for them. I think the real enemy here is student loans though.
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."
This idiot is just splitting hairs with her "definition" of what a whore is. In the end, she's lying to herself to make herself feel better about what she's doing. And while she might believe what she says, others most likely will not.
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote: Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
Probably says that it's a dating site?
And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault).
Not true.
If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states.
I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
Seen this before, will see it again, as long as tuitions are so expensive, it will never surprise me XD Hey, if I could bang some old lady to get rid of my debt I'd be on that. Literally.
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote: Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
As indicated in the article, prostitution laws are only clearly define quid pro quo exchanges of money for sex as illegal.
The reason they're so strictly defined is because otherwise we'd run into a lot of issues with murkier arrangements. After all, there's plenty of marriages and domestic partners out there who effectively exchange sex and companionship for financial support. Even when limiting the discussion to dating, there's plenty of women who look for a man to "take care of them", which works out to the same.
On August 02 2011 12:41 Tektos wrote: Not true.
If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states.
I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
Those laws may remain on the books in some places, but would never be enforced or upheld. Such laws were struck down as unconstitutional after Lawrence v. Texas.
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote: Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
Probably says that it's a dating site?
And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault).
Not true.
If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states.
I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
It's not enforced. Even if it was, it would be declared unconstitutional.
On August 02 2011 12:20 Slaughter wrote: Seems like this is illegal? How does this skirt the laws of prostitution?
Probably says that it's a dating site?
And they don't mention "sex" in the exchange - simply refer to it as a "companionship". What people do in their own bedroom is their business in the eye of the law (except for rape/assault).
Not true.
If I remember correctly oral sex as well as anal is outlawed in some U.S. states.
I'm at work though so I'm not exactly going to google those terms to try and find an evidence of that claim.
Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States "By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas."
On August 02 2011 12:37 Wasteweiser wrote: I wish i could have the benefit of easy sex, get free money, and go to school. Just think about allt he benefits. To bad the wealth is all divided mostly among the male population.
Think about all the shitty old geezers you'd have to have sex with. Seriously doubt you're kind of find any keepers or lookers on such a fucked up site.
Most girls I know want to get down with Taylor Lautner, not Hugh Hefner (ughhh).
This seems mostly like a tragedy associated with the costs and value of education. Women in desperate need of money have been turning to the sex trade all throughout history. I feel bad for the women being drawn into this out of need, doing it even in spite of how they feel about it. I hope the education ends up being worth it.
republicans will speak out against gays. then here we are saying that we dislike dating for money. in the end, it's just egotistical moralism vs acceptance that we are all different and everyone is just doing their best to get by.
If people were more sensible about going to University/College and only got a degree they knew would allow them to pay the loans back eventually, this situation would never happen.
Most the people my age that choose University have no game plan, no inherit ability and no chance of using a degree to kick start a successful career, yet they still fork out the cash.
On the other hand, I personally am sick of the government making laws for every little thing I can or cannot do. I find the acts morally wrong. I do not approve. But I don't think big brother needs to step in and make everything better. As stated previously, even if it was illegal it wouldn't stop people from still doing it. Don't get me wrong it would make a difference but honestly, this shiz makes me sad. How meaningless has relationships and sex become?
Pretty good imo. The older men get what they want (sex), but instead of paying just another prostitute, they'll pay a woman who needs the money. Not saying prostitutes don't need the money, of course.
I would say part of the reason you can find this sugar daddy - sugar baby relationship around young girls and rich older men is because of general evolution. Men tend to look for younger attractive females to pass the genetics down to, hence the preoccupation with looks and age. Women, on the other hand, tend to go for money, because they are looking for someone who could provide them and their children with the best chance of survival.
Men want looks. Women want money.
When you think about it this way, then a great deal of behaviour is explained. This is one, prostitution is another (yes there are male prostitutes, but not to the same degree), and general attraction is another.
Anyway, more on topic... This is basically prostitution. I despise prostitution, but I suppose it should be legal, simply because the laws are nearly impossible to uphold... this one being a prime example. Simple dating being another. Where is the line where it becomes prostitution.
Those bitches are whores, plain and simple. Those guys are pathetic, plain and simple.
This is nothing new where I live. Even in normal relationships the man is basically required to give an "allowance" every month to his girlfriend if he wants her to stay with him. Thats why I promised myself never to date a local shanghainese girl.
On August 02 2011 12:53 Thrasymachus725 wrote: Those bitches are whores, plain and simple. Those guys are pathetic, plain and simple.
It's amusing that you have a solid grasp on the evolutionary psychology behind prostitution, yet still come to your conclusions.
Whores are little different from the majority of women, both today and historically, who exchange companionship and sex for financial resources. Same goes for their male customers.
On August 02 2011 12:53 JediGamer wrote: I feel so bad for these girls. Because making money as a female wasn't easy enough as is, now prostitution is a victim crime.
Contemporary research indicates that women who make the same career choices as men actually do slightly better than men in terms of income. The main sources of the gender gap today are due to different choices in education/occuption as well as maternity leave, not because it's harder to be a girl. A man who majors in communication, gets a job as a secretary, and then takes off 4 years in the prime of their careers to raise children is handicapped just as badly as the typical women who do the same.
On August 02 2011 12:55 Jacko11 wrote: This is nothing new where I live. Even in normal relationships the man is basically required to give an "allowance" every month to his girlfriend if he wants her to stay with him. Thats why I promised myself never to date a local shanghainese girl.
This is normal everywhere. Generally it is an unwritten rule though... Gotta have so many dates, buy her so many prezzies or meals, clean the house every now and then, or she leaves you. Grey areas.
On August 02 2011 12:47 r.Evo wrote: I seriously want to see a summary of pics of those "sugar daddys" and "sugar mommys" ... I bet most people won't find it "interesting" then. =P
FUCK YOU. I GOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. T___________T.
On August 02 2011 12:53 Soulish wrote: Pretty good imo. The older men get what they want (sex), but instead of paying just another prostitute, they'll pay a woman who needs the money. Not saying prostitutes don't need the money, of course.
That somewhat sounds like you are saying that this isn't prostitution.
On August 02 2011 12:53 Thrasymachus725 wrote: Those bitches are whores, plain and simple. Those guys are pathetic, plain and simple.
It's amusing that you have a solid grasp on the evolutionary psychology behind prostitution, yet still come to your conclusions.
Whores are little different from the majority of women, both today and historically, who exchange companionship and sex for financial resources. Same goes for their male customers.
Eh, I understand evolutionary science, and I have my personal morals. I split them up in such a way that you should be able to tell the difference. I know it. I understand it. I can figure it out. But I don't like it.
Hey, it's most likely due to the fact that I am dirt poor and have been single for 2 years
None the less, I may be sad, single, desperate and bitter, but no matter how much money I had, I would never do something like this as it violates my morals... even if it makes evolutionary sense.
You know what else makes evolutionary sense? Polygamy and rape. I can still call polygamists fucked up, and rape monstrous.
On August 02 2011 12:53 Soulish wrote: Pretty good imo. The older men get what they want (sex), but instead of paying just another prostitute, they'll pay a woman who needs the money. Not saying prostitutes don't need the money, of course.
That somewhat sounds like you are saying that this isn't prostitution.
He is saying there isn't anything wrong with prostitution.
Which there isn't. The problem is the men and women who force others into slavery for it.
Creepy... I think it is prostitution, I mean your trading money for sex, theres no getting around it. Good thing Norway has a free school system, lessens the need for such desperate actions
On August 02 2011 13:01 Thrasymachus725 wrote: You know what else makes evolutionary sense? Polygamy and rape. I can still call polygamists fucked up, and rape monstrous.
Yes, but the point I would be making is that you're actually calling virtually all men and all women who live and have ever lived 'pathetic' and 'whores'.
Which could be a legitimate if pessimistic argument, I suppose, but you're using those terms as perjoratives rather than descriptive, which seems questionable when describing virtually all humans ever.
On August 02 2011 12:53 Soulish wrote: Pretty good imo. The older men get what they want (sex), but instead of paying just another prostitute, they'll pay a woman who needs the money. Not saying prostitutes don't need the money, of course.
That somewhat sounds like you are saying that this isn't prostitution.
He is saying there isn't anything wrong with prostitution.
Which there isn't. The problem is the men and women who force others into slavery for it.
Well my bad then it sounded like there was actually a difference between a prostitute and those arrangements. I don't care for both I may want to add.
Meh, creepy, but I see no reason to make it illegal. It boggles my mind why people think it is better for a woman to have to go into the illegal prostitution industry when she has no other way to make cash rather than just allowing it to become an honest, legal, and regulated job.
On August 02 2011 12:53 JediGamer wrote: I feel so bad for these girls. Because making money as a female wasn't easy enough as is, now prostitution is a victim crime.
Contemporary research indicates that women who make the same career choices as men actually do slightly better than men in terms of income. The main sources of the gender gap today are due to different choices in education/occuption as well as maternity leave, not because it's harder to be a girl. A man who majors in communication, gets a job as a secretary, and then takes off 4 years in the prime of their careers to raise children is handicapped just as badly as the typical women who do the same.
You just affirmed his point. Thank you, and understand what hes saying before relying next time. Hes being sarcastic
I personally find this horrible and tragic and needs to be stopped completely, but not through regulation but rather through growing a strong middle class. But I am preaching to the choir and playing Captain Obvious with that statement and I do not want to turn this into a Capitalism vs non-Capitalist ideology debate. And before we can make anymore conclusions (I am probably guilty of this) we need to get much more information. One article is not going to enlighten us 100 percent. Also, I think we can agree that colleges need to be reformed or people need to be smarter about their degree.
One of the professors from my uni is cited in there =D
That aside...As a student I understand that debt truly is a terrible thing. But to sell sex would be seriously degrading. Then again I'm hardline religious.
Also it's implied in the article that prostitution is legal is some spots and the first ammendment does not cover what they're doing as prostitution due to a technicality
On August 02 2011 13:01 Thrasymachus725 wrote: You know what else makes evolutionary sense? Polygamy and rape. I can still call polygamists fucked up, and rape monstrous.
Yes, but the point I would be making is that you're actually calling virtually all men and all women who live and have ever lived 'pathetic' and 'whores'.
Which could be a legitimate if pessimistic argument, I suppose, but you're using those terms as perjoratives rather than descriptive, which seems questionable when describing virtually all humans ever.
I see your point. Throwing in a little emotionally charged language there, but I was referring to these specific people in the article. While all people are like this, there are certain degrees of it that surpass the norm. This is one of those degrees. Plain prostitution is another of those degrees. And women dating assholes that are horrible to them just because they have nice cars is another one of those degrees.
But that is a PERSONAL view. I have passed over my fair share of girls because they aren't attractive to me, as I am sure I have been passed over plenty of times because I am poor as dirt. Does that make me pathetic, and those girls whores? Maybe a little... but as with everything in life, there is no black and white, they are all subtle shades of grey. These particular girls are way up there on the whore-o-meter and those guys are way up there on the pathetic-o-meter. In my books.
I think prostitution should be legal. Besides I think they should fix the system that makes the school so expensive in the first place. Maybe stop fighting in 3 different wars and you have money for your own people too?
On August 02 2011 13:06 Z3kk wrote: I would never be able to bring myself to do this T__T
This is flat-out prostitution from what I was able to glean. :[
Keep in mind that desptie the 'creepy' bias the author tries to impose, wealth is generally considered a highly attractive male trait in our society (plenty of women genuinely feel attraction towards overweight and ugly, but successful men). So the closest gender reversal would be attractive but socially awkward older women offering to take you on romantic getaways and fancy dinners with the expectation of sex, which isn't such a bum deal.
On August 02 2011 13:14 Nutype wrote: You just affirmed his point. Thank you, and understand what hes saying before relying next time. Hes being sarcastic
Sarcasm carries poorly over the internet, but as far as I can tell it was meant as a serious expression of sympathy towards the 'poor girls'. In which case his point is that women have a hard time making money, and my response is that this is false.
On August 02 2011 13:06 Z3kk wrote: I would never be able to bring myself to do this T__T
This is flat-out prostitution from what I was able to glean. :[
Keep in mind that desptie the 'creepy' bias the author tries to impose, wealth is generally considered a highly attractive male trait in our society (plenty of women genuinely feel attraction towards overweight and ugly, but successful men). So the closest gender reversal would be attractive but socially awkward older women offering to take you on romantic getaways and fancy dinners with the expectation of sex, which isn't such a bum deal.
Yes that's true, but this isn't like that. Where are you getting the idea that the woman is attracted to the man? Like in prostitution, the hooker can't make judgement calls on who she wants to sleep with. She finds no attraction to the man.
On August 02 2011 13:14 Thrasymachus725 wrote: Maybe a little... but as with everything in life, there is no black and white, they are all subtle shades of grey.
I agree with this, which is why I would shy away from applying perjorative labels to people who aren't that different from everyone else.
On August 02 2011 13:14 Thrasymachus725 wrote: These particular girls are way up there on the whore-o-meter and those guys are way up there on the pathetic-o-meter. In my books.
They're less subtle and more explicit about the same arrangement most people make. If that makes them pathetic/whores in your book then that's well and good, but I felt that it was important to point out there's an element of the pot calling the kettle black when we all engage in similar gender roles to some degree.
On August 02 2011 13:19 Shiragaku wrote: Well we may be able to look into this issue similarly as a sweat shop, but not as extreme.
And how exactly would you do that? These women are getting paid to have romantic getaways and fancy dinners with men that society typically deems attractive (nonphysically for the most part, of course). Any comparison to poverty-level manual labor is utterly wrong,
On August 02 2011 13:15 sunprince wrote: So the closest gender reversal would be attractive but socially awkward older men offering to take you on romantic getaways and fancy dinners with the expectation of sex, which isn't such a bum deal.
either way it's pretty bad for the college student regardless of gender.
Props for the One Piece banner. I tried to look down but my brain wouldn't let me stop looking at One Piece, which saved me from actually seeing the pictures. ;D
On August 02 2011 13:06 Z3kk wrote: I would never be able to bring myself to do this T__T
This is flat-out prostitution from what I was able to glean. :[
Keep in mind that desptie the 'creepy' bias the author tries to impose, wealth is generally considered a highly attractive male trait in our society (plenty of women genuinely feel attraction towards overweight and ugly, but successful men). So the closest gender reversal would be attractive but socially awkward older women offering to take you on romantic getaways and fancy dinners with the expectation of sex, which isn't such a bum deal.
On August 02 2011 13:14 Nutype wrote: You just affirmed his point. Thank you, and understand what hes saying before relying next time. Hes being sarcastic
Sarcasm carries poorly over the internet, but as far as I can tell it was meant as a serious expression of sympathy towards the 'poor girls'. In which case his point is that women have a hard time making money, and my response is that this is false.
Im not gonna get in an argument with you, but many many people can understand sarcasm on the internet perfectly well. Wether it translates poorly or not, it is up to the individual to figure it out. Thats all im gonna say.
On topic, I wonder how many people will actually admit to this if/when they marry. I'd say if they dont, they know full well its basically prostitution.
On August 02 2011 13:04 Intox wrote: Creepy... I think it is prostitution, I mean your trading money for sex, theres no getting around it. Good thing Norway has a free school system, lessens the need for such desperate actions
Sounds like it's good to come from the land of the ice and snow, from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow. Who pays for the education?
This is not a new problem. I remember being shocked in 2006 when I read a French newspaper that was saying that 2% of female students in France had to resort to prostitution / sexy gogo dancing in clubs to finance their studies.
On August 02 2011 13:23 Thrasymachus725 wrote: Yes that's true, but this isn't like that. Where are you getting the idea that the woman is attracted to the man?
My point is that wealthy men are generally considered attractive, the same way young, thin, college-educated girls with pretty smiles are generally considered attractive (right or wrong, there is an equivalence between them in our society). Does that imply you would find any such girl attractive? No, but it does mean the pool of customers you would encounter isn't as horrible as some people are making it out to be.
On August 02 2011 13:23 Thrasymachus725 wrote: Like in prostitution, the hooker can't make judgement calls on who she wants to sleep with. She finds no attraction to the man.
That's false. Hookers, at least the ones who aren't victims of sexual slavery, don't have to accept any given customer. Within the sex industry, they regularly turn down men who they find completely repulsive or potentially dangerous.
Likewise, in this case, there's plenty of sugar daddies to choose from and there's no compulsion for any girl to accept one (barring perhaps the influence of how much he's offering to pay, but that's still a choice).
On August 02 2011 13:24 Gamegene wrote: either way it's pretty bad for the college student regardless of gender.
I'm sure many of you realize that prostitution should be legal.
1 in 6 women provide some sort of exchange regarding their sexuality for money. Don't be stupid, this happens all the time, and you probably work with someone who uses a prostitute or escort.
As my friend's mom told her daughter who wanted to quit her job to move to another city with her boyfriend, "That'll just make you a prostitute." The girl is Ivy League educated.
Dear god.... that is somewhat funny and messed up in the same time. Hopefully in the future i wont be retarded enough to actually fall to something as stupid as those dating sites -__-
i thought the real reason prostitution is illegal is because some of the women are forced into it/mistreated etc... i don't see a problem with this website at all. the girls need money and older people need company. it isn't necessarily sex... and nobody is holding a gun to their head. it's not like the girls HAVE to do this... otherwise how do men pay tuition? At least in Canada employers are equal opportunity. plus.. speaking as a student, tuition sucks balls
Honestly, it's pretty fucked up that college students see the need to provide such services in order to pay off their enormous debts... I blame the ridiculously costly American education system.
As far as the moral aspect is concerned, I don't deem it wrong, since it's voluntary and mutually beneficial. btw I don't mind classic prostitution either if it is voluntary.
On August 02 2011 13:34 aeoliant wrote: i thought the real reason prostitution is illegal is because some of the women are forced into it/mistreated etc...
No; legalized prostitution actually results in less sexual slavery/trafficking.
The real reason prostitution is illegal is because older/unattractive/married women are threatened by it, since it would allow competition for the resources/attention of wealthy men/their husbands.
On August 02 2011 13:38 sunprince wrote: The real reason prostitution is illegal is because older/unattractive/married women are threatened by it, because it allows competition for the resources of wealthy men/their husbands.
LOL.
Such utter OMG I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING.
wow. sir you have a really amazing mind.
SUCH UTTER RIDICULOUSNESS. wow competition for resources. hahaha.
I'm confused by the title of the article. Who is using who here? Are we seriously saying that poor students unable to pay their student loans are using affluent older men? It seems to me to be the other way around, affluent older men are taking advantage of the dire financial straights of the young women attending university. Or is the exchange of mutual benefit, <as the owner of the company seems to suggest> in which case the "using" is mutual.
On August 02 2011 13:14 Thrasymachus725 wrote: Maybe a little... but as with everything in life, there is no black and white, they are all subtle shades of grey.
I agree with this, which is why I would shy away from applying perjorative labels to people who aren't that different from everyone else.
On August 02 2011 13:14 Thrasymachus725 wrote: These particular girls are way up there on the whore-o-meter and those guys are way up there on the pathetic-o-meter. In my books.
They're less subtle and more explicit about the same arrangement most people make. If that makes them pathetic/whores in your book then that's well and good, but I felt that it was important to point out there's an element of the pot calling the kettle black when we all engage in similar gender roles to some degree.
On August 02 2011 13:19 Shiragaku wrote: Well we may be able to look into this issue similarly as a sweat shop, but not as extreme.
And how exactly would you do that? These women are getting paid to have romantic getaways and fancy dinners with men that society typically deems attractive (nonphysically for the most part, of course). Any comparison to poverty-level manual labor is utterly wrong,
Oh yes, I am without a doubt blowing things out of proportion by comparing a safe and more luxurious job to a shithole in Southeast Asia. But the reason for going to the jobs are the same, financial problems.
SUCH UTTER RIDICULOUSNESS. wow competition for resources. hahaha.
How many women would like their husbands to have hotter, younger women ready to sleep with them? How many women want their husbands to invest their money, sex, and attention in other women? Ultimately, legalized prostitution creates more competition.
If you're having trouble conceptualizing this, consider the following though experiment. A male brothel with Chippendale-type male hookers opens down the street. Do you think guys (particularly married ones) living nearby would approve? Why?
On August 02 2011 13:41 Aterons_toss wrote: Also i wonder how comes the guy didn't just hired a hooker... much cheaper
It's the same reason guys pay more for expensive escorts. Sometimes wealthy guys want classy, educated women to go on dates with.
On August 02 2011 13:34 aeoliant wrote: i thought the real reason prostitution is illegal is because some of the women are forced into it/mistreated etc...
No; legalized prostitution actually results in less sexual slavery/trafficking.
The real reason prostitution is illegal is because older/unattractive/married women are threatened by it, since it would allow competition for the resources/attention of wealthy men/their husbands.
On August 02 2011 13:34 aeoliant wrote: i thought the real reason prostitution is illegal is because some of the women are forced into it/mistreated etc...
No; legalized prostitution actually results in less sexual slavery/trafficking.
The real reason prostitution is illegal is because older/unattractive/married women are threatened by it, since it would allow competition for the resources/attention of wealthy men/their husbands.
I doubt that's the reason.
Yeah, that is definitely not the reason. I see what he is getting at, and it's not completely wrong, but he is way too focused on this idea.
On August 02 2011 13:34 aeoliant wrote: i thought the real reason prostitution is illegal is because some of the women are forced into it/mistreated etc...
No; legalized prostitution actually results in less sexual slavery/trafficking.
The real reason prostitution is illegal is because older/unattractive/married women are threatened by it, since it would allow competition for the resources/attention of wealthy men/their husbands.
I doubt that's the reason.
It is the reason.
Old puritanical beliefs, lead by women and misinformation about how prostitution can be safe and good for both sides.
Prostitution, pure (maybe not) and simple. Whether it's
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,"
or
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."
But even then, it's prostitution without 90% of the bad of prostitution.
The way I see, it isn't illegal because you're having sex for money, but because of the dangers to the women (and men), the abuse that goes on in these relationships (both with the prostitute, the client, and the 'pimp' or web-site owner, and the other crimes that are often committed in these sorts of environments (drugs, violence). Correct me if I am wrong.
So I see it as much better (and more clever) than 'traditional' prostitution; though the women (and men) engaging on these sort of encounters are most certainly prostitutes.
On August 02 2011 13:45 mprs wrote: I doubt that's the reason.
The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
I'm well aware that the ostensible reasons given are different, but the presence of the conflict of interest is quite apparent.
SUCH UTTER RIDICULOUSNESS. wow competition for resources. hahaha.
How many women would like their husbands to have hotter, younger women ready to sleep with them? How many women want their husbands to invest their money, sex, and attention in other women? Ultimately, legalized prostitution creates more competition.
If you're having trouble conceptualizing this, consider the following though experiment. A male brothel with Chippendale-type male hookers opens down the street. Do you think guys (particularly married ones) living nearby would approve? Why?
On August 02 2011 13:50 Gamegene wrote: "Cheating is a bad thing!" Well no fuck.
Even if there's no cheating involved, it's still harder for women to find a husband if the guys have more attractive (and functionally cheaper) options available.
On August 02 2011 13:50 Gamegene wrote: I just find it really funny how you talk about prostitutes and spouses like competing businesses.
Sexual competition is a biological concept, not a business one, but yes, there are some (humorous) similarities.
It's prostitution, just like people who marry millionaires fifty years older for the inheritance or people who take twenty dollars for a blowjob.
I don't see anything wrong with this as long as there's stuff in place to prevent abuse to both parties...like laws. I'm in favor of legalizing and regulating prostitution, of course, so my viewpoint is biased.
On August 02 2011 13:50 sunprince wrote: The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
I'm well aware that the ostensible reasons given are different, but the presence of the conflict of interest is quite apparent.
Okay lol more nonsense from you I see.
So older married women engage in slut shaming as a form of social control? Hahahaha. Wow. Did it ever occur to you that it's just a natural reaction to think it's pretty damn disgusting/terrible?
You're making this sound like discrimination towards prostitutes from women. Like the average housewife is trying to keep their husbands against their will.
Give me a break.
also: "By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys." what?
Oh yes, one thing to remember is that most prostitutes in countries with legal prostitution are foreigners. So I think if we are going to use this case to debate to talk about the legality of prostitution, we may want to move away from this topic since college girls whoring themselves seems to be less common compared to a brothel. But if the girls and guys are doing this legally, then why even discuss the legality of prostitution in the first place in this thread?
On August 02 2011 14:01 Shiragaku wrote: But if the girls and guys are doing this legally, then why even discuss the legality of prostitution in the first place in this thread?
Because what's legal now could become illegal later. Because this technically is prostitution through a loophole, some people might want the loophole closed and some people might want it expanded or some people might want it completely open. Therefore, this thread exists for opinions.
Meh, who am I kidding, this thread exists for a fight to the death between internet warriors. I can feel the black hole drawing people in as I type...
On August 02 2011 14:01 Shiragaku wrote: Oh yes, one thing to remember is that most prostitutes in countries with legal prostitution are foreigners. So I think if we are going to use this case to debate to talk about the legality of prostitution, we may want to move away from this topic since college girls whoring themselves seems to be less common compared to a brothel. But if the girls and guys are doing this legally, then why even discuss the legality of prostitution in the first place in this thread?
Because we have one guy trying to rationalize prostitution when it's pretty obvious that most people believe it's just a vile thing to have in society.
IGNORING HIM BACK ON TOPIC:
Shit man I'm just going to put this out there right now: browsing through the website some of those girls were pretty hot. Probably baiting for some middle aged dude though (brrrRR).
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.
Please tell me where to find these older women you speak of.
Craigslist used to have a section before the feds shut it down. Or so I heard. I'm pretty sure that an offshoot website should be easy enough to find on the Internet, the Internet has everything.
Prostitution should be legalized and shifted into a more respectable(over time) industry. With providers able to clear clients beforehand and regulation and healthcare as well as being taxed. The tax revenue alone would be a huge help to our debt situation not to mention the overall social benefits. Too bad most people in this country are imbeciles and think sex is dirty and evil. Oh yea it's a good idea to abstain until marriage aka not have any understanding of human biology. I ramble but prostitution will be legalized it's just a battle of slowly attempting to foster a more intellectual population as well as having the politicians willing to put their re-election on the line to better humanity.
On August 02 2011 13:58 Gamegene wrote: So older married women engage in slut shaming as a form of social control? Hahahaha. Wow. Did it ever occur to you that it's just a natural reaction to think it's pretty damn disgusting/terrible?
It's not a natural reaction; it's a socialized one. Prostitutes have been viewed differently by different societies, and have even been considered holy by some.
On August 02 2011 13:58 Gamegene wrote: You're making this sound like discrimination towards prostitutes from women. Like the average housewife is trying to keep their husbands against their will.
No, it's more that the average woman, married or not, would not prefer to have more competition.
On August 02 2011 13:58 Gamegene wrote: also: "By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys." what?
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
The ads on craigslist were more sad than anything really. Also I always thought that part of the reason why prostitution is illegal is because of the importance of sex illustrated in many religions.
On August 02 2011 14:10 RifleCow wrote: "Selling is legal, sex is legal, so why isn't selling sex legal?" -George Carlin
Such troll logic right there.
I see nothing wrong with prostitution. If people are consenting to it, it doesn't do any harm so what is the problem?
EDIT: Also, I think most of the shock people in this thread have expressed is less of the reaction to the prostitution. More of a general: "so this is what it has come to" feeling.
On August 02 2011 14:06 Gamegene wrote: Because we have one guy trying to rationalize prostitution when it's pretty obvious that most people believe it's just a vile thing to have in society.
There's a large number of people in this thread who think there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, we seem to be in the (slight) majority.
But good job on not only the argumentum ad populum, but also projecting your own views onto everybody else.
On August 02 2011 14:06 Gamegene wrote: Because we have one guy trying to rationalize prostitution when it's pretty obvious that most people believe it's just a vile thing to have in society.
There's a large number of people in this thread who think there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, we seem to be in the (slight) majority.
But good job on not only the argumentum ad populum, but also projecting your own views onto everybody else.
I'm actually kind of surprised that more people haven't shown up with the contrary opinion. I guess the East Coast and Central must be sleeping and it's a work day...
Wonder when Europe will start posting?
On August 02 2011 14:17 Newbistic wrote: I think this is kind of different from prostitution due to a difference in quantity (of men fucked).
"Reserved" prostitution still exists today as well for the right price. Think Shae from GoT, that still happens in RL.
The most common type of reserved prostitution is done through marriage; girls marrying millionaires decades older than them for inheritance money...
This is gross. Personally, I see this is prostitution. I mean, regardless of WHAT you're going to use the money for, you're still getting paid to have sex with someone.
I mean, if a prostitute said she was a prostitute because she didnt have an education, couldnt get any other "job", and needed to take care of her child as a single mother, does that make her any less of a prostitute? I don't mean to degrade or anyone, but from an ethical viewpoint, I think this is just wrong.
On August 02 2011 14:19 JerKy wrote: This is gross. Personally, I see this is prostitution. I mean, regardless of WHAT you're going to use the money for, you're still getting paid to have sex with someone.
I mean, if a prostitute said she was a prostitute because she didnt have an education, couldnt get any other "job", and needed to take care of her child as a single mother, does that make her any less of a prostitute? I don't mean to degrade or anyone, but from an ethical viewpoint, I think this is just wrong.
She could work at minimum wage, drop out of college, and live the rest of her life in poverty if you and other Americans feel the need to press your ethics onto her...
On August 02 2011 14:19 JerKy wrote: This is gross. Personally, I see this is prostitution. I mean, regardless of WHAT you're going to use the money for, you're still getting paid to have sex with someone.
I mean, if a prostitute said she was a prostitute because she didnt have an education, couldnt get any other "job", and needed to take care of her child as a single mother, does that make her any less of a prostitute? I don't mean to degrade or anyone, but from an ethical viewpoint, I think this is just wrong.
On what ethics are you basing this "ethical viewpoint"? In what way is what she is doing harming anybody, or society as a whole.
On August 02 2011 14:10 RifleCow wrote: "Selling is legal, sex is legal, so why isn't selling sex legal?" -George Carlin
Such troll logic right there.
I see nothing wrong with prostitution. If people are consenting to it, it doesn't do any harm so what is the problem?
The majority of people (not counting people here) seem to agree that prostitution with two consenting parties should be legal and as such, most services are done as such. But much of prostitution around the world is done by the woman consensually, but she is chained to the job due to a poor economy when a pimp is not telling her to fuck or else she will receive another black eye. So the problem here is not the women who dream who whoring themselves out, but about women who are have to make money through whoring themselves or they will suffer even more. But this is from a perspective of a undeveloped nation. However, this may be misinformed but most of prostitutes in countries that legalize it seem to be women from undeveloped nations. Can't say that many women in well off nations are interested in whoring themselves.
On August 02 2011 14:19 JerKy wrote: This is gross. Personally, I see this is prostitution. I mean, regardless of WHAT you're going to use the money for, you're still getting paid to have sex with someone.
I mean, if a prostitute said she was a prostitute because she didnt have an education, couldnt get any other "job", and needed to take care of her child as a single mother, does that make her any less of a prostitute? I don't mean to degrade or anyone, but from an ethical viewpoint, I think this is just wrong.
On what ethics are you basing this "ethical viewpoint"? In what way is what she is doing harming anybody, or society as a whole.
Oh she is not harming society. This happened because society was damaged.
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.
Please tell me where to find these older women you speak of.
Craigslist used to have a section before the feds shut it down. Or so I heard. I'm pretty sure that an offshoot website should be easy enough to find on the Internet, the Internet has everything.
well.. craigslist had like, hooker/prostitute arrangements. I'm talking like pulling off something like how a young dude is with a rich ass hulk hogans wife. I'm not saying shes good looking at all just saying that dude is livin it up while hes reaping in provisions probably in exchange for similar deeds these hoes are doing except, some details are different. Regardless, he keeps her happy while he live in luxury.
On August 02 2011 14:10 RifleCow wrote: "Selling is legal, sex is legal, so why isn't selling sex legal?" -George Carlin
Such troll logic right there.
I see nothing wrong with prostitution. If people are consenting to it, it doesn't do any harm so what is the problem?
The majority of people (not counting people here) seem to agree that prostitution with two consenting parties should be legal and as such, most services are done as such. But much of prostitution around the world is done by the woman consensually, but she is chained to the job due to a poor economy when a pimp is not telling her to fuck or else she will receive another black eye. So the problem here is not the women who dream who whoring themselves out, but about women who are have to make money through whoring themselves or they will suffer even more. But this is from a perspective of a undeveloped nation. However, this may be misinformed but most of prostitutes in countries that legalize it seem to be women from undeveloped nations. Can't say that many women in well off nations are interested in whoring themselves.
These woman will still be forced into the same position whether or not prostitution is legal. In fact if prostitution is illegal then the same acts will most likely carry more danger due to the risk of its illegality. Being that women being forced into prostitution is a problem of the society itself, then the goal should not be to stop prostitution but to try to better society so that more options are open.
On August 02 2011 14:23 Shiragaku wrote: The majority of people (not counting people here) seem to agree that prostitution with two consenting parties should be legal and as such, most services are done as such. But much of prostitution around the world is done by the woman consensually, but she is chained to the job due to a poor economy when a pimp is not telling her to fuck or else she will receive another black eye.
I know that you hate prostitution, but it'd really, really help if you look up the laws other countries with legal prostitution and stop stereotyping all prostitution into the same category. There are many different systems and methods of sex for cash and not all of them fit your mental image of evil.
It'd be like if I assume everyone who opposes prostitution is a redneck male Puritan. It's not true and people oppose it from different factions for different reasons.
On August 02 2011 14:23 Shiragaku wrote: However, this may be misinformed but most of prostitutes in countries that legalize it seem to be women from undeveloped nations. Can't say that many women in well off nations are interested in whoring themselves.
Look up Amsterdam Red Light District on Wikipedia. Note that they even have a union and hold strikes.
I don't find anything wrong with this, and I actually don't find anything wrong with prostitution. If it's all consensual and everyone knows what they're agreeing to, then it should be fine.
That said, these women are fucking whores and they need to accept it. No bullshit excuses. That kind of person (man or woman) is simply a whore and I wouldn't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole no matter what they said. I can't hold the kind of respect necessary to be in a relationship with someone for a person that has so little respect for their own body.
On August 02 2011 13:58 Gamegene wrote: So older married women engage in slut shaming as a form of social control? Hahahaha. Wow. Did it ever occur to you that it's just a natural reaction to think it's pretty damn disgusting/terrible?
It's not a natural reaction; it's a socialized one. Prostitutes have been viewed differently by different societies, and have even been considered holy by some.
On August 02 2011 13:58 Gamegene wrote: You're making this sound like discrimination towards prostitutes from women. Like the average housewife is trying to keep their husbands against their will.
No, it's more that the average woman, married or not, would not prefer to have more competition.
On August 02 2011 13:58 Gamegene wrote: also: "By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys." what?
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
good fucking god get real.
"Prostitutes have been considered holy by some fucked up societies" "Women don't want to be cheated on; those bitches." "Women are just being selfish, why should they want their others to be faithful."
I'm just going to say this aloud: you're fucking delusional.
wow i'm using the word fuck a lot today. but man, seriously it's just FRUSTRATING to hear someone tell us all about how prostitution is misunderstood and shouldn't be hated on.
So a lot of people would agree on what essentially prostitution.
If I were in those girl's shoes, I wouldn't have sex for money. Fact is, I would never have sex with anyone unless I am devoted to that person in a relationship, regardless of how attractive that person is.
Though my thoughts might be biased because I have never had any financial problems ever and is fine being a virgin.
"Prostitutes have been considered holy by some societies" "Women don't want to be cheated on; those bitches." "Women are just being selfish, why should they want their others to be faithful."
I'm just going to say this aloud: you're fucking delusional.
I can't comment on the bottom two, but the first one is completely, utterly accurate for "fucked up societies" in Europe and Asia. Maybe if you paid attention in high school world history...
This is the first time I've heard of feudal Japan, China, Great Britain, and Hellenistic Greece described as "fucked up", incidentally. Just off the top of my head.
to be honest most of the guys sound pretty okay, i just want to note a couple of things
- it's may or may not be prostitution, that's a graaay area
- the guy saying that he fantasized about making the web site since he was really shy and awkward in school made me sad
- the guys don't seem like such jerks, although i think donating would be preferable to this.
and some of the girls did it to themselves, huge credit card debts etc. honestly i don't mind the website, both parties are somewhat satisfied and it's if it's prostitution at least it's of somewhat quality. just make sure people don't murdered or go missing through the site
On August 02 2011 14:31 acker wrote: I can't comment on the bottom two, but the first one is completely, utterly accurate for "fucked up societies" in Europe and Japan. Maybe if you paid attention in high school world history...
This is the first time I've heard of feudal Japan, Great Britain, and Hellenistic Greece described as "fucked up", incidentally. Just off the top of my head.
Does it make it OKAY because they're in europe and japan? Golly gee wizz I sure am sorry to not realize that prostitution had been validated since it was ever so revered ago once upon a time. That's not a real argument when it's the 21st century.
On August 02 2011 14:35 Gamegene wrote: Does it make it OKAY because they're in europe and japan? Golly gee wizz I sure am sorry to not realize that prostitution had been validated since it was ever so revered ago once upon a time. That's not a real argument when it's the 21st century.
Just commenting on your knowledge of world history. If you want to talk ethics, start making a post.
One way or another, it's quite clear that your hatred of prostitution isn't natural; it's social.
saying you pay these girls for humanitarian reasons is completely oxymoronic. if it was charity it would be, but getting any kind of service or anything at all in return makes it business, and in this case a really sick business.
On August 02 2011 14:23 Shiragaku wrote: The majority of people (not counting people here) seem to agree that prostitution with two consenting parties should be legal and as such, most services are done as such. But much of prostitution around the world is done by the woman consensually, but she is chained to the job due to a poor economy when a pimp is not telling her to fuck or else she will receive another black eye.
I know that you hate prostitution, but it'd really, really help if you look up the laws other countries with legal prostitution and stop stereotyping all prostitution into the same category. There are many different systems and methods of sex for cash and not all of them fit your mental image of evil.
It'd be like if I assume everyone who opposes prostitution is a redneck male Puritan. It's not true and people oppose it from different factions for different reasons.
On August 02 2011 14:23 Shiragaku wrote: However, this may be misinformed but most of prostitutes in countries that legalize it seem to be women from undeveloped nations. Can't say that many women in well off nations are interested in whoring themselves.
Look up Amsterdam Red Light District on Wikipedia. Note that they even have a union and hold strikes.
Geez...I feel as if you were giving me something to argue against.
On August 02 2011 14:31 acker wrote: I can't comment on the bottom two, but the first one is completely, utterly accurate for "fucked up societies" in Europe and Japan. Maybe if you paid attention in high school world history...
This is the first time I've heard of feudal Japan, Great Britain, and Hellenistic Greece described as "fucked up", incidentally. Just off the top of my head.
Does it make it OKAY because they're in europe and japan? Golly gee wizz I sure am sorry to not realize that prostitution had been validated since it was ever so revered ago once upon a time. That's not a real argument when it's the 21st century.
You have yet to make any argument as to why prostitution should be considered abhorrent beyond your own personal reaction to the practice. Please, give us reasons and stop making baseless, angry, claims or there is no debate and your just rambling.
On August 02 2011 14:36 Shiragaku wrote: Geez...I feel as if you were giving me something to argue against.
I'm not writing a novel on different legislation different countries write for prostitution, nor am I writing one for the varied kinds of systems that exchange sex for cash. Not when people with PhDs in the subject have done so for me.
If you honestly wanted to do research on the issue, I've given you info and Wikipedia has easy info and references on what I've said. If not, you weren't going to change your mind regardless of whatever I post. But I assure you, not all prostitution is like the vision running through your head, and differs based on laws. Not all prostitution even involves pimps.
On August 02 2011 14:35 acker wrote: Just commenting on your knowledge of world history. If you want to talk ethics, start making a post.
-_- Sorry I didn't realize that I had to know about foreign cultures and world history when I comment on prostitution. I'm also going to apologize in advance not having covered prostitutes in history class. MY BAD. + Show Spoiler +
And honestly I'm just going to say this now rather than later: I used to think it was just an industry that had the misfortune of being related to sex, but actually reading account from prostitutes made me do a complete 180 on the issue. I remember reading this article last year and it quite disturbing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/2010/07/100730_sandra_newman.shtml
On August 02 2011 14:30 Gamegene wrote: good fucking god get real.
"Prostitutes have been considered holy by some fucked up societies" "Women don't want to be cheated on; those bitches." "Women are just being selfish, why should they want their others to be faithful."
I'm just going to say this aloud: you're fucking delusional.
wow i'm using the word fuck a lot today. but man, seriously it's just FRUSTRATING to hear someone tell us all about how prostitution is misunderstood and shouldn't be hated on.
"I don't like prostitution and anyone who disagrees with me is delusional."
You're a fucking idiot. You haven't advanced a single argument that actually debates the issues. Stay out of the thread if you're just gonna demonize anyone who disagrees with your puritanical values.
On August 02 2011 14:36 Shiragaku wrote: Geez...I feel as if you were giving me something to argue against.
I'm not writing a novel on different legislation different countries write for prostitution, nor am I writing one for the varied kinds of systems that exchange sex for cash. Not when people with PhDs in the subject have done so for me.
If you honestly wanted to do research on the issue, I've given you info and Wikipedia has easy info and references on what I've said. If not, you weren't going to change your mind regardless of whatever I post. But I assure you, not all prostitution is like the vision running through your head, and differs based on laws. Not all prostitution even involves pimps.
I love how you assume all these things about me...especially when I focused on one aspect of prostitution. You are basically putting words into my mouth.
On August 02 2011 14:48 Shiragaku wrote: I love how you assume all these things about me...especially when I focused on one aspect of prostitution. You are basically putting words into my mouth.
I think he makes the assumption because prostitution is one of those topics that people have very strong feelings about. It is controversial which makes it good for an argument, but very rarely do people ever get convinced of anything.
On August 02 2011 14:48 Shiragaku wrote: I love how you assume all these things about me...especially when I focused on one aspect of prostitution. You are basically putting words into my mouth.
If you have complaints on prostitution AS A WHOLE due to philosophy or religion, then you have yet to post on it. If you are aware that multiple systems of prostitution exist, multiple different types of legislation exist, and do not all fit your posted image of evil, you have yet to show it. I replied exactly to your post, which was entirely on exploitation of women by pimps and slavery, as well as some extremely ignorant viewpoint on "undeveloped nations" like The Netherlands. Here, I'll quote your post for you:
On August 02 2011 14:23 Shiragaku wrote: The majority of people (not counting people here) seem to agree that prostitution with two consenting parties should be legal and as such, most services are done as such. But much of prostitution around the world is done by the woman consensually, but she is chained to the job due to a poor economy when a pimp is not telling her to fuck or else she will receive another black eye. So the problem here is not the women who dream who whoring themselves out, but about women who are have to make money through whoring themselves or they will suffer even more. But this is from a perspective of a undeveloped nation. However, this may be misinformed but most of prostitutes in countries that legalize it seem to be women from undeveloped nations. Can't say that many women in well off nations are interested in whoring themselves.
Yes it is prostitution. Still, they are all adults, not like they are teenagers. Many other countries have wayyyy more "f-ed up" situations like teenagers wanting to by Gucci bags and selling their bodies for it. That's way more gg
The dude that made this site is a genius, so much easy money. There are plenty of ways to make money, this is just a really easy way for woman to make money, and it is way safer than prostitution.
Who cares if it is prostitution? Their body, their choice. Both adult parties feel they are engaging in a beneficial transaction. Even if you feel they are foolish, you can tell them all they want but I feel that it's really none of your business and it would be wrong for you to force them to stop.
On August 02 2011 14:59 SEA_GenesiS wrote: How is this not prostitution? How does she say that its not prostitution... Lol she exchanged sex for money.
I know her intentions were er.. at the right place perhaps but still... You can't say thats not prostitution. Whats done is done
In what particular way is this prostitution?
Is it because it's loveless sex?
Is it because both parties are using eachother?
Is it because it's short-term?
Is it because that guys is old enough to be my grandfather?
Is it prostitution when a guy buys a woman at the bar some drinks, and she later sleeps with him? What about when a girl with no discernible talents, aside from her looks, marries a guy who makes a million a year, and spends the rest of her life pouring wine for him?
On August 02 2011 14:47 sunprince wrote: "I don't like prostitution and anyone who disagrees with me is delusional."
You're a fucking idiot. You haven't advanced a single argument that actually debates the issues. Stay out of the thread if you're just gonna demonize anyone who disagrees with your puritanical values.
You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
Even if there's no cheating involved, it's still harder for women to find a husband if the guys have more attractive (and functionally cheaper) options available.
The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
Sorry if I can't give participate in a logical discussion to such an absurd claim. It's rationalizing such a bitter and spiteful view of "older married women" in America.
While I agree it seems like it would often be glorified prostitution, I think that not every situation would be like that. However, I'm not sure what my stance on it is yet.
On August 02 2011 14:59 SEA_GenesiS wrote: How is this not prostitution? How does she say that its not prostitution... Lol she exchanged sex for money.
I know her intentions were er.. at the right place perhaps but still... You can't say thats not prostitution. Whats done is done
In what particular way is this prostitution?
Is it because it's loveless sex?
Is it because both parties are using eachother?
Is it because it's short-term?
Is it because these guys are old enough to be my grandfathers? Is it prostitution when a guy buys a woman at the bar some drinks, and she later sleeps with him?
The fuck? How is that analogous to this? They are directly paying them hundreds and thousands of dollars monthly to briefly hold a conversation with them and then fuck them. I could do literally the same with a prostitute, and im sure many of these girls purely fuck the guy and they dont have any pretense whatsoever. Its prostitution, I dont know if it falls under the legal semantics of prostitution, but its clear what it is. These girls are whores, plain and simple.
On August 02 2011 14:47 sunprince wrote: "I don't like prostitution and anyone who disagrees with me is delusional."
You're a fucking idiot. You haven't advanced a single argument that actually debates the issues. Stay out of the thread if you're just gonna demonize anyone who disagrees with your puritanical values.
You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
Even if there's no cheating involved, it's still harder for women to find a husband if the guys have more attractive (and functionally cheaper) options available.
The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
Sorry if I can't give participate in a logical discussion to such an absurd claim. It's rationalizing such a bitter and spiteful view of "older married women" in America.
Prostitution is a very controversial topic. There are many people that view it as something that should be legal, and they have good reasons for it.
Seems pretty awful that people are forced into prostitution to pay for an education that will give them such a low level of employability in the end that they might even be tempted to continue their online activities in the future to pay the bills... Pretty sad thing to read really...
On August 02 2011 14:59 SEA_GenesiS wrote: How is this not prostitution? How does she say that its not prostitution... Lol she exchanged sex for money.
I know her intentions were er.. at the right place perhaps but still... You can't say thats not prostitution. Whats done is done
In what particular way is this prostitution?
Is it because it's loveless sex?
Is it because both parties are using eachother?
Is it because it's short-term?
Is it because these guys are old enough to be my grandfathers? Is it prostitution when a guy buys a woman at the bar some drinks, and she later sleeps with him?
The fuck? How is that analogous to this? They are directly paying them hundreds and thousands of dollars monthly to briefly hold a conversation with them and then fuck them. I could do literally the same with a prostitute, and im sure many of these girls purely fuck the guy and they dont have any pretense whatsoever. Its prostitution, I dont know if it falls under the legal semantics of prostitution, but its clear what it is. These girls are whores, plain and simple.
Explain to me how all of the things I've listed above are not prostitution, and I may be inclined to agree with you.
Seems pretty awful that people are forced into prostitution to pay for an education that will give them such a low level of employability in the end that they might even be tempted to continue their online activities in the future to pay the bills... Pretty sad thing to read really...
Last I checked, they could always... You know... Pay off their student debt the same way that everybody else does. Nobody's forcing them into this.
On August 02 2011 14:47 sunprince wrote: "I don't like prostitution and anyone who disagrees with me is delusional."
You're a fucking idiot. You haven't advanced a single argument that actually debates the issues. Stay out of the thread if you're just gonna demonize anyone who disagrees with your puritanical values.
You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
Even if there's no cheating involved, it's still harder for women to find a husband if the guys have more attractive (and functionally cheaper) options available.
The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
Sorry if I can't give participate in a logical discussion to such an absurd claim. It's rationalizing such a bitter and spiteful view of "older married women" in America.
Prostitution is a very controversial topic. There are many people that view it as something that should be legal, and they have good reasons for it.
Fine. That's FINE. Perfectly fine. But it's just his attitude towards basically all married middle aged women that just baffles me completely.
On August 02 2011 15:05 Gamegene wrote: You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
A: If something isn't good, it does not necessarily have to be evil. Day labor is not good or evil. Guns are not good or evil. Economies are not good or evil. There are plenty of jobs that can be considered neutral as well.
B: This is a sign that your hatred of prostitution is axiomatic. This is not a good sign.
On August 02 2011 15:05 Gamegene wrote: You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
Replace 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality', 'abortion', or 'interracial relationships' to see if you can spot your own fallacies.
You still haven't given a single actual argument. Your 'logic' boils down to 'It should be obvious why prostition is wrong!" Well, guess what, you could say that about anything. Why don't you humor us and give some actual reasons.
On August 02 2011 12:11 Malgrif wrote: While she does not label herself a prostitute, Suzanne's not one to mince words: "If this isn't what prostitution is called, I don't know what is."
Yeah. I don't think you know what you're talking about either.
On August 02 2011 14:47 sunprince wrote: "I don't like prostitution and anyone who disagrees with me is delusional."
You're a fucking idiot. You haven't advanced a single argument that actually debates the issues. Stay out of the thread if you're just gonna demonize anyone who disagrees with your puritanical values.
You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
Even if there's no cheating involved, it's still harder for women to find a husband if the guys have more attractive (and functionally cheaper) options available.
The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
Sorry if I can't give participate in a logical discussion to such an absurd claim. It's rationalizing such a bitter and spiteful view of "older married women" in America.
What's wrong with prostitution? Seriously, what's wrong with it? Only people I know of that actually have an issue with the idea tend to be people with religious issues with it who can't give a good reason.
If an adult is willing to have sex for cash, why not? Give me one logical reason why prostitution is wrong morally.
On August 02 2011 15:05 Gamegene wrote: You actually agree with prostitution?
It's so. So. It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing. No, more than that, that somehow people, specifically women, are wrong to oppose it. You paint them in an extremely negative light and try to imply that they're only doing it for their own selfish needs.
A: If something isn't good, it does not necessarily have to be evil. Day labor is not good or evil. Guns are not good or evil. Economies are not good or evil.
B: This is a good sign that your hatred of prostitution is axiomatic.
Fine. Whatever. But come on. Are wome- No.
Are families and couples really trying to do this out of self interests (so cynically)?
On August 02 2011 15:13 Gamegene wrote: Fine. Whatever. But come on. Are wome- No.
Are families and couples really trying to do this out of self interests (so cynically)?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I'm merely responding to the bolded statement. The rest of the paragraph is less important compared to what I've bolded.
On August 02 2011 14:59 SEA_GenesiS wrote: How is this not prostitution? How does she say that its not prostitution... Lol she exchanged sex for money.
I know her intentions were er.. at the right place perhaps but still... You can't say thats not prostitution. Whats done is done
In what particular way is this prostitution?
Is it because it's loveless sex?
Is it because both parties are using eachother?
Is it because it's short-term?
Is it because these guys are old enough to be my grandfathers? Is it prostitution when a guy buys a woman at the bar some drinks, and she later sleeps with him?
The fuck? How is that analogous to this? They are directly paying them hundreds and thousands of dollars monthly to briefly hold a conversation with them and then fuck them. I could do literally the same with a prostitute, and im sure many of these girls purely fuck the guy and they dont have any pretense whatsoever. Its prostitution, I dont know if it falls under the legal semantics of prostitution, but its clear what it is. These girls are whores, plain and simple.
Explain to me how all of the things I've listed above are not prostitution, and I may be inclined to agree with you.
1.Is it because it's loveless sex?
2.Is it because both parties are using eachother?
3.Is it because it's short-term?
4.Is it because these guys are old enough to be my grandfathers?
5.Is it prostitution when a guy buys a woman at the bar some drinks, and she later sleeps with him?
I dont know how you think this is hard, I guess you live in some mythical land where the definition of prostitution is incredibly vague, perhaps not even heard of. Simply put, none of these situations constitute prostitution whatsoever and no real explanation is required. However you asked, and I'm a nice guy:
1) Loveless sex does not logically require you pay for sex, therefore it is not prostitution. 2) Manipulation does not logically require you pay for sex, therefore it is not prostitution. 3) Short term flings are not, by definition prostitution, some other variable must be applied [such as paying for sex!] 4) Age discrepancies in relationships are not necessarily prostitution and other variables must be applied to make it so [such as paying for sex!] 5) Buying a girl a drink in order to impress her into having sex with you is not prostitution, as buying the drink is in order to get her to like you, engage in sociable activities, and convince her to engage in free, non commodity based intercourse. Unlike prostitution.
TLDR: Those 5 situations are not prostitution by the definition of prostitution and the definition of those words, unless further context is provided.
On August 02 2011 15:13 Gamegene wrote: Fine. Whatever. But come on. Are wome- No.
Are families and couples really trying to do this out of self interests (so cynically)?
Not consciously, no. There's plenty of psychological and political science research that suggests that people unknowingly adopt positions that serve their own interests without realizing it. Simply put, people are more willing to accept and less critical of ideas that benefit them. An easy example is how the richer you are, the more likely you are to believe in trickle-down economics, and by contrast, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to believe that social security is a right.
And no, it's not families and couples, because polls have shown that middle-aged married men actually disproportionately support prostitution.
On August 02 2011 15:13 Gamegene wrote: Fine. Whatever. But come on. Are wome- No.
Are families and couples really trying to do this out of self interests (so cynically)?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I'm merely responding to the bolded statement. The rest of the paragraph is less important compared to what I've bolded.
I guess my crazy ramblings have to do with this:
Even if there's no cheating involved, it's still harder for women to find a husband if the guys have more attractive (and functionally cheaper) options available.
The strongest opponents to prostitution are usually women, particularly older, married women. Likewise, these are the same groups who are most prone to engaging in slut-shaming as a form of social control, and are the most critical of stripping or younger girl/older men relationships. By contrast, younger women tend to have more positive views of both sex work or younger girls with older guys.
Historically as well, slut-shaming has been primarily driven by other women, even if it's been enforced at times. The Victorian/Puritanical views our society holds on sex is primarily driven by women, not men.
At least in America, the strongest opposition to prostitution, pornography, stripping, and the like disproportionately comes from older women. The idealistic view of this is that "mothers care more about protecting their daughters" or something like that, but again, there's a certain self-interest role here.
I mean damn there's some arguments where you won't win no matter what you say, but this was just complete insanity.
edit: fuck it. i realize now that this stance on women goes back to a morality spectrum of grey to gray and mine is far too white.
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?
On August 02 2011 15:19 Gamegene wrote: Fine. Whatever. But come on. Are wome- No.
Are families and couples really trying to do this out of self interests (so cynically)?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I'm merely responding to the bolded statement. The rest of the paragraph is less important compared to what I've bolded.[/QUOTE]
I guess my crazy ramblings have to do with this:
Eve...insanity.
True, but the bolded part is completely irrelevant to what you've quoted. I quote you again:
It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing.
Nothing in the paragraph is a reason why you consider all prostitution so fundamentally wrong and undebatable your mind rebels at thinking about the converse.
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).
On August 02 2011 15:19 Gamegene wrote: I mean damn there's some arguments where you won't win no matter what you say, but this was just complete insanity.
You mean against people like who say "It's hard to rationalize topics like these when every moral fiber of your being is just numb thinking that it isn't blatantly obvious that prostitution is not supposed to be a good thing"?
Gee, wonder what that's like.
Unlike you, I've provided actual argumentation in support of the ideas I've advanced. If you think they're wrong, feel free to logically criticize them, but so far, you've only posted BS about your 'feelings' as if they had any weight in the matter.
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 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 [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.
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).
On August 02 2011 15:20 StorkHwaiting wrote: Can someone explain the difference between prostitution and a gold digger wife?
The former is highly aware of the transactional nature of her relationships with men; the latter stands a good chance of being consciously unaware of it and simply finds wealthy men sexually attractive and holds herself to 'having standards' for men.
The latter is also on a long-term contract that she can usually terminate whenever she so chooses and yet continue to recieve compensation long after she stops providing sex.
On August 02 2011 15:26 sunprince wrote: The former is highly aware of the transactional nature of her relationships with men; the latter stands a good chance of being consciously unaware of it and simply finds wealthy men sexually attractive and holds herself to 'having standards' for men.
...
You're really, really reaching, now ><
Maybe most of the people on this online service find thousands of dollars irresistible and incredibly alluring for the holder. The above statement makes just as much assumption and sense as yours.
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.
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.
So if the guy knows their wife is marrying them for the money, is it prostitution? Do older men generally think they are irresistible to women decades their younger?
On August 02 2011 14:10 Mykill wrote: providing friendship with money... that's pretty sad for the men and is essentially being a whore for women
which is wrong how...
nothing wrong with it, if its sex that you want sure that's exchangeable, I just value friendship as something that has nothing to do with money.
edit: Also about golddigging, nothing really wrong with it either since people used to marry for money/status anyways. Marrying based on "love" is actually quite a modern concept.
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.
So if the guy knows their wife is marrying them for money, is it prostitution?
If all the man is getting from the relationship is sex, then yes I suppose.
On August 02 2011 15:28 acker wrote: Maybe most of the people on this online service find thousands of dollars irresistible and incredibly alluring for the holder. The above statement makes just as much assumption and sense as yours.
The fact that the people on this service rationalize away what they do as not being prostitution is pretty good support of how cognitive dissonance works in this case. They can't pretend it's not transactional because it's too obvious, but gold-digging wives certainly can.
I'm sure if they were to ever do a poll on women married to wealthy men, few to none would acknowledge that they were marrying for the money, even anonymously.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 15:39 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).
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?
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 16:03 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.
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.
There is no difference between being a whore, a prostitute, or having sex explicitly for money. There is a big difference in different people's fortune. I approve of emancipated women and I wish for their well being.
Well, there is a reason why it's called 'the oldest profession'. Sex sells and people will always need money. If both sides know what they're getting into and adhere to the conditions set, I'm ok with it.
Imagine being these girls and having a high payig job that a college would supply, and living with the fact that you had sex with rich men to pay off college debts. Now keep in mind that rich men who have to pay for sex are probably the lower end of the attractive rich men that girls like, and the scenario is all the more embarrassing
If it came down to it, where i would do an old lady like 3x over a week for a month or two to pay off my student loans, ...it would really depend on the lady. probably couldnt even if i wanted to
Its sort of a high class prostitution. The saying the more wasted the whore the less money she gets, but on the other hand a young 20 years old babe going to college and with no awkward pulling on the sideways to get a prostitute in your car, rich men would love it.
But I will disagree with most of the people here blaming the rich men, why would you? I mean blame the girls. Yes its hard and jobs are scarce, but come live in some of the poor countries in the world and see how they handle it.
I mean recession or not the USA is still one of the wealthiest countries and yes its going to hell in a few years in politics don't change, but right now it is still 10x better than most of the countries.
Try and live in countries with unemployment of 30-40%. So I think these girls are basically whores and there is no other way of putting it.
Morals in the west have gone down the drain completely- I am not surprised by this at all- though none the less disgusted. Sex is so main stream and casual nowadays- ugh.
Heh, I think I remember seeing an episode of this topic on the Tyra Bank's Show. If you're wondering, my girlfriend sometimes asks me to come watch it with her to understand her and women better.
Anyways, there was these girls who were using these older guys to help pay them for college in exchange for being their companions/escorts. All of the girls tried to defend themselves that they were just being responsible about handling their finances and being responsible women, but Tyra Banks and other feminists said they were doing the opposite and just selling themselves.
As for me, I can't really say. I didn't finish college and whatever loans I took I paid back already. I won't use a wealthy older woman just for money, because I make way more than I need right now. However, I may of been open to the idea when I used to be in debt.
I don't mind dating older women, but she can't be too old. As long as she is okay with having children or more children in the future and enough similar wants, then we might have a future together.
On August 02 2011 16:48 mrRoflpwn wrote: Morals in the west have gone down the drain completely- I am not surprised by this at all- though none the less disgusted. Sex is so main stream and casual nowadays- ugh.
This is no different than buying dinner and getting sex. Prostitution in the form of bartering. Feminism created this (though indirectly) and are solely responsible, so I find it funny how feminism wants to try and say this isn't what they wanted.
On August 02 2011 15:59 freddievercetti wrote: 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.
On August 02 2011 16:45 thehitman wrote: Its sort of a high class prostitution. The saying the more wasted the whore the less money she gets, but on the other hand a young 20 years old babe going to college and with no awkward pulling on the sideways to get a prostitute in your car, rich men would love it.
But I will disagree with most of the people here blaming the rich men, why would you? I mean blame the girls. Yes its hard and jobs are scarce, but come live in some of the poor countries in the world and see how they handle it.
OK, so what? Your argument makes no sense. What if they can't handle living without facebook? What is your point? Because they can't handle living in a poor country they shouldn't be able to charge men large amounts of money to take them out on dates and then have sex with them? After you starve them for a while and show them what living in poverty is like will they have a change of heart and suddenly realize that they were poor because they were too used to having cable TV?
On August 02 2011 16:45 thehitman wrote: I mean recession or not the USA is still one of the wealthiest countries and yes its going to hell in a few years in politics don't change, but right now it is still 10x better than most of the countries.
Try and live in countries with unemployment of 30-40%. So I think these girls are basically whores and there is no other way of putting it.
OK they're whores, what's wrong with that? The fact that they live in one of the wealthiest counties has nothing to do with what is going on here. In some places there are unemployment rates of 30-40%. I'm sure that the same type of girls live in some of those towns.
On August 02 2011 16:48 mrRoflpwn wrote: Morals in the west have gone down the drain completely- I am not surprised by this at all- though none the less disgusted. Sex is so main stream and casual nowadays- ugh.
Grow up. Your opinion is worthless unless you actually back it up with an argument. You need to explain why people should adopt your opinion instead of just throwing it out there.
Ok so gents and hookers and a bunch of euphemisms. Nothing new here ^_^
I bet these classy ladies will be looking for a faithful, loving husband when they are done with their fun little career. A man that will understand and respect them when they don't feel like having sex.
Also, lol at the guy calling himself a "humanitarian". That's just golden!
Breaking News: Rich people can now get people to have sex with them for money!
On a more serious note, i don't think the issue of morals matter too much when you are majoring in a worthless liberal arts degree with tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
This sounds a bit like prostitution. It's just like girls who work on the street and call girls. Well girls have been doing things like this for a while and it just proves that money can buy people.
What if the prostitution was just the consequence and not the cause ? What if a liberal system alienates people one from another to the point that the most important thing for us isn't a nice date but trans-generational paid sex ? Aren't the public university costs too high for what they offer ? Is money the real goal of life ?
This kind of questions are far more important than the sad fact that some girl prostitute themselves to get money. Unfortunately, the Huffington post doesn't answer any of them and doesn't even try. Low level publication more interested in selling based on people's interest for sex than informative and though-out articles.
Nowhere in the article it's mentionned that women will be less paid after their studies and that could also be a hint ... Oh feminism, where are you ?
On August 02 2011 16:28 Badjas wrote: There is no difference between being a whore, a prostitute, or having sex explicitly for money.
I pretty much share this opinion. Whenever you have sex with somebody for the sole reason of getting money, you are a whore / a prostitute.
I don't understand how women can say "Well he just gives me money because he is a nice guy." No, he gives you money because you sold your body and if there was no money you would be working at mcdonalds instead of getting ***** by a 50y old guy. Worse than that, I don't even think having sex for money is just selling your body. You sell the most intimate, personal "expression" of strong feelings, such as love, you've got. Call me a romantic idiotic f***tard, but selling your body equals selling your soul, or at least a very important part of it, imho. Having sex means CAN MEAN so much more, you don't have to be christian, muslim, jew etc to know that.
But who am I to judge other people I don't even know personally. If they can go to bed and feel good about themselves while selling their bodies to strangers I'm okay with that(Oh wait, she said she felt bad about it.). Still, I will try to avoid these kind of people.
And when I read such things, I'm so glad I met a girl that is not even nearly like that.
On August 02 2011 16:48 mrRoflpwn wrote: Morals in the west have gone down the drain completely- I am not surprised by this at all- though none the less disgusted. Sex is so main stream and casual nowadays- ugh.
I'm not sure how you can talk about western morals going down the drain, and sex being so main stream/casual these days when prostitution has been around forever. Don't read too much into this article like the majority of young women these days are ok with selling their bodies. This story is about prostitution, so it will obviously feature women who think it's ok.
The girls in the article might talk about how desperate they are, and how this is their only viable option but that was the case for a lot of women throughout history who chose this route. The only thing that's truly changed is how accessible this information is now with the advent of the internet. It means those who are willing to do it will find it easier to get involved in the process. This doesn't necessarily mean there are more of them out there.
Finally, yes it would be nice to live in a world where some women don't feel like they have to sell their bodies to get what they want, but that's just how the real world works. There are many things we would like see disappear from the world like slavery, murder, rape, war....etc but we're stuck with them for the foreseeable future. Idealism is nice but it doesn't get you very far.
On August 02 2011 17:25 Otolia wrote: Nowhere in the article it's mentionned that women will be less paid after their studies and that could also be a hint ... Oh feminism, where are you ?
Feminism is busy propagating myths like the one you just spouted. All modern research indicates women in the United States don't get paid less when doing the same job as men. In fact, they tend to be paid slightly more, and have a slightly easier time getting most jobs without strenuous physical requirements.
The reason there's a wage gap is because women generally major in degrees of lesser value (social science as opposed to engineering), choosing lesser paid (and generally safer/easier) occupations, and because of maternity leave during the prime of their careers. Men who make the same decisions are also paid less than average men.
On August 02 2011 17:30 KeksX wrote: Worse than that, I don't even think having sex for money is just selling your body. You sell the most intimate, personal "expression" of strong feelings, such as love, you've got.
When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
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.
On August 02 2011 16:28 Badjas wrote: There is no difference between being a whore, a prostitute, or having sex explicitly for money.
I pretty much share this opinion. Whenever you have sex with somebody for the sole reason of getting money, you are a whore / a prostitute.
I don't understand how women can say "Well he just gives me money because he is a nice guy." No, he gives you money because you sold your body and if there was no money you would be working at mcdonalds instead of getting ***** by a 50y old guy.
Some key differences: the money they make from working at McDonalds is substantially lower than the money they earn from being in a relationship with these guys.
On August 02 2011 17:30 KeksX wrote: Worse than that, I don't even think having sex for money is just selling your body. You sell the most intimate, personal "expression" of strong feelings, such as love, you've got. Call me a romantic idiotic f***tard, but selling your body equals selling your soul, or at least a very important part of it, imho. Having sex means CAN MEAN so much more, you don't have to be christian, muslim, jew etc to know that.
But who am I to judge other people I don't even know personally. If they can go to bed and feel good about themselves while selling their bodies to strangers I'm okay with that(Oh wait, she said she felt bad about it.). Still, I will try to avoid these kind of people.
And when I read such things, I'm so glad I met a girl that is not even nearly like that.
What exactly makes having sex different than giving a person a massage? For some people sex is just an act nothing more nothing less. Yes sex can be intimate but that doesn't come from the act of having sex. Having sex with someone does not mean selling your body and soul. Not every person you have sex with is completely devoting themselves to you. This isn't even getting to the whether or not the soul exists or what you mean by your soul.
So tell me at what exact point does selling your body equal selling your soul? When you help your neighbor move his furniture and he gives you 5 dollars as payment have you sold your soul? What if you work as a professional masseur? Which is worse a handjob or a blowjob? What if you're a model? Have you sold your soul then? How about a working as a dancer at a club? What about stripping? Does it make a difference if you record yourself stripping and then distribute the video verses if you preform it live for someone? Have you sold your soul if you get drunk at a party and hook up with a random guy? What about if you get raped?
Please provide me a consistent set of criteria for distinguishing exactly which of the acts require you to sell your soul and which do not.
The point I'm trying to make is that intimacy doesn't come from sex alone. Rather it can come from a number of things. There's the foreplay, the tension and just being lost in each other and feeling connected that doesn't come from sex alone. All of these experiences can be had without the sex, you should know being an romantic idiotic f***tard. Sex is usually associated with surrendering yourself to another but it does not necessarily have to be so. Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I'm glad you're with someone who would never sell their bodies for money but I think to judge a person solely on whether they've ever had sex with someone for money is taking it a bit far.
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.
Quite the high horse. By what standards are you judging them exactly?
On August 02 2011 16:48 mrRoflpwn wrote: Morals in the west have gone down the drain completely- I am not surprised by this at all- though none the less disgusted. Sex is so main stream and casual nowadays- ugh.
I don't understand what morals have to do with sex being main stream? Unless it goes against your particular religious beliefs or something which I don't really think constitute "morals." Besides, prostitution is neither something new nor is it exclusively present in the west.
If no one's getting abused, and both parties are satisfied with the arrangement, I don't see the problem.
On August 02 2011 17:03 SnK-Arcbound wrote: This is no different than buying dinner and getting sex. Prostitution in the form of bartering. Feminism created this (though indirectly) and are solely responsible, so I find it funny how feminism wants to try and say this isn't what they wanted.
Agreed. I don't think feminism is solely responsible, but the sexual liberation of women, equal economic, social and political status and economic darwinism have all contributed to this phenomena.
It used to be argued that prostitution was a violation of women's rights as the women don't have the right to choose that life. However, when it becomes the conscious choice of the women to sell her services to men, prostitution becomes pro-feminist. Some will argue that these college students were forced into the trade through patriarchal institutions like college, the seeking arrangement website (which is owned by a guy) and pretty much anything created by a male. Also, women here seem to be selling their bodies for survival - you could say that this is a survival of the fittest move. Guys who are not well-to-do enough don't get to benefit and their genetic line is wiped out by not being to clinch a mate.
This is a popular phenomenon in China already. In Singapore, local women have a tendency to date foreign men because those that come over are simply more successful and more well-off. It's not explicitly about money, but women are instinctively looking for someone who can provide for a family -- the "fittest", so to speak.
I don't see the college-educated girls are any different. They continue to follow what they instinctually know (like how to find suitable mate) and how to profit from it. You could say that it is capitalism at it's very best (or worse). Regardless, this is the flip side of what marxist feminists were fighting for: the equal economic right for women to trade like men. In Darwin speak, this allows women to gain better chances to find the right mate, and therefore extend their genetic line.
For guys, the criteria remains pretty much similar. Youth and beauty gives way to the appearance of health, child-bearing potential and display of social status (hence young women are often in this line of trade) and therefore increases the chance of a young woman to be selected over an older one.
One can always make references to the natural kingdom with this kind of thread. People forget that life is unforgiving and cruel because of whatever chemical imbalances they might have (some people call this "love"). The truth of the matter lies in this question: would your girlfriend/wife even date you if she thought that you couldn't support her in any way, shape or form?
Before anyone reads my post, I want to make a thing clear: This is my very personal view on things. I see things like that because I thought about them for a vey long time, as I find that quite important.
I'm not judging anybody or saying that they are "less" worth it or something like that, I am just saying MY personal view on these things and how they affect ME and why I think what I think. If anyone feels offended, I feel deeply sorry as this is not what I intended to do.
On August 02 2011 17:39 sunprince wrote: When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
You compare having sex someone to creating some stuff for someone?
We have a complete different view on things and thus we can't really discuss that. No wonder you disagree with me. Sex is by my standards nothing like writing a book, a song or performing one on stage, or drawing a portrait of someone. By the expression of feelings I meant the expression of feelings for somebody else. If you do these things for money, you pretty much erase the possibility because it is no longer anything special, but just another "service" you could buy, it just loses the meaning it had.
On August 02 2011 17:49 G_Wen wrote: ...
Look, I already said that it is okay for me as long as it is okay for them.
For me, sex is just nothing like "Hey could you do me a favor and have sex with me?" No, I have a complete different view on that. I don't go into a restaurant and ask the waitress for sex before having dinner.
I could never have sex "just for fun". It's just not how I see things.
Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
Let me explain why I think so: Why do we talk to each other? Because we can't read each other's mind, right? So when we talk to each other, you hope to get the information that I have(my mind and thoughts), and I hope the same for you.
Nnow, when you start talking bullshit and not what you think and not what I want to hear, I don't trust you anymore. Your talking won't mean anything to me because I know I can't be sure whether it is true or not. Sure, this state can change, but for that typical moment I don't believe what you say.
Now it comes to love. Feelings. How can we express these? Facial expressions, words, kissing etc and sex and anything related to it. What happens when you start laughing for no reason, say things you don't mean, kiss everybody you see and have sex without emotional connections? Nobody will believe that you are happy when you laugh, nobody will trust a word you say, nobody will have feelings when you make such kind of acts (e.g. kissing for no reason, having sex without even caring about feelings etc.)
I know that this is a harsh way to see it, but as I value the "extraterrestrial" over anything else, I try to respect them as much as possible. I could never have sex without "a reason" behind it. I could never kiss someone without "backing it up" with proper feelings, I would never tell you that I'd like you if I didn't. Therefore, I strongly connect these things to people's mind, feelings, thoughts and their overall "human consciousness" and everything that can not be measured in numbers.
It is really hard do express, even in words, and the whole topic of communication, feelings and the "possible expressions" for that is very interesting and eversince I thought and read about it I can't just simply say "Sex is just sex, a kiss is just a kiss, and saying "I love you" doesn't mean anything".
By saying i'm romantic I didn't mean I'm a casanova, I'm referring to the age of romance as the counterpart to enlightment. And because I know, as a rational human being, this sounds pretty stupid, I said "romantic idiotic f****tard". It is fully understandable that people disagree with me but thats just my 2 cents. I don't disagree with the enlightment on the religion part, but I strongly disagree with it when it comes to feelings, sex and other stuff.
And please, I already said that I don't judge them as worse human beings. It's just that I wouldn't trust them in anything related to the issue.
EDIT: fixed some typos. Sorry for my horrible english.
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.
Rofl I mean I understand that their morals are poor but you know, you shouldn't judge someone from something like this. Debt and pressure is tough, especially when a simple solution just isn't there.
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.
Rofl I mean I understand that their morals are poor but you know, you shouldn't judge someone from something like this. Debt and pressure is tough, especially when a simple solution just isn't there.
You shouldnt judge someone for being a prostitute? Then what the hell should you judge them on?
I wouldnt want to meet such a girl either. They can do whatever they want, but prostituting yourself just for college is just a bit too disgusting for me. The men are even as disgusting, maybe even more. Seriously, if i was 70 years old being with a 19 year old i'd be so ashamed.
Well, whatever makes them happy. Just dont expect people to respect you.
its pretty sickening how randoms on the internet have no moral conduct when it comes to women/sex/money yet any other topic and these same ppl are white knights. These girls are psychologically damaging themselves if they do it for prolonged periods of time and will have trouble with reals relationships, if they are not affected by this at all that would require some high levels of mental resiliency. Seriously this world is so fucked up, people dont give a fuck about morals or ethics anymore, its saddening to see people are willing to be so readily degraded and deprived of their dignity just for the pursuit of success, seriously does no one give a shit about how they become successfull. As a young motivated person ready to dedicating my life to help those less unfortunate it sickens me to see all these ppl with so much, go so low. Sure prostitution has always existed, its the oldest profession, but with so much gender equality how can it be still so easily be accepted in people's minds, you guys are sick, just my opinion...sorry for rant, I have females in my life i care deeply about and am disgusted by this sort of action
Before anyone reads my post, I want to make a thing clear: This is my very personal view on things. I see things like that because I thought about them for a vey long time, as I find that quite important.
I'm not judging anybody or saying that they are "less" worth it or something like that, I am just saying MY personal view on these things and how they affect ME and why I think what I think. If anyone feels offended, I feel deeply sorry as this is not what I intended to do.
On August 02 2011 17:39 sunprince wrote: When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
You compare having sex someone to creating some stuff for someone?
We have a complete different view on things and thus we can't really discuss that. No wonder you disagree with me. Sex is by my standards nothing like writing a book, a song or performing one on stage, or drawing a portrait of someone. By the expression of feelings I meant the expression of feelings for somebody else. If you do these things for money, you pretty much erase the possibility because it is no longer anything special, but just another "service" you could buy, it just loses the meaning it had.
On August 02 2011 17:49 G_Wen wrote: ...
Look, I already said that it is okay for me as long as it is okay for them.
For me, sex is just nothing like "Hey could you do me a favor and have sex with me?" No, I have a complete different view on that. I don't go into a restaurant and ask the waitress for sex before having dinner.
I could never have sex "just for fun". It's just not how I see things.
Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
Let me explain why I think so: Why do we talk to each other? Because we can't read each other's mind, right? So when we talk to each other, you hope to get the information that I have(my mind and thoughts), and I hope the same for you.
Nnow, when you start talking bullshit and not what you think and not what I want to hear, I don't trust you anymore. Your talking won't mean anything to me because I know I can't be sure whether it is true or not. Sure, this state can change, but for that typical moment I don't believe what you say.
Now it comes to love. Feelings. How can we express these? Facial expressions, words, kissing etc and sex and anything related to it. What happens when you start laughing for no reason, say things you don't mean, kiss everybody you see and have sex without emotional connections? Nobody will believe that you are happy when you laugh, nobody will trust a word you say, nobody will have feelings when you make such kind of acts (e.g. kissing for no reason, having sex without even caring about feelings etc.)
I know that this is a harsh way to see it, but as I value the "extraterrestrial" over anything else, I try to respect them as much as possible. I could never have sex without "a reason" behind it. I could never kiss someone without "backing it up" with proper feelings, I would never tell you that I'd like you if I didn't. Therefore, I strongly connect these things to people's mind, feelings, thoughts and their overall "human consciousness" and everything that can not be measured in numbers.
It is really hard do express, even in words, and the whole topic of communication, feelings and the "possible expressions" for that is very interesting and eversince I thought and read about it I can't just simply say "Sex is just sex, a kiss is just a kiss, and saying "I love you" doesn't mean anything".
By saying i'm romantic I didn't mean I'm a casanova, I'm referring to the age of romance as the counterpart to enlightment. And because I know, as a rational human being, this sounds pretty stupid, I said "romantic idiotic f****tard". It is fully understandable that people disagree with me but thats just my 2 cents. I don't disagree with the enlightment on the religion part, but I strongly disagree with it when it comes to feelings, sex and other stuff.
And please, I already said that I don't judge them as worse human beings. It's just that I wouldn't trust them in anything related to the issue.
EDIT: fixed some typos. Sorry for my horrible english.
1) Your English is fine. Europeans are awesome for being so bilingual. 2) You have a fairly solid point of view, and I'm sure many people in the world share your views.
However, you are making a lot of assumptions that pretty much lead right into your conclusion. It is those assumptions that are under attack, not the conclusion.
For example, you mention that sex is the ultimate expression of love
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
I would agree that if sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love, then it can be cheapened if it is over done or done carelessly. However, would you not agree that this is also a personal matter. For some people, sex is the strongest expression for love. For others, a romantic candle-lit dinner. For others, sharing a beautiful moment. For others, going on an adventure together. For others, having dedication and trust in a relationship. To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves. It is quite arrogant to say "Hey, this HAS to be the BEST way for YOU to feel love". It is very much an individual matter.
Let us take a kiss for example. An alien from the outside world will not know what the purpose of a kiss on the cheek is. The only reason we see it as an act of compassion is because we have symbolized it to be so. There is no real reason for it otherwise. Same with a handshake. No other animal shakes hands upon greeting each other. It is something that came up culturally and it stuck. Sex, in essence, is just a physical act. Yes it feels good, there is evolutionary reasons for that. Reproduction does not even need to be counted here because intercourse does not mean offspring production (contraceptives and such).
So why are we revering the act of sexual intercourse? Is it because it feels good? Is it because it can potentially cause reproduction? But most importantly, why is this the ultimate display of love? You can create children through In Vitro Fertilization. You can feel good by working out. Are those acts of love?
Here is what I think. I think that people recognize different things with different symbolism. Some people feel like to be loved is to have sex. Some people feel like sharing a beautiful moment together is love. And people should look for others with similar symbolism as themselves. One type of people are not more correct than the other, in the same way that a culture that shakes hands is not better or worse than a culture that bows. Similar acts symbolized differently. There just has to be a mutual understanding.
You do this a few times in your post where you make assumptions and draw conclusions, and defend them using your assumptions. But it is your assumptions that are being challenged.
On a side note, its funny how 90% of the people against this are calling these women despicable and whores, yet say nothing about the men. Society says its okay for men to go around fucking everything that moves but heavens almighty if a women can count the people she has sex with using more than one finger. It is clear this is shifting towards a better and fairer equilibrium, these are just small indicators of it.
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.
Quite the high horse. By what standards are you judging them exactly?
he's indian. so... go figure.
Anyways if they choose to do it, then it's all fine. I went to the website, the girls are not really pretty tbh...
pros·ti·tute (prst-tt, -tyt) n. 1. One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts. 2. One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
some people seem to get get so upset and disgusted by what other people do with their own time / money / bodies. why even get so angered by it and think 'this must stop, this is wrong."? i may never want to hire a prostitute myself, but i can still be in favor of prostitution.
the biggest problem imo is people who decide what they think is right, and then force their beliefs upon others. if someone disagrees with me, just say "i guess they see it differently or have criteria from me" on any sort of issue and move on. why does everybody have to agree with me and/or pass a law on it because i personally don't like it?
Rofl... that's just plane prostitution. And I'm against prostitution. Also, getting an education in USA is far too expensive which drives girls to prostituting them selves.
Before anyone reads my post, I want to make a thing clear: This is my very personal view on things. I see things like that because I thought about them for a vey long time, as I find that quite important.
I'm not judging anybody or saying that they are "less" worth it or something like that, I am just saying MY personal view on these things and how they affect ME and why I think what I think. If anyone feels offended, I feel deeply sorry as this is not what I intended to do.
On August 02 2011 17:39 sunprince wrote: When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
You compare having sex someone to creating some stuff for someone?
We have a complete different view on things and thus we can't really discuss that. No wonder you disagree with me. Sex is by my standards nothing like writing a book, a song or performing one on stage, or drawing a portrait of someone. By the expression of feelings I meant the expression of feelings for somebody else. If you do these things for money, you pretty much erase the possibility because it is no longer anything special, but just another "service" you could buy, it just loses the meaning it had.
On August 02 2011 17:49 G_Wen wrote: ...
Look, I already said that it is okay for me as long as it is okay for them.
For me, sex is just nothing like "Hey could you do me a favor and have sex with me?" No, I have a complete different view on that. I don't go into a restaurant and ask the waitress for sex before having dinner.
I could never have sex "just for fun". It's just not how I see things.
Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
Let me explain why I think so: Why do we talk to each other? Because we can't read each other's mind, right? So when we talk to each other, you hope to get the information that I have(my mind and thoughts), and I hope the same for you.
Nnow, when you start talking bullshit and not what you think and not what I want to hear, I don't trust you anymore. Your talking won't mean anything to me because I know I can't be sure whether it is true or not. Sure, this state can change, but for that typical moment I don't believe what you say.
Now it comes to love. Feelings. How can we express these? Facial expressions, words, kissing etc and sex and anything related to it. What happens when you start laughing for no reason, say things you don't mean, kiss everybody you see and have sex without emotional connections? Nobody will believe that you are happy when you laugh, nobody will trust a word you say, nobody will have feelings when you make such kind of acts (e.g. kissing for no reason, having sex without even caring about feelings etc.)
I know that this is a harsh way to see it, but as I value the "extraterrestrial" over anything else, I try to respect them as much as possible. I could never have sex without "a reason" behind it. I could never kiss someone without "backing it up" with proper feelings, I would never tell you that I'd like you if I didn't. Therefore, I strongly connect these things to people's mind, feelings, thoughts and their overall "human consciousness" and everything that can not be measured in numbers.
It is really hard do express, even in words, and the whole topic of communication, feelings and the "possible expressions" for that is very interesting and eversince I thought and read about it I can't just simply say "Sex is just sex, a kiss is just a kiss, and saying "I love you" doesn't mean anything".
By saying i'm romantic I didn't mean I'm a casanova, I'm referring to the age of romance as the counterpart to enlightment. And because I know, as a rational human being, this sounds pretty stupid, I said "romantic idiotic f****tard". It is fully understandable that people disagree with me but thats just my 2 cents. I don't disagree with the enlightment on the religion part, but I strongly disagree with it when it comes to feelings, sex and other stuff.
And please, I already said that I don't judge them as worse human beings. It's just that I wouldn't trust them in anything related to the issue.
EDIT: fixed some typos. Sorry for my horrible english.
1) Your English is fine. Europeans are awesome for being so bilingual. 2) You have a fairly solid point of view, and I'm sure many people in the world share your views.
However, you are making a lot of assumptions that pretty much lead right into your conclusion. It is those assumptions that are under attack, not the conclusion.
For example, you mention that sex is the ultimate expression of love
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
I would agree that if sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love, then it can be cheapened if it is over done or done carelessly. However, would you not agree that this is also a personal matter. For some people, sex is the strongest expression for love. For others, a romantic candle-lit dinner. For others, sharing a beautiful moment. For others, going on an adventure together. For others, having dedication and trust in a relationship. To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves. It is quite arrogant to say "Hey, this HAS to be the BEST way for YOU to feel love". It is very much an individual matter.
Let us take a kiss for example. An alien from the outside world will not know what the purpose of a kiss on the cheek is. The only reason we see it as an act of compassion is because we have symbolized it to be so. There is no real reason for it otherwise. Same with a handshake. No other animal shakes hands upon greeting each other. It is something that came up culturally and it stuck. Sex, in essence, is just a physical act. Yes it feels good, there is evolutionary reasons for that. Reproduction does not even need to be counted here because intercourse does not mean offspring production (contraceptives and such).
So why are we revering the act of sexual intercourse? Is it because it feels good? Is it because it can potentially cause reproduction? But most importantly, why is this the ultimate display of love? You can create children through In Vitro Fertilization. You can feel good by working out. Are those acts of love?
Here is what I think. I think that people recognize different things with different symbolism. Some people feel like to be loved is to have sex. Some people feel like sharing a beautiful moment together is love. And people should look for others with similar symbolism as themselves. One type of people are not more correct than the other, in the same way that a culture that shakes hands is not better or worse than a culture that bows. Similar acts symbolized differently. There just has to be a mutual understanding.
You do this a few times in your post where you make assumptions and draw conclusions, and defend them using your assumptions. But it is your assumptions that are being challenged.
On a side note, its funny how 90% of the people against this are calling these women despicable and whores, yet say nothing about the men. Society says its okay for men to go around fucking everything that moves but heavens almighty if a women can count the people she has sex with using more than one finger. It is clear this is shifting towards a better and fairer equilibrium, these are just small indicators of it.
To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves.
That is right. That is why I stressed the point that it is MY view on things. I'm totally aware that people can have different views on that. This is the nature of things, however, and I can't really do anything about it. (And why should I? I'm totally fine with that) Love is a very complex "construct", if you want so, and very individual as well.
But I also never said that a candle-light dinner is no expression of love or "worse", it is just different. In which way depends on the human being. For me, a candle-light dinner is very intimate as well, but says something different than a kiss for example...
Let us take a kiss for example. (...)
I agree! BUT, an alien will most likely have similar, if not the exact same feelings and other ways to express these. Maybe they feel the things we will when we kiss each other, but they just do a handshake then? Interesting topic .
Here is what I think. (...)
Great conclusion. I really hear you and I feel like, after rereading my post, I really did not respect this in the first place. I understand that there are different types of people with different symbols, however this does imply that they have symbolizations(And you pretty much should assume that everyone has them because it is just...well, without, you could not judge anything whatsever. But this a WHOLE NEW topic!) AND I also stated earlier that this is "my definition of things". I was implying that others have their view, however, I wanted to give you guys my view.
The reason I have to assume things is that I have no "scientific evidence".. However, I am not forcing anybody to believe what I believe. I have my view and to everyone that wants to come close to me I make clear how I feel. If they disagree, I respect it. If they agree, I respect it as well. I don't know if "believe" is the right term either, as it is more another feeling. Words are difficult!
But still, you have pretty solid points that make me think even more about that topic and I may have to adjust my thoughts, at least when it comes to the terms of "ultimate expression", as it is quite true that people have very unique views here.
Oh, and it is NO question for me that women and men are treated equally here. I don't see any reason to treat them differently.
P.S: These kind of discussions are what make this forum very unique(at least for me). Never had these before in any other online-community. I aprreciate it, thanks a bunch!
Oh and I love how we perfectly prove that things can be very complicated even if they look easy at the first look.
On August 02 2011 14:59 SEA_GenesiS wrote: How is this not prostitution? How does she say that its not prostitution... Lol she exchanged sex for money.
I know her intentions were er.. at the right place perhaps but still... You can't say thats not prostitution. Whats done is done
In what particular way is this prostitution?
Is it because it's loveless sex?
Is it because both parties are using eachother?
Is it because it's short-term?
Is it because that guys is old enough to be my grandfather?
Is it prostitution when a guy buys a woman at the bar some drinks, and she later sleeps with him? What about when a girl with no discernible talents, aside from her looks, marries a guy who makes a million a year, and spends the rest of her life pouring wine for him?
Heres the definition of prostitution: "The practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment."
This is what the girl has done and therefore it is prostitution.
On August 02 2011 19:04 Wisdom[9] wrote: some people seem to get get so upset and disgusted by what other people do with their own time / money / bodies. why even get so angered by it and think 'this must stop, this is wrong."? i may never want to hire a prostitute myself, but i can still be in favor of prostitution.
the biggest problem imo is people who decide what they think is right, and then force their beliefs upon others. if someone disagrees with me, just say "i guess they see it differently or have criteria from me" on any sort of issue and move on. why does everybody have to agree with me and/or pass a law on it because i personally don't like it?
I think its natural tendency for people to want to be agreed upon, it's part of evolution. Each person not only want to saturate the earth with his gene, he also desire to saturate the earth with his ideas, believes, and values. This is a secondary traits being passed on, in addition to the primary, biological traits. It is this passing of the secondary traits that makes human unique amongst many other oganisms, who cannot encode what they have learned throughout their life, and pass it on to the generation, but rather having a singular purpose to survive long enough to spawn enough offsprings to prove that its traits are indeed superior. So it is only natural for people wanting to spread their ideas to others, and sometimes to bad ends.
Before anyone reads my post, I want to make a thing clear: This is my very personal view on things. I see things like that because I thought about them for a vey long time, as I find that quite important.
I'm not judging anybody or saying that they are "less" worth it or something like that, I am just saying MY personal view on these things and how they affect ME and why I think what I think. If anyone feels offended, I feel deeply sorry as this is not what I intended to do.
On August 02 2011 17:39 sunprince wrote: When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
You compare having sex someone to creating some stuff for someone?
We have a complete different view on things and thus we can't really discuss that. No wonder you disagree with me. Sex is by my standards nothing like writing a book, a song or performing one on stage, or drawing a portrait of someone. By the expression of feelings I meant the expression of feelings for somebody else. If you do these things for money, you pretty much erase the possibility because it is no longer anything special, but just another "service" you could buy, it just loses the meaning it had.
On August 02 2011 17:49 G_Wen wrote: ...
Look, I already said that it is okay for me as long as it is okay for them.
For me, sex is just nothing like "Hey could you do me a favor and have sex with me?" No, I have a complete different view on that. I don't go into a restaurant and ask the waitress for sex before having dinner.
I could never have sex "just for fun". It's just not how I see things.
Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
Let me explain why I think so: Why do we talk to each other? Because we can't read each other's mind, right? So when we talk to each other, you hope to get the information that I have(my mind and thoughts), and I hope the same for you.
Nnow, when you start talking bullshit and not what you think and not what I want to hear, I don't trust you anymore. Your talking won't mean anything to me because I know I can't be sure whether it is true or not. Sure, this state can change, but for that typical moment I don't believe what you say.
Now it comes to love. Feelings. How can we express these? Facial expressions, words, kissing etc and sex and anything related to it. What happens when you start laughing for no reason, say things you don't mean, kiss everybody you see and have sex without emotional connections? Nobody will believe that you are happy when you laugh, nobody will trust a word you say, nobody will have feelings when you make such kind of acts (e.g. kissing for no reason, having sex without even caring about feelings etc.)
I know that this is a harsh way to see it, but as I value the "extraterrestrial" over anything else, I try to respect them as much as possible. I could never have sex without "a reason" behind it. I could never kiss someone without "backing it up" with proper feelings, I would never tell you that I'd like you if I didn't. Therefore, I strongly connect these things to people's mind, feelings, thoughts and their overall "human consciousness" and everything that can not be measured in numbers.
It is really hard do express, even in words, and the whole topic of communication, feelings and the "possible expressions" for that is very interesting and eversince I thought and read about it I can't just simply say "Sex is just sex, a kiss is just a kiss, and saying "I love you" doesn't mean anything".
By saying i'm romantic I didn't mean I'm a casanova, I'm referring to the age of romance as the counterpart to enlightment. And because I know, as a rational human being, this sounds pretty stupid, I said "romantic idiotic f****tard". It is fully understandable that people disagree with me but thats just my 2 cents. I don't disagree with the enlightment on the religion part, but I strongly disagree with it when it comes to feelings, sex and other stuff.
And please, I already said that I don't judge them as worse human beings. It's just that I wouldn't trust them in anything related to the issue.
EDIT: fixed some typos. Sorry for my horrible english.
1) Your English is fine. Europeans are awesome for being so bilingual. 2) You have a fairly solid point of view, and I'm sure many people in the world share your views.
However, you are making a lot of assumptions that pretty much lead right into your conclusion. It is those assumptions that are under attack, not the conclusion.
For example, you mention that sex is the ultimate expression of love
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
I would agree that if sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love, then it can be cheapened if it is over done or done carelessly. However, would you not agree that this is also a personal matter. For some people, sex is the strongest expression for love. For others, a romantic candle-lit dinner. For others, sharing a beautiful moment. For others, going on an adventure together. For others, having dedication and trust in a relationship. To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves. It is quite arrogant to say "Hey, this HAS to be the BEST way for YOU to feel love". It is very much an individual matter.
Let us take a kiss for example. An alien from the outside world will not know what the purpose of a kiss on the cheek is. The only reason we see it as an act of compassion is because we have symbolized it to be so. There is no real reason for it otherwise. Same with a handshake. No other animal shakes hands upon greeting each other. It is something that came up culturally and it stuck. Sex, in essence, is just a physical act. Yes it feels good, there is evolutionary reasons for that. Reproduction does not even need to be counted here because intercourse does not mean offspring production (contraceptives and such).
So why are we revering the act of sexual intercourse? Is it because it feels good? Is it because it can potentially cause reproduction? But most importantly, why is this the ultimate display of love? You can create children through In Vitro Fertilization. You can feel good by working out. Are those acts of love?
Here is what I think. I think that people recognize different things with different symbolism. Some people feel like to be loved is to have sex. Some people feel like sharing a beautiful moment together is love. And people should look for others with similar symbolism as themselves. One type of people are not more correct than the other, in the same way that a culture that shakes hands is not better or worse than a culture that bows. Similar acts symbolized differently. There just has to be a mutual understanding.
You do this a few times in your post where you make assumptions and draw conclusions, and defend them using your assumptions. But it is your assumptions that are being challenged.
On a side note, its funny how 90% of the people against this are calling these women despicable and whores, yet say nothing about the men. Society says its okay for men to go around fucking everything that moves but heavens almighty if a women can count the people she has sex with using more than one finger. It is clear this is shifting towards a better and fairer equilibrium, these are just small indicators of it.
To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves.
That is right. That is why I stressed the point that it is MY view on things. I'm totally aware that people can have different views on that. This is the nature of things, however, and I can't really do anything about it. (And why should I? I'm totally fine with that) Love is a very complex "construct", if you want so, and very individual as well.
But I also never said that a candle-light dinner is no expression of love or "worse", it is just different. In which way depends on the human being. For me, a candle-light dinner is very intimate as well, but says something different than a kiss for example...
I agree! BUT, an alien will most likely have similar, if not the exact same feelings and other ways to express these. Maybe they feel the things we will when we kiss each other, but they just do a handshake then? Interesting topic .
Great conclusion. I really hear you and I feel like, after rereading my post, I really did not respect this in the first place. I understand that there are different types of people with different symbols, however this does imply that they have symbolizations(And you pretty much should assume that everyone has them because it is just...well, without, you could not judge anything whatsever. But this a WHOLE NEW topic!) AND I also stated earlier that this is "my definition of things". I was implying that others have their view, however, I wanted to give you guys my view.
The reason I have to assume things is that I have no "scientific evidence".. However, I am not forcing anybody to believe what I believe. I have my view and to everyone that wants to come close to me I make clear how I feel. If they disagree, I respect it. If they agree, I respect it as well. I don't know if "believe" is the right term either, as it is more another feeling. Words are difficult!
But still, you have pretty solid points that make me think even more about that topic and I may have to adjust my thoughts, at least when it comes to the terms of "ultimate expression", as it is quite true that people have very unique views here.
Oh, and it is NO question for me that women and men are treated equally here. I don't see any reason to treat them differently.
P.S: These kind of discussions are what make this forum very unique(at least for me). Never had these before in any other online-community. I aprreciate it, thanks a bunch!
Oh and I love how we perfectly prove that things can be very complicated even if they look easy at the first look.
Doesn't really surprise me from what I know about the educational system in the US. I expect that youths with poor or semi-poor parents have to work their ass off to get any kind of education, this is sort of the "easy" way to get forward in life. I think the US government should look at this and their crimerate and maybe make it a little bit easier (economically) to get an education in the US.
Before anyone reads my post, I want to make a thing clear: This is my very personal view on things. I see things like that because I thought about them for a vey long time, as I find that quite important.
I'm not judging anybody or saying that they are "less" worth it or something like that, I am just saying MY personal view on these things and how they affect ME and why I think what I think. If anyone feels offended, I feel deeply sorry as this is not what I intended to do.
On August 02 2011 17:39 sunprince wrote: When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
You compare having sex someone to creating some stuff for someone?
We have a complete different view on things and thus we can't really discuss that. No wonder you disagree with me. Sex is by my standards nothing like writing a book, a song or performing one on stage, or drawing a portrait of someone. By the expression of feelings I meant the expression of feelings for somebody else. If you do these things for money, you pretty much erase the possibility because it is no longer anything special, but just another "service" you could buy, it just loses the meaning it had.
On August 02 2011 17:49 G_Wen wrote: ...
Look, I already said that it is okay for me as long as it is okay for them.
For me, sex is just nothing like "Hey could you do me a favor and have sex with me?" No, I have a complete different view on that. I don't go into a restaurant and ask the waitress for sex before having dinner.
I could never have sex "just for fun". It's just not how I see things.
Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
Let me explain why I think so: Why do we talk to each other? Because we can't read each other's mind, right? So when we talk to each other, you hope to get the information that I have(my mind and thoughts), and I hope the same for you.
Nnow, when you start talking bullshit and not what you think and not what I want to hear, I don't trust you anymore. Your talking won't mean anything to me because I know I can't be sure whether it is true or not. Sure, this state can change, but for that typical moment I don't believe what you say.
Now it comes to love. Feelings. How can we express these? Facial expressions, words, kissing etc and sex and anything related to it. What happens when you start laughing for no reason, say things you don't mean, kiss everybody you see and have sex without emotional connections? Nobody will believe that you are happy when you laugh, nobody will trust a word you say, nobody will have feelings when you make such kind of acts (e.g. kissing for no reason, having sex without even caring about feelings etc.)
I know that this is a harsh way to see it, but as I value the "extraterrestrial" over anything else, I try to respect them as much as possible. I could never have sex without "a reason" behind it. I could never kiss someone without "backing it up" with proper feelings, I would never tell you that I'd like you if I didn't. Therefore, I strongly connect these things to people's mind, feelings, thoughts and their overall "human consciousness" and everything that can not be measured in numbers.
It is really hard do express, even in words, and the whole topic of communication, feelings and the "possible expressions" for that is very interesting and eversince I thought and read about it I can't just simply say "Sex is just sex, a kiss is just a kiss, and saying "I love you" doesn't mean anything".
By saying i'm romantic I didn't mean I'm a casanova, I'm referring to the age of romance as the counterpart to enlightment. And because I know, as a rational human being, this sounds pretty stupid, I said "romantic idiotic f****tard". It is fully understandable that people disagree with me but thats just my 2 cents. I don't disagree with the enlightment on the religion part, but I strongly disagree with it when it comes to feelings, sex and other stuff.
And please, I already said that I don't judge them as worse human beings. It's just that I wouldn't trust them in anything related to the issue.
EDIT: fixed some typos. Sorry for my horrible english.
1) Your English is fine. Europeans are awesome for being so bilingual. 2) You have a fairly solid point of view, and I'm sure many people in the world share your views.
However, you are making a lot of assumptions that pretty much lead right into your conclusion. It is those assumptions that are under attack, not the conclusion.
For example, you mention that sex is the ultimate expression of love
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
I would agree that if sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love, then it can be cheapened if it is over done or done carelessly. However, would you not agree that this is also a personal matter. For some people, sex is the strongest expression for love. For others, a romantic candle-lit dinner. For others, sharing a beautiful moment. For others, going on an adventure together. For others, having dedication and trust in a relationship. To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves. It is quite arrogant to say "Hey, this HAS to be the BEST way for YOU to feel love". It is very much an individual matter.
Let us take a kiss for example. An alien from the outside world will not know what the purpose of a kiss on the cheek is. The only reason we see it as an act of compassion is because we have symbolized it to be so. There is no real reason for it otherwise. Same with a handshake. No other animal shakes hands upon greeting each other. It is something that came up culturally and it stuck. Sex, in essence, is just a physical act. Yes it feels good, there is evolutionary reasons for that. Reproduction does not even need to be counted here because intercourse does not mean offspring production (contraceptives and such).
So why are we revering the act of sexual intercourse? Is it because it feels good? Is it because it can potentially cause reproduction? But most importantly, why is this the ultimate display of love? You can create children through In Vitro Fertilization. You can feel good by working out. Are those acts of love?
Here is what I think. I think that people recognize different things with different symbolism. Some people feel like to be loved is to have sex. Some people feel like sharing a beautiful moment together is love. And people should look for others with similar symbolism as themselves. One type of people are not more correct than the other, in the same way that a culture that shakes hands is not better or worse than a culture that bows. Similar acts symbolized differently. There just has to be a mutual understanding.
You do this a few times in your post where you make assumptions and draw conclusions, and defend them using your assumptions. But it is your assumptions that are being challenged.
On a side note, its funny how 90% of the people against this are calling these women despicable and whores, yet say nothing about the men. Society says its okay for men to go around fucking everything that moves but heavens almighty if a women can count the people she has sex with using more than one finger. It is clear this is shifting towards a better and fairer equilibrium, these are just small indicators of it.
To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves.
That is right. That is why I stressed the point that it is MY view on things. I'm totally aware that people can have different views on that. This is the nature of things, however, and I can't really do anything about it. (And why should I? I'm totally fine with that) Love is a very complex "construct", if you want so, and very individual as well.
But I also never said that a candle-light dinner is no expression of love or "worse", it is just different. In which way depends on the human being. For me, a candle-light dinner is very intimate as well, but says something different than a kiss for example...
Let us take a kiss for example. (...)
I agree! BUT, an alien will most likely have similar, if not the exact same feelings and other ways to express these. Maybe they feel the things we will when we kiss each other, but they just do a handshake then? Interesting topic .
Here is what I think. (...)
Great conclusion. I really hear you and I feel like, after rereading my post, I really did not respect this in the first place. I understand that there are different types of people with different symbols, however this does imply that they have symbolizations(And you pretty much should assume that everyone has them because it is just...well, without, you could not judge anything whatsever. But this a WHOLE NEW topic!) AND I also stated earlier that this is "my definition of things". I was implying that others have their view, however, I wanted to give you guys my view.
The reason I have to assume things is that I have no "scientific evidence".. However, I am not forcing anybody to believe what I believe. I have my view and to everyone that wants to come close to me I make clear how I feel. If they disagree, I respect it. If they agree, I respect it as well. I don't know if "believe" is the right term either, as it is more another feeling. Words are difficult!
But still, you have pretty solid points that make me think even more about that topic and I may have to adjust my thoughts, at least when it comes to the terms of "ultimate expression", as it is quite true that people have very unique views here.
Oh, and it is NO question for me that women and men are treated equally here. I don't see any reason to treat them differently.
P.S: These kind of discussions are what make this forum very unique(at least for me). Never had these before in any other online-community. I aprreciate it, thanks a bunch!
Oh and I love how we perfectly prove that things can be very complicated even if they look easy at the first look.
you two made my day... <3
Yep that was beautiful and not quite how I expected this thread to go.
I doubt making this illegal would stop women from turning to this if they're desperate enough. Fortunately in Australia as a citizen you have access to a interest free debt from the government on top of a reduced amount for your university fees which is then repaid off in parts once your salary is high enough.
It is pretty damn depressing to see that women and some men have to turn to selling themselves to others to pay off their university and living expenses.
On August 02 2011 20:03 Renzin wrote: I doubt making this illegal would stop women from turning to this if they're desperate enough. Fortunately in Australia as a citizen you have access to a interest free debt from the government on top of a reduced amount for your university fees which is then repaid off in parts once your salary is high enough.
It is pretty damn depressing to see that women and some men have to turn to selling themselves to others to pay off their university and living expenses.
remember, prostitutes don't self themselves. They sell their time. Like any other hired person.
I'm surprised more college girls aren't doing this...
A week ago, she boarded a plane to Florida to spend the weekend with a 30-something banker she met on SugarDaddie.com. He told her his house was undergoing a renovation and instead drove her to a nearby hotel, where they spent the night together.
"Yeah, sure, he could have been a psycho, a killer," says Jennifer over breakfast. At nine o'clock in the morning, she's in a full face of makeup. On her profile she describes herself as a yoga teacher and personal trainer. "Barring rape or death, what's the worst thing that could happen to me?"
At the end of the weekend, the man handed her 10 crisp $100 bills. They next plan to rendezvous in Orlando in August.
The ridiculousness is just ASTOUNDING it hurts my brain.
Same. The rest of the stuff about the borderline prostitution is plausible to me. "Do what you gotta to do," to a degree. But the fact that they're risking their lives with potential fucking serial killers (like, if I was one, the site sounds perfect in so many ways...) is what gets me. You must be pretty fucking desparate (or dumb as fuck) to do that to get rid of your student debt.
Reminds me of the Sex is Op thread (sex is soooo OP that rich guys have to pay broke college girls for it). What are these girls thinking? Obviously they are thinking they don't care about what anyone else thinks because there is money involved. If I had a girl friend that told me she did this to pay off student loans.... Well I guess she wouldn't be my girlfriend anymore.
oldest occupation known to man. this will never stop and they should legalize it. funny that they try delude themselves that they are not selling their body for cash. and deny that the term prostitute applies to them
I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
True about the STD part, but the IRS forces you to list illegal income for tax purposes, though you don't have to state exactly how you got the money.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
Because thats your opinion, just because it cannot be changed doesn't make it right or wrong or unbiased. But there are plenty of people on this planet that don't think its right to take money for sex (for porn or prostitution, cause really whats the difference). You say "I could never understand?" Why? Is sex really like going to the grocery store for you? Or is it actually important who, where, when, and why it is happening?
"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."
i lol'd she's obviously trying to talk it down but it's just plain prostitution...
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
If my daughter (I have two) turns to prostitution then it must be either because she really likes the idea (there are people...) or because she sees no other way out of a bad situation. In that case, I'd like her to be as safe as possible doing that. Which can only be achieved with legalized prostitution. Try to look from the point of view of the prostitute before you judge them.
In her profile on the site, Taylor describes herself as "a full-time college student studying psychology and looking to meet someone to help pay the bills."
Well there's the problem. I have no idea what job she thought she could have gotten with that type of degree. Should have taken some Engineering or practical science course.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
Because thats your opinion, just because it cannot be changed doesn't make it right or wrong or unbiased. But there are plenty of people on this planet that don't think its right to take money for sex (for porn or prostitution, cause really whats the difference). You say "I could never understand?" Why? Is sex really like going to the grocery store for you? Or is it actually important who, where, when, and why it is happening?
It's not because it's not important for me with who, where, when and why I have sex, but because it's not somebody else's business what you do with your body and your time. Prostitution should be regulated though to prevent mass STD transmission just like you have sanitary norms for public catering so you may expect to not get some disease from food you eat there.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
No one forces you to be prostitute, if you are only able to work as a one you still have option to live on street and die from starvation. But better to sell sex for money than die, right? And better to do it in legit brothels with regular medical examination and employment contract than in some underground shithole with junkie pimp and no protection.
Frankly the "paying for the studies" part is kind of a lie. There are probably some that do that just to pay for studies, especially in US. But here we have basically free university education that you can easily afford with even average part time job without taking any loans and quite a lot of female students still have sex for money.
As for legalization, it should be legal so taxes can be collected. Prostitution is present even if it is illegal, so there is not much point anyway.
On August 02 2011 21:01 BlackFlag wrote: great system you have, where people have to prostitute themselves so they can learn something advanced.
This world and their people make me so sick at times.
I agree, this is disgusting... I'm scared that in 10 years, mentality "evolved" and this stuff become more accepted among student and old perverts. 10 - 20k in debt is quite big when you're studying and have to pay bills. Thoses girls were screwed right from the start. The fact that some "arrangement" of the kind remain their best option make me want to vomit. I really don't like how things are evolving. So now you're slaved by debt right from college. I wonder what'll happen when debt will arrive even earlier. I hope this subject will receive lots of attention as this is something that have to be fought against in my opinion. I mean how can we legally let this happen ? How can this be perfectly legal ? Maybe it's better than nothing, as they'll be force to go into some underground system that might mean more risks if some "legal" "secured" websites didn't exist. This article is about what happen in USA but I remember hearing some similar stories in France, where student girls have to prostitute themselves in order to pay their bills and studies. I hope that phenomen won't spread but the debt has a bright future as it will gradually increase over the years. Seriously, that make me sick...
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
If my daughter (I have two) turns to prostitution then it must be either because she really likes the idea (there are people...) or because she sees no other way out of a bad situation. In that case, I'd like her to be as safe as possible doing that. Which can only be achieved with legalized prostitution. Try to look from the point of view of the prostitute before you judge them.
That's exactly the point I was trying to prove. That people should be shocked by the facts girls have to resort to prostitution to finance studies, instead of taking it lightly saying "oh it's better if it's legal so they get STD tested etc".
Obviously, if you ask anyone "if you daughter had to prostitute herself, would you prefer that she does it in a legal as safe as possible way, or that she does it in a filthy brothel ?" the answer will be the legal way. There isn't even a discussion about this.
The question we should ask ourselves is why our modern societies reached such a desperate situation that college girls have to sell their bodies only to be able to pay their college fees.
edit : glad to see the two posters above being sickened by this "find an arrangement" thing. It's really disgusting.
I think its absurd the author of this article had so many words to say on the subject honestly. The scenario of young woman having sex with older men because they have money has been a fact of life virtually since currency has existed. The only thing of note is that as we find ourselves in the age of information, Its easier for people to pursue that relationship via the internet.
It's a sad fact of life that college is expensive. Given that, I dont see debt as a reason to sell your body. The article stated most woman have an average of 8,000 dollars in credit card debt. Here's a tip, stop trying to live beyond your means. Most people in the world spend money on luxuries, and excess. When you're throwing money away on clothes, alcohol at bars, and other things you dont really need, then the debt you've accumulated from school becomes another brick in the wall.
Granted I think the article puffs this up as a bigger deal than it really is. As I mentioned at the start of my post, powerful old men attract younger woman who has little of value outside their looks. Obviously this trend occurs for a reason. And if thats what that old man, and that young girl decide to do with their time, it's on their shoulders and no one else.
Sure there are extremes for both arguments. Some woman have no problem in effect selling themselves, and others feel they dont have a choice. But at the end of the day if you don't take responsibility for your actions then you bring nothing but pain into your life through unconscious choice.
The overwhelming majority of students handle the debt they've accumulated themselves. Ya, it sucks. But eventually you can pay it off on your own. The core of this article just highlights the problems we face as a society. I'm a believer in merit rising above all else. People are inherently good, at heart. I know this because I see evidence of it every single day, often times from unlikely individuals. And I think all people see that good in all other people too, they just bury it in ignorance because of fear.
In summary Money, some people have a lot of it and others very little. To think that because you are not wealthy you must sacrifice who you are to acquire some is essentially denial of the power you possess as a person. And the only way to remedy that affliction completely is to embody yourself. Be who you are. Not the things you own, or the troubles you face.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
Because thats your opinion, just because it cannot be changed doesn't make it right or wrong or unbiased. But there are plenty of people on this planet that don't think its right to take money for sex (for porn or prostitution, cause really whats the difference). You say "I could never understand?" Why? Is sex really like going to the grocery store for you? Or is it actually important who, where, when, and why it is happening?
It's not because it's not important for me with who, where, when and why I have sex, but because it's not somebody else's business what you do with your body and your time. Prostitution should be regulated though to prevent mass STD transmission just like you have sanitary norms for public catering so you may expect to not get some disease from food you eat there.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
No one forces you to be prostitute, if you are only able to work as a one you still have option to live on street and die from starvation. But better to sell sex for money than die, right? And better to do it in legit brothels with regular medical examination and employment contract than in some underground shithole with junkie pimp and no protection.
I understand personal relationships are no ones business. But this is Business. Literally. I agree that prostitutes in general get a bad rap, and there is nothing wrong with having sex. But look at it from my point of view (even if you don't like it or agree with it). The guy paying for sex is weak, and should be spending his time (which he obviously has a lot of because he is rich) finding a partner (I dunno someone he doesn't have to pay to live with LOL). The girl taking money for sex is weak because she doesn't want to actually have to work and find a job to pay the bills (THAT she has accumulated on her own, knowing 100% that she would have to pay them, and there are ways to go to school without selling your body. Just because its not easy, doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Not to mention she may even regret doing it when she actually realizes that people she chooses to associate with later in life actually care about this sort of thing (because sex is important). They way I'm looking at it, its a lose-lose situation for both parties thats perpetuated by a system that allows it (IE the hook-up website). In the end the rich guy is still lonely (yet sexually satisfied for the moment) and the girl pays some bills (which she could have done some other way but made up excuses to have sex instead).
I hope you don't take this as me bashing you or anything, I just actually want to discuss this and see how people feel.
Edit:
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
But its not : ).
Oh and I really like Sporadics post above me. The last paragraph summed up how I feel I think.
This is standard in Romania. I'd be shocked if i DIDN'T find a good looking lower-middle class girl without a sugar daddy here. Oh, and it goes both ways too. Guys work out at the gym non stop, do modelling and whore themselves out to rich cougars so they can get expense paid trips to exotic countries and monthly allowance.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
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."
This idiot is just splitting hairs with her "definition" of what a whore is. In the end, she's lying to herself to make herself feel better about what she's doing. And while she might believe what she says, others most likely will not.
You speak the truth. If her relationships with the men were really based around providing a friendship then they ought to stop charging the men after a certain point. It is entirely about getting paid despite what she says.
This has been going on for a while now, and most women will freely admit if they got married for the money or the man. Sucks, but that's why we have prenups.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
On August 02 2011 21:23 endy wrote: The question we should ask ourselves is why our modern societies reached such a desperate situation that college girls have to sell their bodies only to be able to pay their college fees.
They really don't. They're largely choosing to do so on their own. These are girls at good universities (in line with the type of girls you find at high-end escort agencies), not girls who are impoverished. For the most part, students at such universities are from middle class or better socioeconomic backgrounds, and typically have their educations funded by their parents. Additionally, government and institutional financial aid is available to virtually all students.
In general, these are not girls who are being forced into prostitution. They are of above-average intellect and socioeconomic standing and even if not capable of accessing family funds can typically acquire reasonable paying part or full time jobs (something made even easier given that they're also generally physically attractive). Even if for some reason they do need more income than that can provide, less questionable forms of sex work such as stripping exist too. They are choosing to be sugar babies because it is easier than the alternatives, of having to do work-study or pick up a real job.
I actually have a friend who does something like this, and by her estimation, the majority of her peers are not girls who are desperate to pay for college. Rather, they're well-off girls who grew up spending on daddy's credit cards and now need a more 'independent' source of income. They tend to enjoy the high-class dates and romantic getaways as much or more than the actual spending money that they get out of it. And contrary to the picture presented by the article, not all of the clientele are dirty old men. Some of them are powerful, highly desirable and high status men who simply choose an escort/sugar baby arrangement out of a combination of laziness/need for discretion/unusual kinks.
On August 02 2011 21:23 endy wrote: The question we should ask ourselves is why our modern societies reached such a desperate situation that college girls have to sell their bodies only to be able to pay their college fees.
This is far and a way a rare situation where this is actually the case. There are systems like financial aid, grants from organizations, and scholarships. Individuals whom go to the most expensive schools often times come from a family with money themselves. When a less fortunate student attends a university they get help. And if they're going to an expensive school chances are good they will make at least decent money upon graduating. Community college is very cheap. Going to a state school in which you have residency, is very cheap. The depiction of these girls on these sites the article gives is a stretch to say the least.
If the girl does in fact need to make money from sex, she is either looking for a quick buck, or simply living beyond her means.
So if I could answer your question with another question. Do we blame society for putting an emphasis on status (money, car, where you live, what you wear); or do we blame the individual for buying into bullshit?
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
Are you merging 2 very different cases into one ? Be cause it seems you do.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
They are adults who made their choices. Do you think every girl/women in desperation resorts to prostitution to solve their financial issues? I know a lot of girls who would rather be in crippling debt, work 2~3 jobs, or even halt their education than sell their bodies. It might feel like to these girls that they're left with no other options, but that's not really the case is it? Ultimately, they chose their path as prostitutes and they have to deal with the consequences.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another.
Seriously, I would never date anyone for any other reason but their compatibility with me. It is disgusting that people would lower themselves in this way, but paying for and selling sex. While I don't deny that money and sex are attractive qualities in a partner, they are effectively perks, especially money. This does not make people happy, it is simply a means to an end. The mere fact that some women could lie to this degree is horrifying, and it makes me question the degree to which I am being lied to by any girl I am with.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
They are adults who made their choices. Do you think every girl/women in desperation resorts to prostitution to solve their financial issues? I know a lot of girls who would rather be in crippling debt, work 2~3 jobs, or even halt their education than sell their bodies. It might feel like to these girls that they're left with no other options, but that's not really the case is it? Ultimately, they chose their path as prostitutes and they have to deal with the consequences.
Yeah, I guess you're right. It's just that using the "consentment" word is putting dirtyness in a noble concept. Have sex with your wife, and have sex with a prostitue, you can say they were both consenting but actually their "consentment" really is of a different kind. That's what i wanted to mean but you're right. I just feel like it's using the same word for 2 different meanings. And those girls could act differently but the easy money is corrupting souls.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
Because thats your opinion, just because it cannot be changed doesn't make it right or wrong or unbiased. But there are plenty of people on this planet that don't think its right to take money for sex (for porn or prostitution, cause really whats the difference). You say "I could never understand?" Why? Is sex really like going to the grocery store for you? Or is it actually important who, where, when, and why it is happening?
It's not because it's not important for me with who, where, when and why I have sex, but because it's not somebody else's business what you do with your body and your time. Prostitution should be regulated though to prevent mass STD transmission just like you have sanitary norms for public catering so you may expect to not get some disease from food you eat there.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
No one forces you to be prostitute, if you are only able to work as a one you still have option to live on street and die from starvation. But better to sell sex for money than die, right? And better to do it in legit brothels with regular medical examination and employment contract than in some underground shithole with junkie pimp and no protection.
I understand personal relationships are no ones business. But this is Business. Literally. I agree that prostitutes in general get a bad rap, and there is nothing wrong with having sex. But look at it from my point of view (even if you don't like it or agree with it). The guy paying for sex is weak, and should be spending his time (which he obviously has a lot of because he is rich) finding a partner (I dunno someone he doesn't have to pay to live with LOL). The girl taking money for sex is weak because she doesn't want to actually have to work and find a job to pay the bills (THAT she has accumulated on her own, knowing 100% that she would have to pay them, and there are ways to go to school without selling your body. Just because its not easy, doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Not to mention she may even regret doing it when she actually realizes that people she chooses to associate with later in life actually care about this sort of thing (because sex is important). They way I'm looking at it, its a lose-lose situation for both parties thats perpetuated by a system that allows it (IE the hook-up website). In the end the rich guy is still lonely (yet sexually satisfied for the moment) and the girl pays some bills (which she could have done some other way but made up excuses to have sex instead).
I hope you don't take this as me bashing you or anything, I just actually want to discuss this and see how people feel.
Underlined the parts that I think are wrong. At first you have no right at all to decide what's right and what's wrong for other person if they don't meddle with your life. Secondly most people are rich because they work a lot and that's exact opposite of having a lot of free time. And the statement about sex is pretty questionable, it may be important for you but it's not for a lot of people and there is no objective reason for it to be important, only personal beliefs and religious/ethical views.
It doesn't bug me to be honest. Those girls were banging just as many nasty dudes in college as they are now to pay off the loans.
College is the new high school. Kids go just because it's the social norm, not because they're motivated to study something. It devalues the degrees they get. Not that the useless artsy degrees were useful in the first place, but you know. They got this pipe dream of being some boring baller white collar office slave. But no drive to make it happen. May as well stick to your first grade career choice of an Astronaut.
Of all the people I know who went to 4 yr state colleges(definitely over a few hundred). Only about a dozen are truly making it. And they do have it damn good, but they were the smart ones who knew how to take advantage of their time in college. Others are working retail jobs, driving the same cars they did 10 years ago in high school, complaining on facebook about the economy, and can't do anything fun because they can't afford it due to debt and bills.
IMO kids should be motivated to partake in skilled labor careers as well. But for some reason it's looked down on. Look down on it all you want dude. I do hard work daily, it's fulfilling and pays damn well. My technical school loans were paid off inside of a year. I plan to retire comfortably (not baller status, just comfortably) by the time many peoples careers start to kick into high gear.
On August 02 2011 21:23 endy wrote: The question we should ask ourselves is why our modern societies reached such a desperate situation that college girls have to sell their bodies only to be able to pay their college fees.
They really don't. They're largely choosing to do so on their own.
These are girls at good universities (in line with the type of girls you find at high-end escort agencies), not girls who are impoverished. For the most part, students at such universities are from middle class or better socioeconomic backgrounds, and typically have their educations funded by their parents. Additionally, government and institutional financial aid is available to virtually all students.
In general, these are not girls who are being forced into prostitution. They are of above-average intellect and socioeconomic standing and even if not capable of accessing family funds can typically acquire reasonable paying part or full time jobs (something made even easier given that they're also generally physically attractive). They are choosing to make these arrangements because it is easier than the alternatives, of having to do work-study or pick up a real job.
On August 02 2011 21:23 endy wrote: The question we should ask ourselves is why our modern societies reached such a desperate situation that college girls have to sell their bodies only to be able to pay their college fees.
This is far and a way a rare situation where this is actually the case. There are systems like financial aid, grants from organizations, and scholarships. Individuals whom go to the most expensive schools often times come from a family with money themselves. When a less fortunate student attends a university they get help. And if they're going to an expensive school chances are good they will make at least decent money upon graduating. Community college is very cheap. Going to a state school in which you have residency, is very cheap. The depiction of these girls on these sites the article gives is a stretch to say the least.
If the girl does in fact need to make money from sex, she is either looking for a quick buck, or simply living beyond her means.
So if I could answer your question with another question. Do we blame society for putting an emphasis on status (money, car, where you live, what you wear); or do we blame the individual for buying into bullshit?
To answer both your messages. I don't have statistics on how many financial aids and scholarships are given, so I based my reasoning on what was in the article :
The past few years have taken an especially brutal toll on the plans and expectations of 20-somethings. As unemployment rates tick steadily higher, starting salaries have plummeted. Meanwhile, according to Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a professor of psychology at Clark University, about 85 percent of the class of 2011 will likely move back in with their parents during some period of their post-college years, compared with 40 percent a decade ago.
Besides moving back home, many 20-somethings are beginning their adult lives shouldering substantial amounts of student loan debt. According to Mark Kantrowitz, who publishes the financial aid websites Fastweb.com and Finaid.org, while the average 2011 graduate finished school with about $27,200 in debt, many are straining to pay off significantly greater loans.
These are the points I want to discuss. When I see that that the average 2011 graduate finished school with a 27k$ debt, I really don't think these girls are "simply living beyond their means" as you're saying. They're just trying to pay their college tuition fees. Some of them, and I agree, could try harder to find a part-time job, not the majority of them. Massive unemployment is not only due to people being lazy.
Regarding your new question, I do think we don't blame society enough for putting an emphasis on status, and I'm sure most of people here will agree. (just look at the thread about the guy who sold his kidney and used the money to buy an iPad). But this new question is only relevant if we agree that these girls were living above their means, which is generally not the case.
On August 02 2011 20:35 Evilmystic wrote: I could never understand, how can be people against legal prostitution. The only problem I see with this particular case is that the girls don't pay taxes from their earnings and probably don't undergo medical tests for STD often enough.
I hope you will read this post again if your daughter has to prostitute herself to finance her studies. Oh wait, you won't even know that she gets fucked by an 80 year old pervert.
In my opinion the real discussion is not whether prostitution should be legal or not, it's about how shocking it is that college girls have to sell their bodies to finance their studies. And I am extremely shocked.
If my daughter (I have two) turns to prostitution then it must be either because she really likes the idea (there are people...) or because she sees no other way out of a bad situation. In that case, I'd like her to be as safe as possible doing that. Which can only be achieved with legalized prostitution. Try to look from the point of view of the prostitute before you judge them.
That's exactly the point I was trying to prove. That people should be shocked by the facts girls have to resort to prostitution to finance studies, instead of taking it lightly saying "oh it's better if it's legal so they get STD tested etc".
Obviously, if you ask anyone "if you daughter had to prostitute herself, would you prefer that she does it in a legal as safe as possible way, or that she does it in a filthy brothel ?" the answer will be the legal way. There isn't even a discussion about this.
The question we should ask ourselves is why our modern societies reached such a desperate situation that college girls have to sell their bodies only to be able to pay their college fees.
edit : glad to see the two posters above being sickened by this "find an arrangement" thing. It's really disgusting.
I pointed out that the college fees part is not really the core. A lot of them would do it just for the money anyway, as is happening here. I would say it is more about cultural changes in society regarding sex than about college funding (which in US should really be addressed anyway).
Honestly; these's girls probably have it a lot better than guys in the same desperate situation. They have sex with gross people a couple of times a month. A guy in the same situation either has to work 15+ hours a day or resort to dangerous crimes. I don't get how anyone can feel bad for these girls. If they want to they even have the two options guys have. They could work 15 hours a day 6 days a week to pay off the debts, this is completely their own choice.
It's even organised through a corporation, automatically matched up and everything. And to everyone saying "but it's dangerous, they could kill/rape you". Yea they could. If you ask a real estate agent over to your house you could kill her as well. You know what the correlation is? Because of how it's organised, if it happens, they know who did it, they know where he lives, they even know his credit card number. There's a lot of far more dangerous jobs out there where you don't have every little bit of information about the people you meet up with.
and should be spending his time (which he obviously has a lot of because he is rich)
What? Most rich people work their asses off and the reason they participate in these sort of transactions is because they have no time outside of their job to find a proper partner. What are you smoking? Not everyone rich is like the idiots you see in hollywood movies that inherited all their money and just do nothing for the rest of their lives. Honestly, those are probably amongst the minority.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
Are you merging 2 very different cases into one ? Be cause it seems you do.
I highly doubt there was actual urgent need to prostitute herself. US is kind of bad with its safety net, so it is somewhat possible, but in any other first world country prostitution by its citizens is voluntary (or really forced by physical force and that of course is and should be illegal) as no matter how poor you are you get enough money to survive reasonably well .
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another.
Lol. we have free will, anyone knows that. You can steal from that shop, or you can walk away. You can work for a few years to save up before going to college, or you can somehow ... SOMEHOW accumulate a lot of debt, and end of prostituting yourself???????
A lot of decision-making gone wrong. Speaks for how the wrong economics of the American society (job scarcity, expensive college, lack of government support etc) is. For the kids going to college on their own money, abandoned by their parents - then something's gone wrong with the parents as well.
Anyhow, you have a choice and the choice to prostitute one self is a choice. Don't say it's dirty and all that afterwards. No one forced you
On August 02 2011 21:39 TheGiz wrote: While I don't deny that money and sex are attractive qualities in a partner, they are effectively perks, especially money.
I know you did say especially money, but I really don't like the idea that sex is just a perk in a relationship. The physical side of a relationship is a huge part of it and if the sex isn't decent then the relationship often falls apart. It's very difficult to maintain a relationship that's not sexual, or where the sex is just really bad, and I think it's one of the most important parts of any relationship.
On August 02 2011 21:42 Evilmystic wrote: And the statement about sex is pretty questionable, it may be important for you but it's not for a lot of people and there is no objective reason for it to be important, only personal beliefs and religious/ethical views.
same problem, but I'd say this takes it even farther - there is definitely an objective reason for sex to be important. It's the one thing every human being has evolved to do on the planet. The entire biological reason for having a relationship in the first place is to have sex and babies. How can you even think about saying there's no reason for sex to be important besides 'personal beliefs'?
Anyways, as far as the actual article goes (lol), I actually agree with a lot of the stuff you've posted so far Evilmystic, especially that prostitution should be legal and regulated. I don't understand how anyone could be against legal prostitution, really - as long as it's the girl's choice I don't see how it's different from anything else. Your body is only as important to you as you make it, and if you don't mind having sex with people why shouldn't you do it for money? I'm an engineering student and I tell people I do it 'cause I like math and building things. So why is it different for a girl to say she's a prostitute and she does it 'cause she likes sex?
That being said, what I think about prostitution isn't really relevant to whether the site the article was talking about is actually prostitution or not. And I'd almost say it has to be. Straight up, some of the stories those women told were just 'I went to this guy's house, spent the evening and got some cash in hand.' What's prostitution if not that? To be fair it's clouded because a lot of the women will say, like the last one did, that they don't just do it with anyone. But at the same time, what's stopping some chick turning tricks on the street corner from turning down one of the guys who stops? Nothing but desperation. And that's really the only difference. The girls who are paying off student loans just have time to shop around. So yeah, I think they're prostituting themselves, but at the same time I don't have any problem with it and I don't think any less of people who do it.
EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out that 'necessity' for some of these girls doesn't seem to mean what it should. It's not at all 'necessary' for you to complete your degree by the time you're 23. If you've got financial issues, you can work for a few years before you go to school. You've got a lot of life left to live. When people in this thread say 'necessary' it seems like you're saying 'necessary if you want to graduate in four years free of debt and not having taken a bit of time to save some money between high school and university'. Those really aren't the same at all.
For the kids going to college on their own money, abandoned by their parents - then something's gone wrong with the parents as well.
This is a pretty ignorant statement by itself. Families below middle class just struggle to even buy enough food/pay off their bills while working 50-60 hours a week, they simply cannot afford college for their children. Not everyone is born into a middle class family.
I really don't see a problem here - the girls are providing a service, the men are paying for entertainment. The fact some people in this thread believe this is disgusting is irrelevant - if you believe this is wrong then don't do it yourself, but don't criticize other people for using their skills, looks, genitalia etc.
I personally believe that it's disgusting that beautiful women get paid(a lot!) for modeling and commercial jobs in which everything they do is stand around looking like they always had. Still, I don't see people screaming about it, like they do when it comes to prostitution. I don't openly walk up and down the square preaching them to be incarcerated.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
I feel dirty after lying to a friend, we should illegalize lying! The girl knew what she was doing, nobody forced her to do what she did. If she cannot afford a college and is not good enough for a scholarship, then she can always chose not to go onto a college. (I'm not defending that ridiculous system, btw. Just saying that it was her active choice.)
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
I feel bad after working an entire day, but I just have to do it in order to survive, why are jobs even legal?
On August 02 2011 21:39 TheGiz wrote: Beaches and Shores
Seriously, I would never date anyone for any other reason but their compatibility with me. It is disgusting that people would lower themselves in this way, but paying for and selling sex. While I don't deny that money and sex are attractive qualities in a partner, they are effectively perks, especially money. This does not make people happy, it is simply a means to an end. The mere fact that some women could lie to this degree is horrifying, and it makes me question the degree to which I am being lied to by any girl I am with.
Neither party actually looks for relationship, but one for sex/act and the other for money. It is means to an end for them. I find it strange that you find that horrifying as it is the world works and worked for millenia.
On August 02 2011 22:18 JustPassingBy wrote: If she cannot afford a college and is not good enough for a scholarship, then she can always chose not to go onto a college.
Again 'unable to afford college' is a bit of a mislabel. 'Unable to immediately afford college' is at the same time more accurate and less disheartening.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another.
Lol. we have free will, anyone knows that. You can steal from that shop, or you can walk away. You can work for a few years to save up before going to college, or you can somehow ... SOMEHOW accumulate a lot of debt, and end of prostituting yourself???????
A lot of decision-making gone wrong. Speaks for how the wrong economics of the American society (job scarcity, expensive college, lack of government support etc) is. For the kids going to college on their own money, abandoned by their parents - then something's gone wrong with the parents as well.
Anyhow, you have a choice and the choice to prostitute one self is a choice. Don't say it's dirty and all that afterwards. No one forced you
We have free will sure, but the reason why most people resort to crime or prostitution is because the alternative seems that much harder. This border is not unique to every person, so somebody might be more willing to be a prostitute than somebody else. I think it is an issue in this particular case because the girls described in the article is displayed as otherwise normal college youths prostituting themselves to pay off debts. Maybe the educational system is making it too hard for poor people to get an education in the first place?
I bet the same people that have moral objections about this have no problems watching porn. And porn is much more problematic imo because it is bascially prostitution that is being filmed and then distributed for everyone to see.
I see nor read any reason why we should feel "sorry" for this so called ladies. This is their choice and there really is no difference between this and prostitution, student loans you say ?? Yeah that's why the last girl was wearing a $300 dress and the "rest" of the fee went to her loan. Why not save everything ? Because she knows she can get more money with her next client or her next visit. People do things that are "inmoral" from a societies point of view and they try to justify it by any means to be able to look in the mirror, like the guy that said "I like college girls cause I feel like a college debt is a good debt, I fell I'm helping" hahaha please how do you know the "lady" is using your money for that ? This is no different than an escort service or going to the bunny ranch in Vegas, prostitution is prostitution, it is the act of paying a fee in money in exchange for sex. Don't get me wrong I think if 2 adults consent in having sex and paying afterwards it's all good as long as there's no force (rape) or kids (illegal prostitution) involved you should be able to do with your money what you want but let's call things by their real name and stop trying to justify it.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
I feel dirty after lying to a friend, we should illegalize lying! The girl knew what she was doing, nobody forced her to do what she did. If she cannot afford a college and is not good enough for a scholarship, then she can always chose not to go onto a college. (I'm not defending that ridiculous system, btw. Just saying that it was her active choice.)
Kinda weird how poor people tend to "chose" to become prostitute and wealthier women don't... Oh yeah they might have chosen to be poor, right... ? I'm kinda being an ass here, but know that I understand your point, I have huge respect for all the girls that went in the same situations as those girls but have chosen to avoid prostitution. But if some girl preferes having sex with some old guys than facing her debt. Debt is the problem, the more poor people there's gonna be, the most mind fucked decisions we'll see from them. Just my 2 cents. When listening to you guys, having 20k in debt when you're at college is either perfectly normal or could have been avoided. Myabe it's more complex than that...
""It's a very expensive job," says Jack, a 70-year-old sugar daddy, who describes himself as a "humanitarian" interested in helping young women in financial need. Jack isn't the name that appears on his American Express black card, but an identity he uses when shopping online for companionship and sex."
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
I'm no expert in international economics, but as far as I understand it, in the USA it's more of a "we gonna take (relatively) a small amount of taxs, but then you'r on your own buddy" system then the European system in which it's "we gonna take (relatively) a lot of taxs, but your health care and/or education is on us".
The women involved know what they're doing and getting into. The men involved know what they're doing and paying for. Everyone involved are consenting adults to my knowledge.
Oldest profession in the book... Some things will never change...
To be honest, I see bursaries and other incentives go to waste all the time because no one knows how to find them mostly...
I know for a fact that that last few bursaries I applied for.. only like 4 or 5 ppl actually applied for them... 1-5 chance to get 2500 dollars ain't bad. Other bursaries are well known and have thousands of ppl competing for them...
Kinda weird how poor people tend to "chose" to become prostitute and wealthier women don't... Oh yeah they might have chosen to be poor, right... ?
As stated before, what about men in those situations? They don't have this option. If anything, if you're in a terrible financial spot, being a prostitute is a luxury woman have as an extra choice over crime/working ridiculous hours. Especially this kind of prostitution. These women are paid anywhere in the area of 500$-1000$ a day for being with a single partner, yes, the partner isn't anywhere near what you want in a sexual partner, but would you rather do an older woman a couple dozen times to get out of college debt or work 60 hours a week for years? The only difference is you don't have the choice.
I have huge respect for all the girls that went in the same situations as those girls but have chosen to avoid prostitution.
By that logic you should have huge respects for any guy that works his way through his college debt.
Yes, being poor in the US is terrible and forces you to do shitty stuff, but that's more of an issue with the American economic system than directly with prostitution.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another.
Complete bullshit. How do other people pay for their bills? These wanna be whores are just idiots, who take the easy way out. How did women pay for their schooling before this all started? The good old fashioned way, they worked through school and took out loans which they paid off later. Just like everyone else.
For the kids going to college on their own money, abandoned by their parents - then something's gone wrong with the parents as well.
This is a pretty ignorant statement by itself. Families below middle class just struggle to even buy enough food/pay off their bills while working 50-60 hours a week, they simply cannot afford college for their children. Not everyone is born into a middle class family.
You don't really have to study in university, you know? If you don't have money for that, just go get a job after finishing high school if you're so poor.
On August 02 2011 21:42 Evilmystic wrote: And the statement about sex is pretty questionable, it may be important for you but it's not for a lot of people and there is no objective reason for it to be important, only personal beliefs and religious/ethical views.
same problem, but I'd say this takes it even farther - there is definitely an objective reason for sex to be important. It's the one thing every human being has evolved to do on the planet. The entire biological reason for having a relationship in the first place is to have sex and babies. How can you even think about saying there's no reason for sex to be important besides 'personal beliefs'?
Usually when we have sex we don't do it to make babies, but only because it's a hell of a pleasurable activity. Sex is important for having a good relationship and if you don't have sex for a long time your mental state may be pretty messed up, that's right. But I find it ridiculous how sex is deemed some sort of holy cow in conservative society, it's social importance is highly exaggerated. If I have a sexual encounter with some girl I've only dated a few weeks or have casual sex after party, I don't care about it at all later. It doesn't bring any sort of changes into my life if I don't get STD (luckily avoided it so far), that's why I say it's not important.
You don't really have to study in university, you know? If you don't have money for that, just go get a job after finishing high school if you're so poor.
I'm not talking about myself, I'm not anywhere in the neighborhood of poor (and I also don't live in the US)
If you get a job straight out of high school, you won't get anywhere near a good job and you'll end up just as poor as your parents, and your kids will end up just as poor, it's a vicious chain you can't get out of unless you take a risk and go to college. They have to do it if they don't want to end up piss poor.
It's actually one of the things that baffle me about the US, everyone there is so worked up about "no matter how people are born (black/white/asian/etc and female/male) they should all have the same opportunities." The problem is that they ignore the one thing you're born with that has a much, much bigger factor than your race/sex in how well you do and in which opportunities you have: how much money your parents have.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
The entire biological reason for having a relationship in the first place is to have sex and babies. How can you even think about saying there's no reason for sex to be important besides 'personal beliefs'?
Usually when we have sex we don't do it to make babies, but only because it's a hell of a pleasurable activity. Sex is important for having a good relationship and if you don't have sex for a long time your mental state may be pretty messed up, that's right. But I find it ridiculous how sex is deemed some sort of holy cow in conservative society, it's social importance is highly exaggerated. If I have a sexual encounter with some girl I've only dated a few weeks or have casual sex after party, I don't care about it at all later. It doesn't bring any sort of changes into my life if I don't get STD (luckily avoided it so far), that's why I say it's not important.
I'm not saying that sex is always a big deal. But in a relationship it's one of if not THE most important thing to the health of that relationship. It's not about its social importance, but the post I was originally responding to was saying that sex is only as important in a relationship as you make it, and I don't think that's valid at all. What I'm saying is not that sex on its own is important, but rather that it's the most important part of any relationship, not something that you can assign an importance to based on how you feel.
This is definitely just prostitution... Even the girl in the article is showing signs off her goals changing already. She's doing this to pay off Student Loans but she's still buying $300 dollar dresses and lying to herself that it's only for debt repayment. In 5 years when she's paid off her Loans, she'll be walking down the street, wishing she could buy those cute shoes... and boom, she's fucking an old guy again. This should be illegal, I don't understand how it's getting passed prostitution laws.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
this. (real) Education is a human right. And it's a human right for everyone, no matter if you're poor, rich, have a high or low iq.
And society can only improve by education.
„Die Schule ist das mächtigste Mittel der Befreiung, und die Schule ist das mächtigste Mittel der Knechtung — je nach der Natur und dem Zweck des Staats. Im freien Staat ein Mittel der Befreiung, ist die Schule im unfreien Staat ein Mittel der Knechtung. ‚Bildung macht frei‘ — von dem unfreien Staat verlangen, daß er das Volk bilde, heißt ihm einen Selbstmord zumuthen. Der moderne Klassenstaat bedingt aber seinem Wesen nach die Unfreiheit. (...). Er kann freie Männer nicht brauchen, nur gehorsame Unterthanen; nicht Charaktere, nur Bedienten- und Sklavenseelen. Da ein ‚intelligenter‘ Bedienter und Sklave brauchbarer ist als ein unintelligenter — schon die Römer legten auf Sklaven, die etwas gelernt hatten, einen besonderen Werth und zahlten entsprechende Preise für sie —, sorgt der moderne Staat für eine gewisse Intelligenz, nämlich für Bedienten-Intelligenz, die das menschliche Werkzeug verfeinert und vervollkommnet, so daß sich besser mit ihm ‚arbeiten‘ läßt. So wird die Schule zur Dressuranstalt statt zur Bildungsanstalt. Statt Menschen zu erziehen, erzieht sie Rekruten, die auf's Kommando in die Kaserne, diese Menschen-Maschinenfabrik, eilen; Steuerzahler, die sich nicht mucksen, wird ihnen das Fell über die Ohren gezogen; Lohnsklaven des Kapitals, die es in der Ordnung finden, daß ihnen das Mark aus den Knochen gesogen wird.“ -Wilhelm Liebknecht
From some of the amounts of debt and some personal experience it's nowhere near because they're poor or want to pay off school loans. It's purely a choice to have or to maintain a certain lifestyle. To be able to go out to the most expensive clubs, spas, trips, designer clothing. And they don't exactly get forced with a certain person, it's a choice and is closer to marrying someone for money than prostitution.
Kinda weird how poor people tend to "chose" to become prostitute and wealthier women don't... Oh yeah they might have chosen to be poor, right... ?
As stated before, what about men in those situations? They don't have this option. If anything, if you're in a terrible financial spot, being a prostitute is a luxury woman have as an extra choice over crime/working ridiculous hours. Especially this kind of prostitution. These women are paid anywhere in the area of 500$-1000$ a day for being with a single partner, yes, the partner isn't anywhere near what you want in a sexual partner, but would you rather do an older woman a couple dozen times to get out of college debt or work 60 hours a week for years? The only difference is you don't have the choice.
I have huge respect for all the girls that went in the same situations as those girls but have chosen to avoid prostitution.
By that logic you should have huge respects for any guy that works his way through his college debt.
Yes, being poor in the US is terrible and forces you to do shitty stuff, but that's more of an issue with the American economic system than directly with prostitution.
I'm just saying that situations that encourage prostitution are bad conditions for the evolution of the humankind. That's my belief, maybe an uneducated one as you seem to evaluate prostitution quite positively. I don't want to talk about men conditions in this thread as I really don't think it fits the topic.
And, yeah, american economic system is in direct corelation with those girls prostituting themselves, those situations are tied.
You don't really have to study in university, you know? If you don't have money for that, just go get a job after finishing high school if you're so poor.
I'm not talking about myself, I'm not anywhere in the neighborhood of poor (and I also don't live in the US)
If you get a job straight out of high school, you won't get anywhere near a good job and you'll end up just as poor as your parents, and your kids will end up just as poor, it's a vicious chain you can't get out of unless you take a risk and go to college. They have to do it if they don't want to end up piss poor.
I'm not talking about you too, just about hypothetical person.
If you are really talented you should be able to get some good job even without university education or apply for sponsored education. But if you have mediocre abilities and also come from poor family, it's not like that's somebody else's problem. Life isn't friendly for everyone, that's how it is.
"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."
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
This thread shows exactly what's wrong with the world.
hmmm I'm into older women, but if they'd pay to get sex, they're not just old but ugly too..................... fuck, being a woman is imba in this situation..
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Because it's no different from gold-digging, minus the marriage part.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another.
Complete bullshit. How do other people pay for their bills? These wanna be whores are just idiots, who take the easy way out. How did women pay for their schooling before this all started? The good old fashioned way, they worked through school and took out loans which they paid off later. Just like everyone else.
So they're idiots for paying off their debt faster? Cool story, bro. There was an opportunity for them and they seized it.
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
"It's a very expensive job," says Jack, a 70-year-old sugar daddy, who describes himself as a "humanitarian" interested in helping young women in financial need.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHANAHAHHA
This dude must have had the most smug look on his face when delivering that line
I don't care whether or not this is legal, but I am mostly amused that many of these girls think this is some kind of normal situation, and don't believe they're whores and prostitutes. Even more funny is that these people frame it as 'not having a choice'
says the dumbass lib arts major paying $40k a year at NYU, who is too good to go do some other, less paying job, but absolutely must live in NYC. These are just more expensive hookers
There are prostitutes from every culture. [EDIT: In a first world country with relatively established women's rights, such as the US] it becomes just an easy choice females may make.
If you are really talented you should be able to get some good job even without university education or apply for sponsored education. But if you have mediocre abilities and also come from poor family, it's not like that's somebody else's problem. Life isn't friendly for everyone, that's how it is.
And how will you be able to evolve those "talented" abilities if you're stuck working at McDonalds 12 hours a day just to pay for your basic needs without enough money for college? You could be a hell of a lawyer, but if you don't have a college education you're not going to become one. Period. There's no condition to that. The same happens with pretty much any job. If you think just being talented is enough to get a good job you're wrong 99% of the time.
I don't want to talk about men conditions in this thread as I really don't think it fits the topic.
I think it's pretty relevant when discussing whether or not the prostitution is forced onto the women because of circumstance (because it obviously is not, as men in the same situation don't just die of hunger and they lack this option)
I'm just saying that situations that encourage prostitution are bad conditions for the evolution of the humankind. That's my belief, maybe an uneducated one as you seem to evaluate prostitution quite positively.
I agree that situations that promote prostitution are usually terrible, but it's still a choice the woman makes. A choice she has over men, accompanied with all options men can make in those situations. They still choose to become a prostitute over working long hours in minimum wage jobs or just dropping out of college entirely. The choice of prostitution is still a choice woman have over the options men have in that situation. It's not forced. Period. (women forced into prostitution for financial reasons does happen in countries where women can't get normal jobs, but not in the US)
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
Very very few people work at Wal-Mart purely out of free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus a lot of the people working at Wal-Mart are basically forced into it.
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
Very very few people work at Wal-Mart purely out of free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus a lot of the people working at Wal-Mart are basically forced into it.
I don't think "Forced" is the right word, here.
Ahaha. I just started a thread about that. It really bugged me too. They're not forced into it at all. That's totally the wrong word to use, unless you want to use it to describe the kid working at Wal-Mart as well.
Materialists dominate in public life. For money we lie, for money we fuck, for money we kill, for money we are ready to sell ourselves. At any time. 'Nuff said. To be a survivor, you have to sometimes give up your moral and do whatever shit you must do.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do.
The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another.
Complete bullshit. How do other people pay for their bills? These wanna be whores are just idiots, who take the easy way out. How did women pay for their schooling before this all started? The good old fashioned way, they worked through school and took out loans which they paid off later. Just like everyone else.
So they're idiots for paying off their debt faster? Cool story, bro. There was an opportunity for them and they seized it.
I don't know who is the bigger idiot. The old fucks that are actually putting up with this, or the whores that are willing to do this. Paying off their debts faster? Ok, I'm gonna go sit on a corner and have people pay me for sex and "companionship", oh wait... That's illegal and people get arrested for it.
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
Very very few people work at Wal-Mart purely out of free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus a lot of the people working at Wal-Mart are basically forced into it.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
That's it in your country (and to a lesser degree everywhere else) because the system is keeping poor people poor, and stupid people stupid. It's an aristocratic bullshit-system.
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business or anyone's business. So long as they are not harming anyone else with their actions, then it being illegal is a farcical imposition of outdated and oppressive values. We have no right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body and getting uppity over it and calling them whores is pathetic projection.
I guess if you have money to blow do it on a young college girl that will forget you after you die from a heart attack during sex. Just goes to show how mainstream entertainment is causing the youth and young adults in the United States to have less and less self-respect. This is why my fiance is Brasilian, she has morals but is still sexay lol
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH != success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH =! success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton.
Fair enough, but if everyone applied to UNC the acceptance rate would be far below 10%, and still only about 30% of Americans have college degrees and those 30% gain great advantage from those degrees. I see no reason why disadvantaged 70% should be forced to subsidize the advantaged 30%.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH =! success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton.
Fair enough, but if everyone applied to UNC the acceptance rate would be far below 10%, and still only about 30% of Americans have college degrees and those 30% gain great advantage from those degrees. I see no reason why disadvantaged 70% should be forced to subsidize the advantaged 30%.
because 100% should have a college degree. No less.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the US who doesn't thing that going "thug" is the next greatest thing ends up going to college, so almost everyone has student loans. I don't know where all this bullshit about college being for the elite is. Even if you have a college degree you're still very unlikely to start out with a 6 figure job, or even reach one.
because 100% should have a college degree. No less.
college is fast becoming the new high school. Although most college degrees nowadays mean nothing. BArts, BSci, BComm, etc are musts to enter further studies or fields.
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
I could say the same thing for almost every single job on earth. Except maybe progamer ^_^
On August 02 2011 22:18 JustPassingBy wrote: If she cannot afford a college and is not good enough for a scholarship, then she can always chose not to go onto a college.
Again 'unable to afford college' is a bit of a mislabel. 'Unable to immediately afford college' is at the same time more accurate and less disheartening.
Well, I am just calling the system for what it is. :-/
On August 02 2011 22:50 dakalro wrote: From some of the amounts of debt and some personal experience it's nowhere near because they're poor or want to pay off school loans. It's purely a choice to have or to maintain a certain lifestyle. To be able to go out to the most expensive clubs, spas, trips, designer clothing. And they don't exactly get forced with a certain person, it's a choice and is closer to marrying someone for money than prostitution.
At least that's the default here.
So much this.
I could easily get a job out of college to afford my substantial student loans. I couldn't get a job that allows me to live the high life AND pay off these loans. So i'll live in a crappy apartment for a few years, not going out very much. Oh well, its the price I pay. I'm the first generation in my family to go to college after high school, so I didn't expect it to be easy.
On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution?
Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
Very very few people work at Wal-Mart purely out of free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus a lot of the people working at Wal-Mart are basically forced into it.
I don't think "Forced" is the right word, here.
The term is wage-slavery.
There is no such thing, it exists only in your Marxist dictionary.
On August 02 2011 23:50 TwoToneTerran wrote: What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business or anyone's business. So long as they are not harming anyone else with their actions, then it being illegal is a farcical imposition of outdated and oppressive values. We have no right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body and getting uppity over it and calling them whores is pathetic projection.
Exactly, any activity that doesn't cause direct harm to people who didn't consent to take part in it should be legal.
On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote: college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one.
Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead.
Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further.
Holy helll @ this entire thread.
The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH =! success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton.
Fair enough, but if everyone applied to UNC the acceptance rate would be far below 10%, and still only about 30% of Americans have college degrees and those 30% gain great advantage from those degrees. I see no reason why disadvantaged 70% should be forced to subsidize the advantaged 30%.
because 100% should have a college degree. No less.
And if that's the case college degree would mean even less than finishing high school now does. Well, it's almost how it is in some countries with easily available higher education. Just because people are very unequal in their abilities and attitude to studies and work.
On August 02 2011 23:50 IntoTheBush wrote: I guess if you have money to blow do it on a young college girl that will forget you after you die from a heart attack during sex. Just goes to show how mainstream entertainment is causing the youth and young adults in the United States to have less and less self-respect. This is why my fiance is Brasilian, she has morals but is still sexay lol
What does it have with self-respect? If I give up on obsolete and not objectively justified ethical values, why should I respect myself less?
On August 03 2011 00:18 shannn wrote: How big are the cost of tuitions then in the US? What is so different with the educational system from the US compared to say European standards?
Afaik I only pay about 2k excluding books a year which'll come down to 8k for 4 years excluding books (I only download books or not at all ).
tuition is expensive. I'm going to a private school, borrowing ~$25,000 a year on student loans to pay for it.
On August 02 2011 23:50 IntoTheBush wrote: I guess if you have money to blow do it on a young college girl that will forget you after you die from a heart attack during sex. Just goes to show how mainstream entertainment is causing the youth and young adults in the United States to have less and less self-respect. This is why my fiance is Brasilian, she has morals but is still sexay lol
What does it have with self-respect? If I give up on obsolete and not objectively justified ethical values, why should I respect myself less?
I think you're taking this deeper than most people in the thread again.
On August 03 2011 00:18 shannn wrote: How big are the cost of tuitions then in the US? What is so different with the educational system from the US compared to say European standards?
Afaik I only pay about 2k excluding books a year which'll come down to 8k for 4 years excluding books (I only download books or not at all ).
tuition is expensive. I'm going to a private school, borrowing ~$25,000 a year on student loans to pay for it.
Holy crap that is a lot :O
So do you get a masters degree or a bachelors degree?
In Holland we have HBO(4 year study for bachelor's degree) and WO (a master's degree ranging from 1-4 years depending if you have a bachelor's degree).
And these tuitions only cost 1.5k-2k a year for almost every school. Only the private schools costs a lot of money which comes down to about $35-40k a year (a friend of mine goes to a private school).
In Canada I pay about $15,000 a year all told for university, and I have a couple grand in scholarships backing it up. Overall it costs nearer to $20,000 a year to support yourself through the university I go to, which is good but not world-class by any means.
And I can presume that the tuition fees for each college varies depending on their status/reputation? And here I was thinking of maybe dooing a master's degree education in the US LOL! I might as well just stay an extra year or so to get that :|
On August 03 2011 00:18 shannn wrote: How big are the cost of tuitions then in the US? What is so different with the educational system from the US compared to say European standards?
Afaik I only pay about 2k excluding books a year which'll come down to 8k for 4 years excluding books (I only download books or not at all ).
tuition is expensive. I'm going to a private school, borrowing ~$25,000 a year on student loans to pay for it.
Holy crap that is a lot :O
So do you get a masters degree or a bachelors degree?
In Holland we have HBO(4 year study for bachelor's degree) and WO (a master's degree ranging from 1-4 years depending if you have a bachelor's degree).
And these tuitions only cost 1.5k-2k a year for almost every school. Only the private schools costs a lot of money which comes down to about $35-40k a year (a friend of mine goes to a private school).
As far as I get the feeling it is more Anglo-saxon thing than US thing as Canada and UK have also rather high (not as US) costs of higher education.
On August 03 2011 00:24 Cyx. wrote: In Canada I pay about $15,000 a year all told for university, and I have a couple grand in scholarships backing it up. Overall it costs nearer to $20,000 a year to support yourself through the university I go to, which is good but not world-class by any means.
I paid a similar amount in my first year, and 70% of it went towards paying for residence. Tuition for myself is only around 5,500 (Canadian $) but that doesn't include living expenses (moving away from home as I did).
I got pretty lucky with scholarships, but even then I won't be graduating without being in debt.
On August 03 2011 00:18 shannn wrote: How big are the cost of tuitions then in the US? What is so different with the educational system from the US compared to say European standards?
Afaik I only pay about 2k excluding books a year which'll come down to 8k for 4 years excluding books (I only download books or not at all ).
tuition is expensive. I'm going to a private school, borrowing ~$25,000 a year on student loans to pay for it.
Holy crap that is a lot :O
So do you get a masters degree or a bachelors degree?
In Holland we have HBO(4 year study for bachelor's degree) and WO (a master's degree ranging from 1-4 years depending if you have a bachelor's degree).
And these tuitions only cost 1.5k-2k a year for almost every school. Only the private schools costs a lot of money which comes down to about $35-40k a year (a friend of mine goes to a private school).
Public and private exists here too - most state schools which get significant funding from their state offer tuition around $10,000 a year with dorm and food something like $6-8K per year. With books and fees will run $20,000 (rough example for Rutgers in NJ). It may be more or less depending on the state. Private universities will run anywhere from $30-$60K. I go to NYU and the total yearly bill will just about hit $60K for tuition, room, food, books. The financial aid + scholarships are pretty good though I do get about half off and have no loans since my parents planned =\
On August 03 2011 00:18 shannn wrote: How big are the cost of tuitions then in the US? What is so different with the educational system from the US compared to say European standards?
Afaik I only pay about 2k excluding books a year which'll come down to 8k for 4 years excluding books (I only download books or not at all ).
tuition is expensive. I'm going to a private school, borrowing ~$25,000 a year on student loans to pay for it.
Holy crap that is a lot :O
So do you get a masters degree or a bachelors degree?
In Holland we have HBO(4 year study for bachelor's degree) and WO (a master's degree ranging from 1-4 years depending if you have a bachelor's degree).
And these tuitions only cost 1.5k-2k a year for almost every school. Only the private schools costs a lot of money which comes down to about $35-40k a year (a friend of mine goes to a private school).
Na, I just get a bachelors afterwards.
However, the job market for software engineers is quite good, and the outlook is favorable for a job after I graduate, most of them starting at $60,000 a year or more. If I get into REAL trouble with debt, I think my parents could help me out with it, so its not like I don't have a safety net... but i'm making $30,000 a year right now part time which helps pay for my room and board. Once I go full time, I have no doubt I could hit $60,000 easily at least.
On August 02 2011 23:50 IntoTheBush wrote: I guess if you have money to blow do it on a young college girl that will forget you after you die from a heart attack during sex. Just goes to show how mainstream entertainment is causing the youth and young adults in the United States to have less and less self-respect. This is why my fiance is Brasilian, she has morals but is still sexay lol
What does it have with self-respect? If I give up on obsolete and not objectively justified ethical values, why should I respect myself less?
I think you're taking this deeper than most people in the thread again.
Well, I guess that's because my views on social norms may be considered pretty radical by most people. I don't think that's something bad though.
i think it's less so about the idea of prostitution than it is the idea that some girls find it necessary to do this type of work because their degree is worthless. makes it sort of a giant scam by the government
On August 03 2011 00:52 Malgrif wrote: i think it's less so about the idea of prostitution than it is the idea that some girls find it necessary to do this type of work because their degree is worthless. makes it sort of a giant scam by the government
they should have known this going in, when getting degrees in things like psychology and other BS liberal arts fields.
This is like sophisticated prostitution. So they are closer to escorts than hookers.
How is this an ethical case? Both parties mutually benefit. The only argument against it... maybe that it is at society's expense? We would have to look at studies about crimes cases involved with this sugar daddy business.
But I am not interested in TL discussion, since it's predominantly male. I'm hoping to know what females think about this, and as a student who will be $200,000 in debt when I graduate, I really hope such girls talked about in the article are a tiny minority. Girls under the anonymity of the internet, speak away. It'll be useless talking to the girls I know in real life because I won't know what they truly think.
On August 03 2011 00:24 Cyx. wrote: In Canada I pay about $15,000 a year all told for university, and I have a couple grand in scholarships backing it up. Overall it costs nearer to $20,000 a year to support yourself through the university I go to, which is good but not world-class by any means.
I paid a similar amount in my first year, and 70% of it went towards paying for residence. Tuition for myself is only around 5,500 (Canadian $) but that doesn't include living expenses (moving away from home as I did).
I got pretty lucky with scholarships, but even then I won't be graduating without being in debt.
i agree with you and Cyx's estimates on school costs. for me, it was about $20k per year, +$20k for cost of a used car (vehicle is required for my co-op job, which in turn is a requirement for my degree).
total cost of my education was around $100k, i graduated in 2008.
On August 03 2011 00:52 Malgrif wrote: i think it's less so about the idea of prostitution than it is the idea that some girls find it necessary to do this type of work because their degree is worthless. makes it sort of a giant scam by the government
they should have known this going in, when getting degrees in things like psychology and other BS liberal arts fields.
no one goes into university thinking that they'll pay off their tuition by way of prostitution afterwards. they go into it thinking that it's a good way to find a good paying job that will make them live luxuriously. the government not informing the general public about the job market is causing these things to happen to pay off student debt. sure they consent to having sex for money, but that's not the problem, the problem is why the hell did they have to do it in the first place if they're going to higher education.
On August 03 2011 00:52 Malgrif wrote: i think it's less so about the idea of prostitution than it is the idea that some girls find it necessary to do this type of work because their degree is worthless. makes it sort of a giant scam by the government
they should have known this going in, when getting degrees in things like psychology and other BS liberal arts fields.
no one goes into university thinking that they'll pay off their tuition by way of prostitution afterwards. they go into it thinking that it's a good way to find a good paying job that will make them live luxuriously. the government not informing the general public about the job market is causing these things to happen to pay off student debt. sure they consent to having sex for money, but that's not the problem, the problem is why the hell did they have to do it in the first place if they're going to higher education.
I thought those people affected by it do it to pay their tuition during their studies? It's not as if they finished the studies and were caught off guard by a declining job market.
Before anyone reads my post, I want to make a thing clear: This is my very personal view on things. I see things like that because I thought about them for a vey long time, as I find that quite important.
I'm not judging anybody or saying that they are "less" worth it or something like that, I am just saying MY personal view on these things and how they affect ME and why I think what I think. If anyone feels offended, I feel deeply sorry as this is not what I intended to do.
On August 02 2011 17:39 sunprince wrote: When an artist, writer, or performer sells their work (the most intimate expression of their feelings), are they less for it?
Having sex doesn't take away your ability to express yourself through sex. If anything, the practice makes you better at it.
You compare having sex someone to creating some stuff for someone?
We have a complete different view on things and thus we can't really discuss that. No wonder you disagree with me. Sex is by my standards nothing like writing a book, a song or performing one on stage, or drawing a portrait of someone. By the expression of feelings I meant the expression of feelings for somebody else. If you do these things for money, you pretty much erase the possibility because it is no longer anything special, but just another "service" you could buy, it just loses the meaning it had.
On August 02 2011 17:49 G_Wen wrote: ...
Look, I already said that it is okay for me as long as it is okay for them.
For me, sex is just nothing like "Hey could you do me a favor and have sex with me?" No, I have a complete different view on that. I don't go into a restaurant and ask the waitress for sex before having dinner.
I could never have sex "just for fun". It's just not how I see things.
Just because some people are having sex without the emotional connection does not lesson the value of intimate sex.
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
Let me explain why I think so: Why do we talk to each other? Because we can't read each other's mind, right? So when we talk to each other, you hope to get the information that I have(my mind and thoughts), and I hope the same for you.
Nnow, when you start talking bullshit and not what you think and not what I want to hear, I don't trust you anymore. Your talking won't mean anything to me because I know I can't be sure whether it is true or not. Sure, this state can change, but for that typical moment I don't believe what you say.
Now it comes to love. Feelings. How can we express these? Facial expressions, words, kissing etc and sex and anything related to it. What happens when you start laughing for no reason, say things you don't mean, kiss everybody you see and have sex without emotional connections? Nobody will believe that you are happy when you laugh, nobody will trust a word you say, nobody will have feelings when you make such kind of acts (e.g. kissing for no reason, having sex without even caring about feelings etc.)
I know that this is a harsh way to see it, but as I value the "extraterrestrial" over anything else, I try to respect them as much as possible. I could never have sex without "a reason" behind it. I could never kiss someone without "backing it up" with proper feelings, I would never tell you that I'd like you if I didn't. Therefore, I strongly connect these things to people's mind, feelings, thoughts and their overall "human consciousness" and everything that can not be measured in numbers.
It is really hard do express, even in words, and the whole topic of communication, feelings and the "possible expressions" for that is very interesting and eversince I thought and read about it I can't just simply say "Sex is just sex, a kiss is just a kiss, and saying "I love you" doesn't mean anything".
By saying i'm romantic I didn't mean I'm a casanova, I'm referring to the age of romance as the counterpart to enlightment. And because I know, as a rational human being, this sounds pretty stupid, I said "romantic idiotic f****tard". It is fully understandable that people disagree with me but thats just my 2 cents. I don't disagree with the enlightment on the religion part, but I strongly disagree with it when it comes to feelings, sex and other stuff.
And please, I already said that I don't judge them as worse human beings. It's just that I wouldn't trust them in anything related to the issue.
EDIT: fixed some typos. Sorry for my horrible english.
1) Your English is fine. Europeans are awesome for being so bilingual. 2) You have a fairly solid point of view, and I'm sure many people in the world share your views.
However, you are making a lot of assumptions that pretty much lead right into your conclusion. It is those assumptions that are under attack, not the conclusion.
For example, you mention that sex is the ultimate expression of love
I disagree on that point. Strongly. Sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love. The strongest. As a human being you can't feel the feelings of other humans, thats just not possible. Therefore, having sex for money destroys the way of having sex because of love, at least for me.
I would agree that if sex is the strongest terrestrial expression of love, then it can be cheapened if it is over done or done carelessly. However, would you not agree that this is also a personal matter. For some people, sex is the strongest expression for love. For others, a romantic candle-lit dinner. For others, sharing a beautiful moment. For others, going on an adventure together. For others, having dedication and trust in a relationship. To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves. It is quite arrogant to say "Hey, this HAS to be the BEST way for YOU to feel love". It is very much an individual matter.
Let us take a kiss for example. An alien from the outside world will not know what the purpose of a kiss on the cheek is. The only reason we see it as an act of compassion is because we have symbolized it to be so. There is no real reason for it otherwise. Same with a handshake. No other animal shakes hands upon greeting each other. It is something that came up culturally and it stuck. Sex, in essence, is just a physical act. Yes it feels good, there is evolutionary reasons for that. Reproduction does not even need to be counted here because intercourse does not mean offspring production (contraceptives and such).
So why are we revering the act of sexual intercourse? Is it because it feels good? Is it because it can potentially cause reproduction? But most importantly, why is this the ultimate display of love? You can create children through In Vitro Fertilization. You can feel good by working out. Are those acts of love?
Here is what I think. I think that people recognize different things with different symbolism. Some people feel like to be loved is to have sex. Some people feel like sharing a beautiful moment together is love. And people should look for others with similar symbolism as themselves. One type of people are not more correct than the other, in the same way that a culture that shakes hands is not better or worse than a culture that bows. Similar acts symbolized differently. There just has to be a mutual understanding.
You do this a few times in your post where you make assumptions and draw conclusions, and defend them using your assumptions. But it is your assumptions that are being challenged.
On a side note, its funny how 90% of the people against this are calling these women despicable and whores, yet say nothing about the men. Society says its okay for men to go around fucking everything that moves but heavens almighty if a women can count the people she has sex with using more than one finger. It is clear this is shifting towards a better and fairer equilibrium, these are just small indicators of it.
To say one physical act such as a kiss or sexual intercourse is better than the rest is, in essence, not allowing people the individuality to find their own way to express themselves.
That is right. That is why I stressed the point that it is MY view on things. I'm totally aware that people can have different views on that. This is the nature of things, however, and I can't really do anything about it. (And why should I? I'm totally fine with that) Love is a very complex "construct", if you want so, and very individual as well.
But I also never said that a candle-light dinner is no expression of love or "worse", it is just different. In which way depends on the human being. For me, a candle-light dinner is very intimate as well, but says something different than a kiss for example...
I agree! BUT, an alien will most likely have similar, if not the exact same feelings and other ways to express these. Maybe they feel the things we will when we kiss each other, but they just do a handshake then? Interesting topic .
Great conclusion. I really hear you and I feel like, after rereading my post, I really did not respect this in the first place. I understand that there are different types of people with different symbols, however this does imply that they have symbolizations(And you pretty much should assume that everyone has them because it is just...well, without, you could not judge anything whatsever. But this a WHOLE NEW topic!) AND I also stated earlier that this is "my definition of things". I was implying that others have their view, however, I wanted to give you guys my view.
The reason I have to assume things is that I have no "scientific evidence".. However, I am not forcing anybody to believe what I believe. I have my view and to everyone that wants to come close to me I make clear how I feel. If they disagree, I respect it. If they agree, I respect it as well. I don't know if "believe" is the right term either, as it is more another feeling. Words are difficult!
But still, you have pretty solid points that make me think even more about that topic and I may have to adjust my thoughts, at least when it comes to the terms of "ultimate expression", as it is quite true that people have very unique views here.
Oh, and it is NO question for me that women and men are treated equally here. I don't see any reason to treat them differently.
P.S: These kind of discussions are what make this forum very unique(at least for me). Never had these before in any other online-community. I aprreciate it, thanks a bunch!
Oh and I love how we perfectly prove that things can be very complicated even if they look easy at the first look.
Yes. I'm pretty sure we 100% agree. I think I'm guilty of thinking that you are enforcing your opinion on others because everyone else that is anti-prostitution has been. But you are of course allowed to have your opinion about the subject, and it is as valid as any.
However, when we discuss the situation in certain countries, women don't have that right. I come from the muslim world so I'm used to seeing daughters and wives being beat for much less. Part of this is culture. Part of this is religion. Part of it is just women oppression. They basically took the gray line that we have between prostitution and "normal" women behavior and just dragged it to one side. And seeing that, we really see how fragile this line is, and hence, how superficial it is.
Now back to the topic, most countries do not allow this deviance. They have either strict prostitution laws or no prostitution allowed. This is fine for somebody as yourself, but I don't think you (which you don't) or a country (which they do) should impose their rights and wrongs onto their people. There is actually no REAL reason why prostitution can't be a respectable and elegant profession. Society just chooses not to consider it. But like most stigmas and other crutches from centuries ago, we as a civilization are slowly but surely moving toward a more fair and equal.
I hope to one day grow up to be a sugar daddy. What do you want to be doing when you are 50+? Gardening? Watching wheel of fortune? I don't know about you, but I want to be plowing college girls.
No seriously, I posted a thread seeking info on escorts if you check my history.
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.
On August 03 2011 00:52 Malgrif wrote: i think it's less so about the idea of prostitution than it is the idea that some girls find it necessary to do this type of work because their degree is worthless. makes it sort of a giant scam by the government
they should have known this going in, when getting degrees in things like psychology and other BS liberal arts fields.
no one goes into university thinking that they'll pay off their tuition by way of prostitution afterwards. they go into it thinking that it's a good way to find a good paying job that will make them live luxuriously. the government not informing the general public about the job market is causing these things to happen to pay off student debt. sure they consent to having sex for money, but that's not the problem, the problem is why the hell did they have to do it in the first place if they're going to higher education.
I thought those people affected by it do it to pay their tuition during their studies? It's not as if they finished the studies and were caught off guard by a declining job market.
in canada if you're a full time student you don't have to to begin paying off student loans until 6 months after you graduate. is it different in the US?
On August 03 2011 01:33 ToxNub wrote: I hope to one day grow up to be a sugar daddy. What do you want to be doing when you are 50+? Gardening? Watching wheel of fortune? I don't know about you, but I want to be plowing college girls.
No seriously, I posted a thread seeking info on escorts if you check my history.
That mentality is healthy if the girls want to be plowed by you. If they are doing it for the money and out of a sense of desperation, and its something they are tormented by afterwards, even if they continue to engage in it, I think its completely different.
i am finishing my master of sience in physics in about 8months, if everything goes the right way, i will end up with ~10k€ debs to be honest dropping some debs for having sex with older people is kind of weird, cause i doubt anyone starts studing without knowing how fucking expensive it will be... so they have to be pretty desperate about their debs to do that
On August 03 2011 01:33 ToxNub wrote: I hope to one day grow up to be a sugar daddy. What do you want to be doing when you are 50+? Gardening? Watching wheel of fortune? I don't know about you, but I want to be plowing college girls.
No seriously, I posted a thread seeking info on escorts if you check my history.
I think when we grow older, we lose sex drive. Coupled with the guilt of paying money for sex, as well as banging someone the same age as your daughter, I would hope that it would be enough to subdue our sexual instincts.
But if old people really are as horny as we are now, I guess Hugh Heffner has it best LOL. He doesn't even have to pay.
I love how folks are so quick to claim exploitation or 'wage-slavery'. Who the hell are you to say what is exploitation and whats not? You have no right to tell these people what they can and cant do so save the self rightous bleeding heart crap.
Would I want to be a prositute or work and wal mart or work in a sweatshop? No, but I have no right to interfere in the lives of people who do.
I find it pretty insulting when you people insinuate that those less fortunate are just stupid animals that need you to take care of them.
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.
The long and short of it, I think prosititution is empty and hollow and its just not for me. I would advise other people not to participate in it either. HOWEVER I dont think im better or smarter than anyone else who would want to participate. I have no right to tell them what they can and cant do. "Exploitation" is subjective.
On August 03 2011 01:46 Art_of_Kill wrote: i am finishing my master of sience in physics in about 8months, if everything goes the right way, i will end up with ~10k€ debs to be honest dropping some debs for having sex with older people is kind of weird, cause i doubt anyone starts studing without knowing how fucking expensive it will be... so they have to be pretty desperate about their debs to do that
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.
On August 03 2011 01:50 Equity213 wrote: I love how folks are so quick to claim exploitation or 'wage-slavery'. Who the hell are you to say what is exploitation and whats not? You have no right to tell these people what they can and cant do so save the self rightous bleeding heart crap.
Would I want to be a prositute or work and wal mart or work in a sweatshop? No, but I have no right to interfere in the lives of people who do.
I find it pretty insulting when you people insinuate that those less fortunate are just stupid animals that need you to take care of them.
respond to specific posts or you're just adding to the cacophony
if you're responding to my post, see the above post. Nobody aspires to be a wage slave. Its a systemic issue, not an individual one.
On August 03 2011 01:50 Equity213 wrote: I love how folks are so quick to claim exploitation or 'wage-slavery'. Who the hell are you to say what is exploitation and whats not? You have no right to tell these people what they can and cant do so save the self rightous bleeding heart crap.
Would I want to be a prositute or work and wal mart or work in a sweatshop? No, but I have no right to interfere in the lives of people who do.
I find it pretty insulting when you people insinuate that those less fortunate are just stupid animals that need you to take care of them.
Where is this coming from? I don't see any post talking about these women being exploited.
On August 03 2011 01:46 Art_of_Kill wrote: i am finishing my master of sience in physics in about 8months, if everything goes the right way, i will end up with ~10k€ debs to be honest dropping some debs for having sex with older people is kind of weird, cause i doubt anyone starts studing without knowing how fucking expensive it will be... so they have to be pretty desperate about their debs to do that
Since I'm all for legalizing prostitution I don't see a problem with this. I would've gladly done the same thing if I could find older women who were up for it. XD
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 02:19 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.
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.
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 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 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 02:19 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.
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.
On August 03 2011 01:33 ToxNub wrote: I hope to one day grow up to be a sugar daddy. What do you want to be doing when you are 50+? Gardening? Watching wheel of fortune? I don't know about you, but I want to be plowing college girls.
No seriously, I posted a thread seeking info on escorts if you check my history.
When I'm 50+ I'd rather enjoy some gardening tbh. If you're in your 20's and feel like you have to have sex with 20 year olds to make your life worth living it's sad enough, but if you're in your 50's and still have that same mindset, it's pretty much pathetic. I would just go shoot myself if I found myself in that situation.
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
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.
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.
1. ok.
2. I consider it a right that is being denied. If a critical mass of people share this belief, then it becomes a de facto right, as is true of all the other examples I cited. That's how things change. My purpose in espousing these ideas in a logical way is to show how seemingly small twists in the way we perceive the world have huge effects on society in the long run. You can actually make a difference by changing your perception of things because your perception and worldview subtly affects all subsequent interactions you have in the future. Again, by saying 'in OUR society, its like this', you're simply normalizing the situation-- you're eliminating the possibility to view the current situation is in fact undesirable.
3. This is a simplification. If you have 1000 people, and they all 'play their cards' perfectly, not all of them will reach 'the top'. A more interesting question would be is this a desirable state of affairs? Do we want a society with extreme inequality or should we aspire for one which doesn't waste human potential?
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.
There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor.
On August 03 2011 03:02 ondik wrote: 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?
I don't think it's the case actually. It's generally accepted that for men their social status and income is more important than their looks for purposes of being successful in sexual life. This debate is based mostly on the hypocritical idea that if a girl dates a guy because he's rich and she can live at his expense it's OK, but if he pays her in cash it's terribly awful and immoral thing.
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
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.
There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor.
You can still specialize in a specific task but relegate general duties to everyone, and at the same time allow decision making to be collective, rather than centralized.
You yourself mentioned being an engineer, but also implied being somewhat unhappy with your job at times-- I would take this as evidence that you're not utilizing your own specialization/creativity 100% of the time either, and need to engage in other duties that do not fully maximize your own potential. Could you see your organization being somewhat better off if it had a means to utilize or even consider your own ideas as possibilities?
Here are some examples of organizations with a more participatory structure. Theres actually a fairly significant international movement (not a singular entity) towards the ideas inherent in it:
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.
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.
What's shameful is that young students are coming out of school with what is practically already a mortgage worth of student debt that they have no way of paying back because the job markets is just no there. These kids enter the world being slaves to their own debt and in this case, young attractive women are having to resort to selling their body to rich old men in order to pay off their student loans. It's quite sad actually.
2. I consider it a right that is being denied. If a critical mass of people share this belief, then it becomes a de facto right, as is true of all the other examples I cited. That's how things change. My purpose in espousing these ideas in a logical way is to show how seemingly small twists in the way we perceive the world have huge effects on society in the long run. You can actually make a difference by changing your perception of things because your perception and worldview subtly affects all subsequent interactions you have in the future. Again, by saying 'in OUR society, its like this', you're simply normalizing the situation-- you're eliminating the possibility to view the current situation is in fact undesirable.
3. This is a simplification. If you have 1000 people, and they all 'play their cards' perfectly, not all of them will reach 'the top'. A more interesting question would be is this a desirable state of affairs? Do we want a society with extreme inequality or should we aspire for one which doesn't waste human potential?
2. unlike some other rights (ie freedom of speech, religion etc), education has to be paid for. teachers and professors will not work for free. this means government needs to collect taxes. unfortunately, taxation introduce a huge can of worms. some problems relate to the government, ie corruption. some problems relate to the citizen, ie tax evasion.
college education is particularly expensive to finance, since it usually requires financing another 12 yrs of prior education also. often, government is faced with other more demanding priorities like making sure affordable food, running water and electricity is available.
3. equality is a double edged sword. perfect equality and perfect inequality is usually considered bad. somewhere in between would be ideal. being at the bottom of society, we have no real chance of changing the system. our best shot is to play our cards better and smarter than our neighbors.
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.
What's shameful is that young students are coming out of school with what is practically already a mortgage worth of student debt that they have no way of paying back because the job markets is just no there. These kids enter the world being slaves to their own debt and in this case, young attractive women are having to resort to selling their body to rich old men in order to pay off their student loans. It's quite sad actually.
I agree with you on the fact that there is a viable analogy to 'debt slavery' and that from my (outsider) perspective these guargantian student loans are a very bad situation. Also, consider that as a society, we want to protect certain of our members because they are not rationally- or emotionally developed or mature enough to make judgements of their own concerning what they do. Children growing up in our society are protected from becoming addicted to alcohol for instance, and from being abused by predators (not meaning to invoke some kind of variation on Godwin's Law here, just comparing it to a more extreme example with similar basis).
Now to approach the issue from such a perspective, imagine you are 18 years old, you are about to finish high school and have to make a choice for the field of study for a future carreer. You have little to none practical life experience to fully foresee your future, and look for something that holds a promise of future financial stability. You do research into different educations and colleges to the best of your limited capabilities, and your parents and everybody around you (perhaps even the rest of society passively) tells you 'a college degree is a guarantee to a successful future'. How can you expect them, with their parents and the rest of society pushing them towards an expensive college degree, to have the judgmement and life experience nessecary at 18 years of age to make the correct choice, at risk of eventually ending up in massive debts without any good means to pay them back? A lot of people at age 18 will just not have the life experience nessecary yet to judge this situation fully for themselves and are too prone to influences from their environment. Hell, I know for sure that I didn't have my shit straight enough for foreseeing something like that at 18, and I'm glad I didn't have the risk of falling into such a 200k Euro 'pitfall'. That is why imo, either there needs to be some sort of protection against things like this happening on such a massive scale, or a major societal change in the way that college degrees and job prospects are presented towards potential future students (by society and parents alike).
On the other hand, what I don't nessecarily agree with is putting them as a group in the victim role because of the means they choose to employ to get out of this situation. It is my suspicion that a certain quantity of the college students who practice this just use it as a cheap alternative to work that takes a lot more time. What I would find interesting to see is how male students (who likely won't fall into this group) and other female students with 'regular' jobs deal with the issue of these reticulously high student debts, and use that as a point of reference as to whether or not these female students have a viable enough alternative to pay off their debts.
Effectively and perhaps temporarily skirting the fine line of prostitution laws. Not that prostitution should be illegal anyways. I do not see a problem with two consenting adults doing these kind of transactions.
What some people don't seem to realise, is that it's never impossible to get a job, ever. I've had to find small jobs to make ends meet loads of times, and if you're ready to let your pride go and be a slave for catering businesses, people who run around selling vegetables in various small markets, working at the local grocery store, and all this for a measly pay, then you'll always be employed.
I myself have done all of these when I needed to.
These girls love it, they get paid ridiculous bucks to run around five star hotels and nice restaurants with an above average interesting person, sex him and leave. Not only do they get paid around 80x my small grocery store salary per hour, but they have the choice between both, and they took decisions alone.
If anything, I feel they're lucky to have the luxury to have this option in life, especially being able to choose, pick, make the guy wait, and then put out.
It's all been done before, it'll happen long after we die, because when there's demand, there's supply.
Ps: if I could bang a cougar for 1000 bucks a night, I'd do it every night for two months during my summer break, no joke.
2. I consider it a right that is being denied. If a critical mass of people share this belief, then it becomes a de facto right, as is true of all the other examples I cited. That's how things change. My purpose in espousing these ideas in a logical way is to show how seemingly small twists in the way we perceive the world have huge effects on society in the long run. You can actually make a difference by changing your perception of things because your perception and worldview subtly affects all subsequent interactions you have in the future. Again, by saying 'in OUR society, its like this', you're simply normalizing the situation-- you're eliminating the possibility to view the current situation is in fact undesirable.
3. This is a simplification. If you have 1000 people, and they all 'play their cards' perfectly, not all of them will reach 'the top'. A more interesting question would be is this a desirable state of affairs? Do we want a society with extreme inequality or should we aspire for one which doesn't waste human potential?
2. unlike some other rights (ie freedom of speech, religion etc), education has to be paid for. teachers and professors will not work for free. this means government needs to collect taxes. unfortunately, taxation introduce a huge can of worms. some problems relate to the government, ie corruption. some problems relate to the citizen, ie tax evasion.
college education is particularly expensive to finance, since it usually requires financing another 12 yrs of prior education also. often, government is faced with other more demanding priorities like making sure affordable food, running water and electricity is available.
3. equality is a double edged sword. perfect equality and perfect inequality is usually considered bad. somewhere in between would be ideal. being at the bottom of society, we have no real chance of changing the system. our best shot is to play our cards better and smarter than our neighbors.
2) One could make an argument that freedom from slavery costs money too. I see that you didn't even touch my mention of primary/secondary education being a human right. Should we revert to slavery and start charging for primary/secondary education because that wouldn't cost money? You don't need to educate me on taxation. If you think that you're better off believing we should have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for education, then by all means believe this, but as someone who argues on the basis of consistency, your position is problematic and inconsistent.
3) Nobody made any arguments like those you are referencing. I'm not sure what this is responding to. You're also essentially arguing that since we are a society of cannibals, we'd best eat our neighbour first. This type of argument leads to extinction.
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.
There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor.
You can still specialize in a specific task but relegate general duties to everyone, and at the same time allow decision making to be collective, rather than centralized.
You yourself mentioned being an engineer, but also implied being somewhat unhappy with your job at times-- I would take this as evidence that you're not utilizing your own specialization/creativity 100% of the time either, and need to engage in other duties that do not fully maximize your own potential. Could you see your organization being somewhat better off if it had a means to utilize or even consider your own ideas as possibilities?
Here are some examples of organizations with a more participatory structure. Theres actually a fairly significant international movement (not a singular entity) towards the ideas inherent in it:
Thanks for the links. As far as my own situation, I'm not unhappy because of the work I do. My supervisor asks for my ideas and opinion regularly and I do a variety of things. I'd just rather be doing something else rather than a drawing in autocad, report on road condition, building inspection, design analysis - or using things from my previous jobs - serving tables, making food, cleaning, or making change.
Question though, if everyone is going to participate in 'mundane' actives, doesn't that mean everyone has to spend some of their time not 100% utilizing their abilities?
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.
There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor.
You can still specialize in a specific task but relegate general duties to everyone, and at the same time allow decision making to be collective, rather than centralized.
You yourself mentioned being an engineer, but also implied being somewhat unhappy with your job at times-- I would take this as evidence that you're not utilizing your own specialization/creativity 100% of the time either, and need to engage in other duties that do not fully maximize your own potential. Could you see your organization being somewhat better off if it had a means to utilize or even consider your own ideas as possibilities?
Here are some examples of organizations with a more participatory structure. Theres actually a fairly significant international movement (not a singular entity) towards the ideas inherent in it:
Thanks for the links. As far as my own situation, I'm not unhappy because of the work I do. My supervisor asks for my ideas and opinion regularly and I do a variety of things. I'd just rather be doing something else rather than a drawing in autocad, report on road condition, building inspection, design analysis - or using things from my previous jobs - serving tables, making food, cleaning, or making change.
Question though, if everyone is going to participate in 'mundane' actives, doesn't that mean everyone has to spend some of their time not 100% utilizing their abilities?
Well, the thing is, at an ideological level, a division of labour equates ones position (or even salary) with ones abilities.
Mundane activities need to be done. Organizing things in a participatory way maximizes peoples talents and creativity. Who is to say that ones abilities are not being utilized when one spends 5 minutes helping everyone clean up at the end of the day? Its not just ones tidying abilities, but ones coordination/communication that also gets utilized.
Besides, there is something to be said for the benefits that everyone helping clean out the trash, for example, has on workplace morale and cohesion. In a way, organizing it in such a way further increases creativity since the entire workplace culture becomes collaborative in all aspects. The benefits gained from people not feeling divorced from decision making, far outweighs any negatives that I can think of.
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.
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.
Wtf? Please cite where the posters you quoted said sex is evil. Cos I'm pretty damn sure they said (respectively) Being a whore is wrong and being pigeon holed into being a whore is wrong. Didn't see any puritanical beliefs in either of their posts.
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
Most of these girls I bet didn't go to community college either (which is pretty much all you need your first 2 years of college). So basically, they didn't care that they were accumulating debt until they had a lot and had to start paying it (like a lot of my young friends). And then they found the easiest way to deal with it. People are allowed to disagree with it, just like your allowed to agree.
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
The unemployment rate and underemployment rate and poverty rate and gini coefficient and consumer confidence index would all disagree with your somewhat puzzling stance here.
Stating that every single person in a given group is "lazy" without any facts to back it up, and then labelling people who disagree with you as naive doesn't really contribute to any semblance of intelligent conversation.
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
The unemployment rate and underemployment rate and poverty rate and gini coefficient and consumer confidence index would all disagree with your somewhat puzzling stance here.
way to come into a thread and talk about statistics you don't have that mean nothing and can be misconstrued to fit your purpose. You should become a college debater your soo good man.
Not everyone that disagrees is Naive. I said you are. Because you think these girls have "no other option" K LOL
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
Most of these girls I bet didn't go to community college either (which is pretty much all you need your first 2 years of college). So basically, they didn't care that they were accumulating debt until they had a lot and had to start paying it (like a lot of my young friends). And then they found the easiest way to deal with it. People are allowed to disagree with it, just like your allowed to agree.
How long ago was this?
I know for a fact that a job that pays the same as it did several years ago would not be enough to pay for college. Tuition has been going up every single year.
way to come into a thread and talk about statistics you don't have that mean nothing and can be misconstrued to fit your purpose. You should become a college debater your soo good man.
Not everyone that disagrees is Naive. I said you are. Because you think these girls have "no other option" K LOL
I suppose everyone must have become twice as lazy for some reason in 2009...
I've read demand and structural arguments as to why it's so difficult to get even a menial job nowadays, but this is ridiculous.
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.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
Most of these girls I bet didn't go to community college either (which is pretty much all you need your first 2 years of college). So basically, they didn't care that they were accumulating debt until they had a lot and had to start paying it (like a lot of my young friends). And then they found the easiest way to deal with it. People are allowed to disagree with it, just like your allowed to agree.
How long ago was this?
I know for a fact that a job that pays the same as it did several years ago would not be enough to pay for college. Tuition has been going up every single year.
I have had the job for 4 years last month. I got it 2 weeks out of high-school, they pay for class straight up, and offer their own student loans. Obviously I was lucky to get a good job (I think it is), but I cannot agree that these girls have no other options (while it is possible for this to be the case in rare occasions). Most of the time its just their own fault that they don't want to go out and get a little dirty (and not sexually) to pay off their debt. Or just their fault for letting the debt get out of hand, you don't have to go to school all year round full-time. You have time to get a part-time job, then seek assistance in whatever way you can (I don't want to stop you from being a prostitute, I just don't agree with it )
On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote: I have had the job for 4 years last month. I got it 2 weeks out of high-school, they pay for class straight up, and offer their own student loans. Obviously I was lucky to get a good job (I think it is), but I cannot agree that these girls have no other options (while it is possible for this to be the case in rare occasions).
There are currently five unemployed people for every job opening available in the United States. It's a mathematical impossibility, no matter how you lucked out and beat the odds.
On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote: Most of the time its just their own fault that they don't want to go out and get a little dirty (and not sexually) to pay off their debt. Or just their fault for letting the debt get out of hand, you don't have to go to school all year round full-time. You have time to get a part-time job, then seek assistance in whatever way you can (I don't want to stop you from being a prostitute, I just don't agree with it)
Mind reading is an awesome super power. Evidence is mundane, boring, but useful. You don't have either.
On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote: I have had the job for 4 years last month. I got it 2 weeks out of high-school, they pay for class straight up, and offer their own student loans. Obviously I was lucky to get a good job (I think it is), but I cannot agree that these girls have no other options (while it is possible for this to be the case in rare occasions).
There are currently five unemployed people for every job opening available in the United States. It's a mathematical impossibility, no matter how a single person lucked out and beat the odds.
On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote: Most of the time its just their own fault that they don't want to go out and get a little dirty (and not sexually) to pay off their debt. Or just their fault for letting the debt get out of hand, you don't have to go to school all year round full-time. You have time to get a part-time job, then seek assistance in whatever way you can (I don't want to stop you from being a prostitute, I just don't agree with it)
Mind reading is an awesome super power. Evidence is mundane, boring, but useful. You don't have either.
You don't have statistics either. All I have is morals I guess. When you post a statistic you need a source and some actual information on how it was collected. Unless we know what constitutes and unemployed american and what constitutes a job opening, and how they collected all that info (which is doubt they did either, they collected some info then extrapolated it). You have not given me any reason to believe there aren't jobs out there, because I drive to work everyday, and I see people getting hired at my job and I see other businesses hiring. I also know a bunch of college schmucks who think they have it hard and don't want to get jobs, until they find out that they have to. So I'm going off what I know, your going off what someone told you.
On August 03 2011 05:05 Wrongspeedy wrote: You don't have statistics either. All I have is morals I guess. When you post a statistic you need a source and some actual information on how it was collected. Unless we know what constitutes and unemployed american and what constitutes a job opening, and how they collected all that info (which is doubt they did either, they collected some info then extrapolated it).
I realize they might not have gone over this in high school, but "unemployed" and "job opening" have very specific definitions when it comes to the US economy. You should probably look them up.
Now, most people would want a nice graph that summarizes everything on two axes. Unfortunately, statistics doesn't work like that in the field. Luckily, you seem like the researcher type, I don't think you'll mind or screw up anywhere.
On August 03 2011 05:05 Wrongspeedy wrote: You have not given me any reason to believe there aren't jobs out there, because I drive to work everyday, and I see people getting hired at my job and I see other businesses hiring. I also know a bunch of college schmucks who think they have it hard and don't want to get jobs, until they find out that they have to.
This is the first time I've seen someone claim their anecdotal personal experience is clearly representative of the rest of the country...
On August 03 2011 05:09 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yep, my sister is doing this with her BF. I'm pretty sure she plans to dump him once they're all paid off (they almost are). I hate her.
Man up and tell her boyfriend and if he refuses to believe you catch her on tape. No joke.
On August 03 2011 05:09 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yep, my sister is doing this with her BF. I'm pretty sure she plans to dump him once they're all paid off (they almost are). I hate her.
Man up and tell her boyfriend and if he refuses to believe you catch her on tape. No joke.
Can't really, she lives across the entire country and I don't know her BF's number. They never visit either.
Throughout history a woman's greatest weapon was sex, this was common in almost all of the different culture's. What is also ironic about this is the men(most of us reading this) are the people responsible for this happening. Am I surprised it is still happening today? No, why would women cash in the only weapon they have against us? Would you give up your physical strength for them? Most of us wouldn't.
On August 03 2011 04:37 caradoc wrote: The unemployment rate and underemployment rate and poverty rate and gini coefficient and consumer confidence index would all disagree with your somewhat puzzling stance here.
These are, however, stats that represent the nation as a whole, and not representative of highly attractive girls from top-ranked universities. Said girls tend to have significantly better prospects than average, and are also highly likely to have their educations funded at least in part by their parents and the governments.
I'm not arguing that prostitutes in general have plenty of choices, but the specific 'sugar babies' we're talking about here usually do.
I don't know how they can assure the safety of something like this... it sounds as dangerous, if not moreso, than prostitution... but if that's what you want to do, who am I to stop you? It's not for me, but I guess some people feel they need to do this to pay off their debts.
On August 03 2011 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I don't know how they can assure the safety of something like this... it sounds as dangerous, if not moreso, than prostitution... but if that's what you want to do, who am I to stop you? It's not for me, but I guess some people feel they need to do this to pay off their debts.
It's safer, if only because crime, particularly violent crime, correlates inversely with wealth. The fact that the site verifies the income levels of the sugar daddies serves to ensure this is in play.
That doesn't mean it's the safest 'occupation' out there, but it does beat street prostitution by a wide margin.
On August 03 2011 05:17 sunprince wrote: These are, however, stats that represent the nation as a whole, and not representative of highly attractive girls from top-ranked universities. Said girls tend to have significantly better prospects than average, and are also highly likely to have their educations funded at least in part by their parents and the governments.
Almost every profession still has more unemployment than the "normal" unemployment rate, though more progress has been made in the past few years for professions that require higher education.
College also costs a lot more nowadays than it did a couple years ago and government scholarships are significantly harder to get. Their parent are also more likely to have lowered wages or be unemployed. Blame the recession.
Sad thing is, for all of you coming to the 'defense' of these women, the truth really is that they're whoring themselves out in order to make it through the situations they (I'll assume for the great majority) intentionally got themselves into.
I don't care how 'hard' it is to get a job. If these women are 'forced' into prostitution to make a living, then by god, they don't belong in an institution of higher learning.
On August 03 2011 05:09 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yep, my sister is doing this with her BF. I'm pretty sure she plans to dump him once they're all paid off (they almost are). I hate her.
On August 03 2011 05:24 Ympulse wrote: Sad thing is, for all of you coming to the 'defense' of these women, the truth really is that they're whoring themselves out in order to make it through the situations they (I'll assume for the great majority) intentionally got themselves into.
I don't care how 'hard' it is to get a job. If these women are 'forced' into prostitution to make a living, then by god, they don't belong in an institution of higher learning.
On August 03 2011 05:24 Ympulse wrote: Sad thing is, for all of you coming to the 'defense' of these women, the truth really is that they're whoring themselves out in order to make it through the situations they (I'll assume for the great majority) intentionally got themselves into.
I don't care how 'hard' it is to get a job. If these women are 'forced' into prostitution to make a living, then by god, they don't belong in an institution of higher learning.
They're making adequate tuition money by having sex. Therefore, they shouldn't belong in an institution of higher learning.
You're projecting your own morals just a little, here.
On August 03 2011 05:24 Ympulse wrote: Sad thing is, for all of you coming to the 'defense' of these women, the truth really is that they're whoring themselves out in order to make it through the situations they (I'll assume for the great majority) intentionally got themselves into.
I don't care how 'hard' it is to get a job. If these women are 'forced' into prostitution to make a living, then by god, they don't belong in an institution of higher learning.
What's wrong with being a whore?
-.- I wouldn't say it that harshly, but it is the world's oldest profession. And if it turns out one of them will be the inventor of a cure for cancer, then I say let them take responsibility for what they do. Its not like they are selling themselves out for drugs and stuff. They are trying to get an education which just shows how messed up our education system is: saddling students with burdens that are difficult to pay and stagnating the education.
On August 03 2011 05:24 Ympulse wrote: Sad thing is, for all of you coming to the 'defense' of these women, the truth really is that they're whoring themselves out in order to make it through the situations they (I'll assume for the great majority) intentionally got themselves into.
I don't care how 'hard' it is to get a job. If these women are 'forced' into prostitution to make a living, then by god, they don't belong in an institution of higher learning.
What's wrong with being a whore?
Nothing is wrong with being a whore. Jealousy is a powerful thing, especially when it is used in this situation. You pay for something that you feel should be free and a lot of these women make more money in one night than you will in 6 months. I am talking about the real prostitutes and not the drug hungry hookers that people often mix up.
On August 03 2011 05:05 Wrongspeedy wrote: You don't have statistics either. All I have is morals I guess. When you post a statistic you need a source and some actual information on how it was collected. Unless we know what constitutes and unemployed american and what constitutes a job opening, and how they collected all that info (which is doubt they did either, they collected some info then extrapolated it).
I realize they might not have gone over this in high school, but "unemployed" and "job opening" have very specific definitions when it comes to the US economy. You should probably look them up.
Now, most people would want a nice graph that summarizes everything on two axes. Unfortunately, statistics doesn't work like that in the field. Luckily, you seem like the researcher type, I don't think you'll mind or screw up anywhere.
On August 03 2011 05:05 Wrongspeedy wrote: You have not given me any reason to believe there aren't jobs out there, because I drive to work everyday, and I see people getting hired at my job and I see other businesses hiring. I also know a bunch of college schmucks who think they have it hard and don't want to get jobs, until they find out that they have to.
This is the first time I've seen someone claim their anecdotal personal experience is clearly representative of the rest of the country...
On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote: Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend...
Uh, I don't know what your definition of consent (or consentment) is but just because someone "felt dirty" afterwards doesn't mean she didn't consent.
On August 03 2011 05:33 Wrongspeedy wrote: Not the first person to put words in my mouth.
I'm glad you understand why your anecdote is both useless and stupid, then.
You just took it out of context. What I feel and what I experience is my own, you presume that I feel like the whole world is one way (the way I experience it). I don't. I don't have sympathy for people who put themselves in debt either. And these girls for the most part had to make excuses to themselves why it was okay (whether it be because the school is too expensive or the economy is shitty). Notice I used the word excuse, because I imply that there could be (and probably is in my opinion) alternatives.
^ This is where we agree to disagree. Thanks for getting more info for your statistics and stuff though, almost no one ever does that. Especially on these types of threads where stats are casually thrown about.
People have no honor. Back in the day when women were not allowed to wear purple and mean were thought semen is drawn from the spinal chord making you weaker every time you ejeculate Rome still stood strong. The middle class is being wiped out. America is dead.
How dare these girls take advantage of rich old men and use them for their money, poor old guys never have a chance with the way these sluts stalk them
On August 03 2011 05:24 Ympulse wrote: Sad thing is, for all of you coming to the 'defense' of these women, the truth really is that they're whoring themselves out in order to make it through the situations they (I'll assume for the great majority) intentionally got themselves into.
I don't care how 'hard' it is to get a job. If these women are 'forced' into prostitution to make a living, then by god, they don't belong in an institution of higher learning.
What's wrong with being a whore?
Nothing is wrong with being a whore. Jealousy is a powerful thing, especially when it is used in this situation. You pay for something that you feel should be free and a lot of these women make more money in one night than you will in 6 months. I am talking about the real prostitutes and not the drug hungry hookers that people often mix up.
This is so true.
Escorting is booming in a few of the cities around where I live. It's to the point where they're holding city-council meetings about it because it has become quite overt.
There are some women who are making ungodly amounts of money. Tax-free, "easy" income, all straight to the bank. The risks to health and safety are minimal (they claim) when they have a small client list - and some of those clients are willing to pay $300-$500 per hour just to be with them.
It's pretty hard to blame the women for earning money that way. I can readily admit it makes me jealous that it's a source of income so easily exploitable for women - although I also know that my jealousy is partly a product of total naiveté since I'm sure there are many negative things the women grapple with, whether they admit it or not.
If they're willing to take the downsides, it seems the upsides are pretty substantial.
On August 03 2011 05:44 Wrongspeedy wrote: You just took it out of context. What I feel and what I experience is my own, you presume that I feel like the whole world is one way (the way I experience it). I don't. I don't have sympathy for people who put themselves in debt either. And these girls for the most part had to make excuses to themselves why it was okay (whether it be because the school is too expensive or the economy is shitty). Notice I used the word excuse, because I imply that there could be (and probably is in my opinion) alternatives.
I've just listed data as to why that almost certainly isn't the case in this economy, unless Obama's passed a financial aid bill for education in the last week...if there are five unemployed for every job, most people are going to take it up the ass. For some people, be they college or not, this will be quite literal.
On August 03 2011 05:44 Wrongspeedy wrote: You just took it out of context. What I feel and what I experience is my own, you presume that I feel like the whole world is one way (the way I experience it). I don't. I don't have sympathy for people who put themselves in debt either. And these girls for the most part had to make excuses to themselves why it was okay (whether it be because the school is too expensive or the economy is shitty). Notice I used the word excuse, because I imply that there could be (and probably is in my opinion) alternatives.
I've just listed data as to why that almost certainly isn't the case in this economy, unless Obama's passed a financial aid bill for education in the last week...if there are five unemployed for every job, most people are going to take it up the ass. In this case, for some people, quite literally.
I disagree. There is a reason there are unemployed people. Sorry if you don't like it or find it heartless. Some people want to be bums. I also live in one of the States with the highest unemployment in the country I'm guessing (Oregon).
found a cool website for checking unemployment rates too. Its 9.4 in Oregon
Did bumming become five times more popular in 2009 for some reason (or, using total unemployment figures, two to three times)? Everyone decided to take a mass vacation from work?
There are structural and demand arguments as to why it's hard to find jobs nowadays. In a normal econ thread, It'd be mortal kombat between the two sides. Not even supply siders would agree with your analysis, though...
I've been a "whore" before, not so openly as to use websites and whatnot advertising my services but I've dated/slept with older woman because they had large amounts of money and bought me things and paid my bills and you know what I would do it again in a heart beat if I wasn't married. I don't give a shit about your morals, it's completely legal exchange between two consenting adults and none of your business. I could have found a job if I wanted, had many offers in fact but you know what I would much rather be paid to lay around the house all day and play BW or go out driving one of her many expensive cars and not have to work a normal 9 to 5.
This is pretty disturbing but it just shows how silly the laws around prositution are. Just legalize it and regulate it damit. It's going to happen no matter what you do, might as well make it happen the way you want it to
Poll: As a male, how much for a 60 yr old gay man to rent your ass for 0.5h?
Even for just 30 minutes, my ass is priceless thank you very much. (17)
50%
$10000-50000 (7)
21%
$50000+ (specify) (4)
12%
$1000-4000 (2)
6%
$4000-10000 (2)
6%
$0-200 (1)
3%
$200-500 (1)
3%
$500-1000 (0)
0%
34 total votes
Your vote: As a male, how much for a 60 yr old gay man to rent your ass for 0.5h?
(Vote): $0-200 (Vote): $200-500 (Vote): $500-1000 (Vote): $1000-4000 (Vote): $4000-10000 (Vote): $10000-50000 (Vote): $50000+ (specify) (Vote): Even for just 30 minutes, my ass is priceless thank you very much.
On August 03 2011 06:06 Ravencruiser wrote: Poll for the straight males here:
Poll: As a male, how much for a 60 yr old gay man to rent your ass for 0.5h?
Even for just 30 minutes, my ass is priceless thank you very much. (17)
50%
$10000-50000 (7)
21%
$50000+ (specify) (4)
12%
$1000-4000 (2)
6%
$4000-10000 (2)
6%
$0-200 (1)
3%
$200-500 (1)
3%
$500-1000 (0)
0%
34 total votes
Your vote: As a male, how much for a 60 yr old gay man to rent your ass for 0.5h?
(Vote): $0-200 (Vote): $200-500 (Vote): $500-1000 (Vote): $1000-4000 (Vote): $4000-10000 (Vote): $10000-50000 (Vote): $50000+ (specify) (Vote): Even for just 30 minutes, my ass is priceless thank you very much.
Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
You must be fucking loaded then, downplaying $50G like that.
To most people, $50G in cash, tax free, is a FUCKTON of money. It takes most young people YEARS (income - expenses) to save up that kind of money.
On August 03 2011 06:06 Ravencruiser wrote: Poll for the straight males here:
Poll: As a male, how much for a 60 yr old gay man to rent your ass for 0.5h?
Even for just 30 minutes, my ass is priceless thank you very much. (17)
50%
$10000-50000 (7)
21%
$50000+ (specify) (4)
12%
$1000-4000 (2)
6%
$4000-10000 (2)
6%
$0-200 (1)
3%
$200-500 (1)
3%
$500-1000 (0)
0%
34 total votes
Your vote: As a male, how much for a 60 yr old gay man to rent your ass for 0.5h?
(Vote): $0-200 (Vote): $200-500 (Vote): $500-1000 (Vote): $1000-4000 (Vote): $4000-10000 (Vote): $10000-50000 (Vote): $50000+ (specify) (Vote): Even for just 30 minutes, my ass is priceless thank you very much.
I clenched my ass a little when i saw this poll. Brrrrrr~ Never
I cant believe people can really be so simple. Yo killa robot if its really that cool why dont you sign your mom, yourself and your sister up? You wouldn't. Its not just sex and money. Its not normal sex and as a nice bonus you get money. Its being fucked for cash. Its selling the most basic thing you can sell, your body. Stop being human start being a sex doll.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
You must be fucking loaded then, downplaying $50G like that.
To most people, $50G in cash, tax free, is a FUCKTON of money. It takes most young people YEARS (income - expenses) to save up that kind of money.
Playing poker for a living makes you realize how little money $50k really is, whether you're a wealthy businessman or a poor college student. Even if it takes you a long time to save it, there's not a lot you can do with it. For me to go through the irreversible mental and physical agony of being raped by a lecherous old man, I'm pretty sure I would want to at least be able to live for a few years off of my earnings. If it were a woman, even an unattractive one, my price would be much lower.
On August 03 2011 06:23 Tommie wrote: I cant believe people can really be so simple.
But why are you so hostile? That's a lot of anger towards individuals you've never met in your life.
All im saying is that no matter how they are trying to justify it. They are just being whores. If more people would tell them that they may wake up and not do shit they will regret like being a sex doll for some random guy.
On August 03 2011 06:02 NotSorry wrote: I've been a "whore" before, not so openly as to use websites and whatnot advertising my services but I've dated/slept with older woman because they had large amounts of money and bought me things and paid my bills and you know what I would do it again in a heart beat if I wasn't married. I don't give a shit about your morals, it's completely legal exchange between two consenting adults and none of your business. I could have found a job if I wanted, had many offers in fact but you know what I would much rather be paid to lay around the house all day and play BW or go out driving one of her many expensive cars and not have to work a normal 9 to 5.
I always laugh at appropriate nicknames. Not judging you, in fact I agree, but you have to find it funny.
On August 03 2011 06:30 Tommie wrote: All im saying is that no matter how they are trying to justify it. They are just being whores. If more people would tell them that they may wake up and not do shit they will regret like being a sex doll for some random guy.
Yes, they are prostitutes. It's not your job to decide who gets to regret what, though, nor is it your job to force or pressure your morals onto others.
On August 03 2011 06:23 Tommie wrote: I cant believe people can really be so simple.
But why are you so hostile? That's a lot of anger towards individuals you've never met in your life.
All im saying is that no matter how they are trying to justify it. They are just being whores. If more people would tell them that they may wake up and not do shit they will regret like being a sex doll for some random guy.
Right, they must be shown the error of their ways, (I'm sure you can decide for them, yes? ). And don't forget to rub that "whore" word in too.
You're implying these women can't make decisions for themselves.
On August 03 2011 06:31 Tommie wrote: Okay to all people who are cool with this. Would you be cool with this if it were your mom. Or your sister?
haters gonna hate is the most stupid sentence ive ever seen.
Haha, sure why not. Sex is easy money. What are you going to do if your sister starts doing it, lets have some intervention and control her life because you disapprove. Lets just keep all women on leads incase they do anything too outrageous.
On August 03 2011 06:31 Tommie wrote: Okay to all people who are cool with this. Would you be cool with this if it were your mom. Or your sister?
This argument never holds any weight. There are plenty of things we condone that we wouldn't want our loved ones to do, such as go to war or become a firefighter. I wouldn't want my sister to teach kids in Africa because of the dangers involved, but that does not make it a bad thing to do. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what the girl's family thinks about her decision, since it is hers alone to make. Your morals don't hold any weight when it comes to the moral choices of others, and since prostitution does not violate the moral codes of any parties involved, I don't see why it should be illegal or wrong in any way.
Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
I'm not sure what kind of fetish you have for my family, but that ok. I'm not going to demand that you stop thinking about them. I can't control your thoughts, nor am I going to force my morals onto you.
That aside, the logical leaps in this post are astounding.
Alright, read over what you just wrote, and then ask yourself how making sex work *illegal* helps these women in any way? You disapprove of their decisions, so you want the state to punish them for it?
On August 03 2011 06:31 Tommie wrote: Okay to all people who are cool with this. Would you be cool with this if it were your mom. Or your sister?
This argument never holds any weight. There are plenty of things we condone that we wouldn't want our loved ones to do, such as go to war or become a firefighter. I wouldn't want my sister to teach kids in Africa because of the dangers involved, but that does not make it a bad thing to do. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what the girl's family thinks about her decision, since it is hers alone to make. Your morals don't hold any weight when it comes to the moral choices of others, and since prostitution does not violate the moral codes of any parties involved, I don't see why it should be illegal or wrong in any way.
So, morality laws shouldn't exist because different people have different morals?
If I define crime differently should I get away with murder?
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
It's only cool if i find out you're married, then extort you for more money in order for the wife to remain in the dark. We live in pragmatic times, my friend :D
On August 03 2011 06:31 Tommie wrote: Okay to all people who are cool with this. Would you be cool with this if it were your mom. Or your sister?
haters gonna hate is the most stupid sentence ive ever seen.
Completely fine with it, in a sense you could say my mother already is/was a "whore" for the sake of this argument as she dates a successful man who owned his own company while she was a debt ridden college student with two children. Even if they came to like each other over the years she wouldn't even think of dating someone who couldn't provide for us so the relationship was purely for a gain.
On August 03 2011 06:31 Tommie wrote: Okay to all people who are cool with this. Would you be cool with this if it were your mom. Or your sister?
This argument never holds any weight. There are plenty of things we condone that we wouldn't want our loved ones to do, such as go to war or become a firefighter. I wouldn't want my sister to teach kids in Africa because of the dangers involved, but that does not make it a bad thing to do. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what the girl's family thinks about her decision, since it is hers alone to make. Your morals don't hold any weight when it comes to the moral choices of others, and since prostitution does not violate the moral codes of any parties involved, I don't see why it should be illegal or wrong in any way.
The argument does hold weight since it is easy to say go ahead to some random girl you dont know or to a sister.
Your morals don't hold any weight when it comes to the moral choices of others Who says their choice is a moral one. It is more likely a pragmatic one. And you can make your morals hold weight on moral choices of others. I think it is essential to morality.
On August 03 2011 06:43 Chargelot wrote: If I define crime differently should I get away with murder?
Is crime consensual between all parties involved?
Depends on the crime.
Assisted suicide, for example, is. So is me, alone, shooting wildly into the air. Or having bomb making materials in my basement. If I own a fully automatic machine gun, I'm not harming anyone, but it is illegal without proper ATF approval.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
How does that hold any weight? I would stop working my shitty ass $10.40/hr job if I didn't have to pay off my student loans. No one working shitty jobs WANT to be working shitty jobs.... they aren't forced into this at all, it's not like all the males are suddenly out on the street with their degrees. They're CHOOSING to do this, they aren't forced whatsoever.
On August 03 2011 06:43 Haemonculus wrote: Alright, read over what you just wrote, and then ask yourself how making sex work *illegal* helps these women in any way? You disapprove of their decisions, so you want the state to punish them for it?
Did i say i want to make sex work illegal? Are you being a troll? i think you are
On August 03 2011 06:47 Tommie wrote: The argument does hold weight since it is easy to say go ahead to some random girl you dont know or to a sister.
I realize that appealing to emotion is awesome, but it really isn't that sound.
On August 03 2011 06:47 Tommie wrote: Your morals don't hold any weight when it comes to the moral choices of others Who says their choice is a moral one. It is more likely a pragmatic one. And you can make your morals hold weight on moral choices of others. I think it is essential to morality.
This is morally no different from saying no one should use contraceptives because it offends your religion. You are infringing on the rights of what is fully consensual between all parties.
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
Give me a break with this sister argument again.
If I punch some guy who's hitting on my girlfriend, are you ok with it?
If I punch your sister because she stole $500 from me, are you ok with it?
If I punch a baby on a plane because it's crying, are you ok with it?
Chances are, honestly, you don't give a fuck about situation #1 or #3, because you don't know anyone involved. This says nothing about your morality or humanity, only your loyalty to your family. Your sister stole money from me and deserved a punch, yet I'll bet this punch will upset you a hell of a lot more than a potentially fatal blow to a small child that you never met.
The rest of your argument should be rephrased as: Are you ok with people being poor and in debt? Obviously girls wouldn't prostitute themselves if they didn't have to. Guess what, though. If you were rich and didn't have to work, you probably wouldn't either. This is just another form of work, and in many cases, it's probably the only skill these girls have. In the case of the college girls in the OP, they're obviously under no such duress. They weigh the pros and cons, and figure it to be worthwhile. Telling a girl she's less human for having sex for money is no less insane than telling a guy he's less human for working a degrading job at McDonald's.
On August 03 2011 06:02 NotSorry wrote: I've been a "whore" before, not so openly as to use websites and whatnot advertising my services but I've dated/slept with older woman because they had large amounts of money and bought me things and paid my bills and you know what I would do it again in a heart beat if I wasn't married. I don't give a shit about your morals, it's completely legal exchange between two consenting adults and none of your business. I could have found a job if I wanted, had many offers in fact but you know what I would much rather be paid to lay around the house all day and play BW or go out driving one of her many expensive cars and not have to work a normal 9 to 5.
Out of curiosity, and feel free to PM me or not reply at all if this is out of line. Those old women you had to satisfy for financial gains, how did u manage to get aroused/hard in order to perform well? Pills/booze/both? Or was the $ incentive aphrodisiac enough. Btw i'm not trolling, this is a legimitate question.
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
How does that hold any weight? I would stop working my shitty ass $10.40/hr job if I didn't have to pay off my student loans. No one working shitty jobs WANT to be working shitty jobs.... they aren't forced into this at all, it's not like all the males are suddenly out on the street with their degrees. They're CHOOSING to do this, they aren't forced whatsoever.
You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
Also, decent cars start in the 30k range. Unnecessary and ostentatious cars are >50K.
On August 03 2011 06:53 Tommie wrote: You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
The rest of the rant aside, I'm pretty sure that it's Amsterdam that has a fully legal and unionized red light district, not America. I remember news about a sex worker strike there a couple years ago...
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret.
On August 03 2011 06:43 Haemonculus wrote: Alright, read over what you just wrote, and then ask yourself how making sex work *illegal* helps these women in any way? You disapprove of their decisions, so you want the state to punish them for it?
Did i say i want to make sex work illegal? Are you being a troll? i think you are
No one is being a troll, you just seem to be the type of person that values sex as something more than what it actually is. To clear some things up, these women are in no way forced into this. They are not indebt to the men paying them, they are indebt to the government (or wherever they got their loans). Thousands of people get student loans and work to pay them off, how do you think guys do it? If my sister or any woman I knew was ok with selling sex for a large sum of money ($50 000 is a ridiculous amount to make in 1-2 hours), then good for them, if anything I'm kind of jealous. It's not the case that people here are ok with this because they do not know either party involved, people are ok with it because the reason governments are generally against prostitution comes from values of the old world (i.e religious values). How do you feel about female actresses that are hired largely due to their looks (Jessica Alba)?
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret.
A million dollars in a matter of minutes is not a lottery figure to you? You must be very well off.
If women are poor and go into prostitution to fix their economical problems then they are logically doing this because they have no other option, afterall it is the most horrible thing in the world to be a prostitute right? But take away their option of prostitution means taking away their income since if there was another option they would probably take it. It is like shutting down child workshops and then expecting them to magically find different work.
So what is a ban on prostitution if not a war on the poor ooh ye rightious?
Either the women do it from an economical need and you deny it to them, leaving them in economical dire straits or they do it because they want to and you are denying them their right to engage in perfectly acceptable behaviour.
There are infact plenty of women that like prostitution. The low workhours combined with the high pay, especially for those not active in low class climates is far greater then most other jobs.
A prostitute in Holland will easily make several times the income i can and this is talking red light district, that's not even high class prostitution. Great deal of good that degree ever did me, i work more hours and get paid a great deal less.
A high class prostitute will probably earn more money then any person here on TL will ever earn in the same ammount of time. And you want to what? Save them from being rich? Save them from a life they most likely greatly enjoy. They have many times more income then you and many times more free time, so should you really be showing them pity when noone of them would ask you for it?
Forced prositution is completly wrong but the only problem is the lack of choice. If someone chooses to engage in prostution on their own free will then there is nothing wrong.
People make up idiotic leaps of logic how their financial situation actually leaves them with no choice and thus it's not free will. Newsflash, if i don't work i don't have any money to live off so i am forced to work and earn it. I have no free choice in wether i work or not, i am a slave.
Ooh wait that's fucking ridiculous and doesn't make any sense.
Yeah newflash as number of people with 4 year degrees goes up in number the value of them and wages for that goes down. So some people like girls take advantage of it why not if people are dumb enough to do it and they certainly are.
On August 03 2011 06:02 NotSorry wrote: I've been a "whore" before, not so openly as to use websites and whatnot advertising my services but I've dated/slept with older woman because they had large amounts of money and bought me things and paid my bills and you know what I would do it again in a heart beat if I wasn't married. I don't give a shit about your morals, it's completely legal exchange between two consenting adults and none of your business. I could have found a job if I wanted, had many offers in fact but you know what I would much rather be paid to lay around the house all day and play BW or go out driving one of her many expensive cars and not have to work a normal 9 to 5.
Out of curiosity, and feel free to PM me or not reply at all if this is out of line. Those old women you had to satisfy for financial gains, how did u manage to get aroused/hard in order to perform well? Pills/booze/both? Or was the $ incentive aphrodisiac enough. Btw i'm not trolling, this is a legimitate question.
No, had no problems at all with my equipment, they were by no means hideous or anything just your average 50-60yr old,(my oldest being 57 when I was 21) mostly recently divorced trophy wives.
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
someone wrote a paper on this subject and says it should be acceptable. in short, the arguments were.....
1. historically, wealth is positively correlated with health and intelligence. possibly because by making smarter choices, overtime, you get better results.
2. genetics play a strong role in intelligence.
3. thus, women who chooses mate based on material wealth would indirectly have selected a mate with stronger DNA.
also, studies show that wealth and infant mortality has very strong relationship. a child born to a poor family is less likely to survive.
long story short: women's tendency to choose wealthy men may be hard coded into our DNA for the purposes of survival.
On August 03 2011 06:53 Tommie wrote: You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
The rest of the rant aside, I'm pretty sure that it's Amsterdam that has a fully legal and unionized red light district, not America. I remember news about a sex worker strike there a couple years ago...
Are you actually from the Netherlands?
Yea I am. And ive been in the rld plenty of times. Im not a customer though. I dont feel any contempt to these women/men/anything in between. But so many people are god damn naive when it comes to prostitution. There is an union. Many independent sex workers are a member of it. But the majority of the ladies come from eastern europe/asia and have a pimp and they are in debt with their pimp for their journey. Sometimes forced to work by violence but most of the time the debt/money they need for their family is enough. It's a different ballgame from what this topic used to be all about tho.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret.
Why would you have to quit your current job? Are you that single minded where once you tried the gay sex prostitution, you wouldn't be able to return to your current job ever? What mythical force prevents you from returning to the job you worked at?
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
someone wrote a paper on this subject and says it should be acceptable. in short, the arguments were.....
1. historically, wealth is positively correlated with health and intelligence. possibly because by making smarter choices, overtime, you get better results.
2. genetics play a strong role in intelligence.
3. thus, women who chooses mate based on material wealth would indirectly have selected a mate with stronger DNA.
also, studies show that wealth and infant mortality has very strong relationship. a child born to a poor family is less likely to survive.
long story short: women's tendency to choose wealthy men may be hard coded into our DNA for the purposes of survival.
Thanks for the explanation. Jerking off some 50 year old since you are 15 k in debt sure is good for our gene pool. Or is that not what your are trying to say? Probably not since your post does not say anything, it is just some random 'facts'. Why is it always that sooner or later in any discussion however remotely related to sex some yank comes up with some genetic/darwinistic research he doesnt even make a point out off? Maybe because you need 150 years to digest a book, maybe because your continent has never seen social darwinism in action.
On August 03 2011 06:53 Tommie wrote: You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
The rest of the rant aside, I'm pretty sure that it's Amsterdam that has a fully legal and unionized red light district, not America. I remember news about a sex worker strike there a couple years ago...
Are you actually from the Netherlands?
Yea I am. And ive been in the rld plenty of times. Im not a customer though. I dont feel any contempt to these women/men/anything in between. But so many people are god damn naive when it comes to prostitution. There is an union. Many independent sex workers are a member of it. But the majority of the ladies come from eastern europe/asia and have a pimp and they are in debt with their pimp for their journey. Sometimes forced to work by violence but most of the time the money is enough. It's a different ballgame from what this topic used to be all about tho.
But this all exists because prostitution is illegal. If it were legal, the girls would get a lot more support and would not be forced into it, And there's a difference between a prostitute and a sex slave.
Whether prostitution should be legal or not, or whether it's a victimless crime or not, I just think it's hilarious how dumb these girls have to be. They should drop out of college, seriously. What's the point of getting a degree? So you can get a respectable job, and not stoop to having to sell your very own body and sexuality? Well, too late, you just did that. Or is being a prostitute for only two to four of your prime years better than doing it for another twenty? By what margin?
The article states one of the girls went to her new "client" with her friend on standby with the phone, just in case "something" goes wrong. How sexy is that, going to give yourself to a person who you imagine might be a complete lunatic?
So stupid. Not to mention, they aren't going to be guaranteed anonymity. They can't possibly know who is going to notice them, or if they're even being recorded. There is a lot of potential there to ruin a woman's chances of any control over a future career.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret.
Why would you have to quit your current job? Are you that single minded where once you tried the gay sex prostitution, you wouldn't be able to return to your current job ever? What mythical force prevents you from returning to the job you worked at?
Not sure why you're being so hostile to someone for stating an opinion on a totally hypothetical fantasy situation that you happen to disagree with. It's not about quitting the job, it's about the fact that for one traumatizing event, $50k is not enough compensation at all. With each successive event, the process becomes less traumatizing, and eventually it will feel like $50k for doing nothing, which is great.
However, I think you greatly overvalue what $50k can do for you. It's not exactly life-changing money. I have played poker for 10 years, and had many ups and downs, and I can tell you $50k is not nearly enough to make you a happier person. I've been flat broke, but I've never been at the point where I've said "oh man, I wish I could rent out my asshole for $50k". Having money and losing it gives you a more realistic perspective on how meaningless money really is. Money comes and goes, terrible memories are something you have to live with forever.
On August 03 2011 07:10 MrDudeMan wrote: But this all exists because prostitution is illegal. If it were legal, the girls would get a lot more support and would not be forced into it, And there's a difference between a prostitute and a sex slave.
Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam as long as regulations are followed, but illegal prostitution still exists outside of regulated channels (like it does in every other country). One is largely consensual, the other largely isn't.
That said, legalization certainly reduced coercive prostitution significantly by giving a means for legal redress. Much easier to pack up and leave when the police are backing you...
On August 03 2011 07:10 MrDudeMan wrote: There is an union. Many independent sex workers are a member of it. But the majority of the ladies come from eastern europe/asia and have a pimp and they are in debt with their pimp for their journey. Sometimes forced to work by violence but most of the time the money is enough. It's a different ballgame from what this topic used to be all about tho.
But the pimping you describe is illegal, not legal, prostitution. Laws in the Netherlands do not protect coercive sex. Nor are even a majority of foreign workers working outside of legal jurisdiction and regulation, when almost all would be in any nonlegal country.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret.
Why would you have to quit your current job? Are you that single minded where once you tried the gay sex prostitution, you wouldn't be able to return to your current job ever? What mythical force prevents you from returning to the job you worked at?
Not sure why you're being so hostile to someone for stating an opinion on a totally hypothetical fantasy situation that you happen to disagree with. It's not about quitting the job, it's about the fact that for one traumatizing event, $50k is not enough compensation at all. With each successive event, the process becomes less traumatizing, and eventually it will feel like $50k for doing nothing, which is great.
However, I think you greatly overvalue what $50k can do for you. It's not exactly life-changing money. I have played poker for 10 years, and had many ups and downs, and I can tell you $50k is not nearly enough to make you a happier person. I've been flat broke, but I've never been at the point where I've said "oh man, I wish I could rent out my asshole for $50k". Having money and losing it gives you a more realistic perspective on how meaningless money really is. Money comes and goes, terrible memories are something you have to live with forever.
I will never be at that point as well, but you keep on saying it would be a traumatizing event. How do you know it will be traumatizing towards all people? Not everyone has the same sex drive and some are capable of fucking older people. The view that sex for money is dirty is ingrained within Christian society, but it wasn't dirty to the citizens of Pompei. One poster on Metafilter also brought up a salient point: older male cripples have a hard time seeking a relationship. They still have a sex drive like any other male, but like any other male, masturbation just isn't the same as sex and they still would like to seek it out. Shouldn't there be a venue for them?
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
How does that hold any weight? I would stop working my shitty ass $10.40/hr job if I didn't have to pay off my student loans. No one working shitty jobs WANT to be working shitty jobs.... they aren't forced into this at all, it's not like all the males are suddenly out on the street with their degrees. They're CHOOSING to do this, they aren't forced whatsoever.
You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
lmao. How does that make me naiive? I said it's their choice. But who the fuck am I to tell them they can't do this? Are you kidding me, if anything it's YOU who don't respect women, not the other men in this thread. At least we're respecting their right to choose what they want to do, not forcing them to take a particular action. They aren't anymore desperate than the same males with the same degrees that have massive student loans as well. So please.
On August 03 2011 06:53 Tommie wrote: You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
The rest of the rant aside, I'm pretty sure that it's Amsterdam that has a fully legal and unionized red light district, not America. I remember news about a sex worker strike there a couple years ago...
Are you actually from the Netherlands?
Yea I am. And ive been in the rld plenty of times. Im not a customer though. I dont feel any contempt to these women/men/anything in between. But so many people are god damn naive when it comes to prostitution. There is an union. Many independent sex workers are a member of it. But the majority of the ladies come from eastern europe/asia and have a pimp and they are in debt with their pimp for their journey. Sometimes forced to work by violence but most of the time the money is enough. It's a different ballgame from what this topic used to be all about tho.
But this all exists because prostitution is illegal. If it were legal, the girls would get a lot more support and would not be forced into it, And there's a difference between a prostitute and a sex slave.
He's actually very right. Prostitution is pretty much the result of economic circumstances, and legalizing/unionizing doesn't change fuck all about it. The dutch prostitution scene is probably the most regulated in the world, but that doesn't change the simple fact that most of the dutch prostitutes are foreigners coming from absolute poverty.
Noone actually wants to be a prostitute. They do it for the money, either because they're addicted to dope or because they need money to survive. The red light district isn't some kind of entrepreneurship, it still is pure exploitation.
It's understandable why women do it, it's just sad that they have to resort to it in the first place. As for this specific case, if you have no shot at paying off your college debt with your future job, the solution isn't legalizing prostitution, it's realigning the cost of the education with the expected value you get from it.
On August 03 2011 06:40 Tommie wrote: Maybe my standards they are not reality but I find it disturbing that everyone here seems to think: ' oh is cool, if they want it let them.' Its not like this is a post about more and more people preferring boilt eggs over baked ones.
If I go to thailand and get me 3 fuckslaves beause the country is poor as fuck and i'm rich as hell compared to them is that cool? I dont think so. Same here. Prostitution is in most cases not okay and most women dont want it. There are exceptions offcourse but if you would ask a women: he would you stop doing it if you could/did not have to/did not have such enormous debts, I bet they'd say yes. Another one for you theorycrafters. I'm 50 and rich and pick up your sister for a little dinner and a big fuck. Not because I'm all that attractive but just because im rich as fuck and your sis is heavily in debt. Still think its cool?
How does that hold any weight? I would stop working my shitty ass $10.40/hr job if I didn't have to pay off my student loans. No one working shitty jobs WANT to be working shitty jobs.... they aren't forced into this at all, it's not like all the males are suddenly out on the street with their degrees. They're CHOOSING to do this, they aren't forced whatsoever.
You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
lmao. How does that make me naiive? I said it's their choice. But who the fuck am I to tell them they can't do this? Are you kidding me, if anything it's YOU who don't respect women, not the other men in this thread. At least we're respecting their right to choose what they want to do, not forcing them to take a particular action. They aren't anymore desperate than the same males with the same degrees that have massive student loans as well. So please.
Imo there is a difference between respecting a right to choose and respect as a result of the actual choice made. A person can make a certain choice in life and I respect that person having the right/ability to actually make that choice as an individual, but that doesn't mean I personally respect or approve of said choice/behavior.
Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
Are you certain that 0% of prostitutes chose their career? I'd agree that most are coerced into the profession due to drugs, poverty or violence, but some percentage might actually do it by choice.
On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote: He's actually very right. Prostitution is pretty much the result of economic circumstances, and legalizing/unionizing doesn't change fuck all about it. The dutch prostitution scene is probably the most regulated in the world, but that doesn't change the simple fact that most of the dutch prostitutes are foreigners coming from absolute poverty.
To be frank, they could work at a minimum wage job if they wanted to. Who put a gun to their head and told them to work for higher pay? After all, the majority are working in the legal side, not the illegal side, coercion certainly isn't a factor for most of them...
On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote: Noone actually wants to be a prostitute. They do it for the money, either because they're addicted to dope or because they need money to survive. The red light district isn't some kind of entrepreneurship, it still is pure exploitation.
The second sentence does not follow. No one works for anything but money to survive, except maybe the rich. A tenth of prostitutes in the RL district are addicted to drugs. They have the choice to work in a lower-wage profession if they want to, except the ones tied up in the illegal, not the legal, prostitution business. Explain why it's all pure exploitation.
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote: Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
That's true for any job, not just prostitution. I don't see you arguing for banning garbagemen because they're forced into their profession by thousands of shades of gray.
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote: Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
That's true for any job, not just prostitution.
Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically (e.g. a woman whoring herself out because it's the only method she can/knows of that can help her pay off the debt the cost of a house).
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution, and they can legally find lower-paying jobs...
Or, if you have a problem with that, MacDonald's employees also work.
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning and shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is.
Well like I posted earlier in this thread, I can surely imagine that there's female students who use this as the 'easy way out' of a debt instead of hard work, like others placed in the same position (which is detrimental anyway, imo). However, I can also imagine that there's cases where someone simply has no alternative, or is coerced thusfar that he/she sees no way to easily 'escape' a certain situation (e.g. illegal whores from poor countries that come here and are 'kept in the business' by a pimp). But that coercion aspect is a bit beyond the current situation though (unless you regard heavy financial tiedowns as such), more as applied to some cases of prostitution in general.
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution...
How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote: Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
That's true for any job, not just prostitution.
Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically (e.g. a woman whoring herself out because it's the only method she can/knows of that can help her pay off the debt the cost of a house).
The only difference between this and a garbage man is that selling sex is not accepted in society.
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution...
How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
What does an actor offer to society other than entertainment? What about an athlete, they do not offer anything other than entertainment. If all of our jobs were meant to offer something to society there would be a lot more money invested in education.
On August 03 2011 07:49 Bartuc wrote:However, I can also imagine that there's cases where someone simply has no alternative, or is coerced thusfar that he/she sees no way to easily 'escape' a certain situation (e.g. illegal whores from poor countries that come here and are 'kept in the business' by a pimp). But that coercion aspect is a bit beyond the current situation though, more as applied to some cases of prostitution in general.
True, it's not like this situation is coercive. Everyone agrees with banning coercive prostitution and giving legal redress to victims of it.
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote: Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
That's true for any job, not just prostitution.
Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically (e.g. a woman whoring herself out because it's the only method she can/knows of that can help her pay off the debt the cost of a house).
The only difference between this and a garbage man is that selling sex is not accepted in society.
Of course it's looked down upon by society, I am not trying to disprove that man :-)
On August 03 2011 07:52 acker wrote: True, it's not like this situation is coercive. Everyone agrees with banning coercive prostitution and giving legal redress to victims of it.
Well I do think massive financial debts are in a similar 'conceptual family' (sorry, can't find the English word for this) as forms of coercion, since there is a certain negative force of significant strength applied on you that you simply cannot ignore.
On August 03 2011 07:55 urasheep wrote: Lol @ the girl trying to make herself seem like she's not a whore.
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote: Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
That's true for any job, not just prostitution.
Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically (e.g. a woman whoring herself out because it's the only method she can/knows of that can help her pay off the debt the cost of a house).
The only difference between this and a garbage man is that selling sex is not accepted in society.
I think sex is accepted in society. Noone is gonna scream at you if you say: yo dude i have sex sometimes. I get your point but its not the only difference. I think there is a big difference between being a garbageman and being a whore just apart from what society 'thinks'. ( if there is such a thing as society and if it can think )
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution...
How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
prostitution is taxable income and should be included in your tax return. the society benefits by higher level of employment and increased tax revenue. in addition, those girls will be able to afford an education that they otherwise can not and buy more expensive clothing, dine in more expensive restaurants in support of the economy.
also, ppl who would otherwise be criminals or be called a perv, like dominic strauss-khan will be able to obtain sex with a 20 yr old legally, safely and still be regarded as a generous man helping a woman in need.
On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote: Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least.
How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly.
28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret.
Why would you have to quit your current job? Are you that single minded where once you tried the gay sex prostitution, you wouldn't be able to return to your current job ever? What mythical force prevents you from returning to the job you worked at?
Not sure why you're being so hostile to someone for stating an opinion on a totally hypothetical fantasy situation that you happen to disagree with. It's not about quitting the job, it's about the fact that for one traumatizing event, $50k is not enough compensation at all. With each successive event, the process becomes less traumatizing, and eventually it will feel like $50k for doing nothing, which is great.
However, I think you greatly overvalue what $50k can do for you. It's not exactly life-changing money. I have played poker for 10 years, and had many ups and downs, and I can tell you $50k is not nearly enough to make you a happier person. I've been flat broke, but I've never been at the point where I've said "oh man, I wish I could rent out my asshole for $50k". Having money and losing it gives you a more realistic perspective on how meaningless money really is. Money comes and goes, terrible memories are something you have to live with forever.
I will never be at that point as well, but you keep on saying it would be a traumatizing event. How do you know it will be traumatizing towards all people? Not everyone has the same sex drive and some are capable of fucking older people. The view that sex for money is dirty is ingrained within Christian society, but it wasn't dirty to the citizens of Pompei.
Has nothing to do with being dirty. I've been defending it for the entire thread so obviously I don't give a shit about the morality of the act. However, unless you happen to be gay, you will likely find it quite painful and unpleasant. I have memories of being struck, losing hands in poker, losing girlfriends, and making a fool out of myself. I think back on them sometimes and I feel bad. Adding the memory of having my ass pounded by an old man is not worth $50k to me whatsoever, and I'll lay odds that you'd agree if you actually did it.
I've known a lot of people who have been strippers, prostitutes, drug dealers, and thieves. Some for a living and some only temporarily. I'm well aware that everyone handles experiences differently. However, in the vast majority of cases, people always think it will be easy money until they actually go through with it, like the story in the OP.
On August 03 2011 07:49 RoosterSamurai wrote: How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
Actually, strictly speaking from economics, recreation is just as valued by society as labor.
From a philosophical standpoint, if you want me to think up a job that's strictly unnecessary for society, Macdonald's employee or sex shop manager are also acceptable. I'm sure there are thousands more that also fit the definition.
Wow Tommie, your logic is so broken it's funny. We should make alcohol illegal because I don't want my sister to be an alcoholic too, right? Seriously, it's people's own choice (/mistake) if they want to become a prostitute. They could always do what men do and take up a crappy job. They choose not to for some reason (the obvious reason being it pays like shit).
Nobody is forcing them to be prostitutes. They themselves have chosen to do what they do. They are not "innocent young girls", they're 25 year old women with full knowledge of what they are doing and full power over whether or not they do it.
Tell me again, what part of that is amoral again? Or do you just want to be a pathetic "knight in shiny armor that protects women from danger" because the weak women in this world obviously can't take care of themselves, right?
On August 03 2011 06:53 Tommie wrote: You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
The rest of the rant aside, I'm pretty sure that it's Amsterdam that has a fully legal and unionized red light district, not America. I remember news about a sex worker strike there a couple years ago...
Are you actually from the Netherlands?
Yea I am. And ive been in the rld plenty of times. Im not a customer though. I dont feel any contempt to these women/men/anything in between. But so many people are god damn naive when it comes to prostitution. There is an union. Many independent sex workers are a member of it. But the majority of the ladies come from eastern europe/asia and have a pimp and they are in debt with their pimp for their journey. Sometimes forced to work by violence but most of the time the money is enough. It's a different ballgame from what this topic used to be all about tho.
But this all exists because prostitution is illegal. If it were legal, the girls would get a lot more support and would not be forced into it, And there's a difference between a prostitute and a sex slave.
He's actually very right. Prostitution is pretty much the result of economic circumstances, and legalizing/unionizing doesn't change fuck all about it. The dutch prostitution scene is probably the most regulated in the world, but that doesn't change the simple fact that most of the dutch prostitutes are foreigners coming from absolute poverty.
Noone actually wants to be a prostitute. They do it for the money, either because they're addicted to dope or because they need money to survive. The red light district isn't some kind of entrepreneurship, it still is pure exploitation.
It's understandable why women do it, it's just sad that they have to resort to it in the first place. As for this specific case, if you have no shot at paying off your college debt with your future job, the solution isn't legalizing prostitution, it's realigning the cost of the education with the expected value you get from it.
I don't want to work at all, but I need money to survive. Damn those economic circumstances. Does that mean I'm being exploited?
On August 03 2011 07:54 Tommie wrote: I think sex is accepted in society. Noone is gonna scream at you if you say: yo dude i have sex sometimes. I get your point but its not the only difference. I think there is a big difference between being a garbageman and being a whore just apart from what society 'thinks'. ( if there is such a thing as society and if it can think )
I understand that the jobs are very different. I'm just saying the things tying these ladies down are the same things tying garbage men down to their jobs. Also, if society accepted selling sex then garbage collecting and prostitution would simply be jobs (And when I say prostitution, I don't mean people who are kidnapped and sold into it, I mean women who willingly pursue it).
On August 03 2011 07:53 Bartuc wrote: Well I do think massive financial debts are in a similar 'conceptual family' (sorry, can't find the English word for this) as forms of coercion, since there is a certain negative force of significant strength applied on you that you simply cannot ignore.
But this same type of debt coercion applies to every job in society, not just prostitution. It makes no difference if "prostitution" is replaced with "Macdonalds employee", "garbageman", or "lawyer"; the negative coercion is still there. This is not exclusive to noncoercive prostitution.
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution...
How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
prostitution is taxable income and should be included in your tax return. the society benefits by higher level of employment and increased tax revenue. in addition, those girls will be able to afford an education that they otherwise can not and buy more expensive clothing, dine in more expensive restaurants in support of the economy.
also, ppl who would otherwise be criminals or be called a perv, like dominic strauss-khan will be able to obtain sex with a 20 yr old legally, safely and still be regarded as a generous man helping a woman in need.
Well there's two different perspectives I think. Firstly you can have women who are 'forced' into this choice which they may consider to be the 'lesser of two evils' as I think some people mentioned before, but that doesn't mean that the choice won't be 'damaging' for them anyway just because it's the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are in a position where they have to choose such a thing is the root detriment here though. Secondly, you have women who may view this as an easy way of paying off debts, and have a rather casual perspective of whoring themselves out in the process. Depending on the context, I may personally have disrespect for such actions/attitude.
On August 03 2011 07:53 Bartuc wrote: Well I do think massive financial debts are in a similar 'conceptual family' (sorry, can't find the English word for this) as forms of coercion, since there is a certain negative force of significant strength applied on you that you simply cannot ignore.
But this same type of debt coercion applies to every job in society, not just prostitution. It makes no difference if "prostitution" is replaced with "Macdonalds employee", "garbageman", or "lawyer"; the negative coercion is still there. This is not exclusive to noncoercive prostitution.
And there is no way in hell we're outlawing debt.
I'm not denying the coercion isn't there in other jobs, just that there is a difference in terms of implication as to whether this coercion forces you to accept a low-paid job, or to whore yourself out. The magnitude of the abovementioned implication is of course based on both societal opinion and personal opinion :-)
On August 03 2011 07:59 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Wow Tommie, your logic is so broken it's funny. We should make alcohol illegal because I don't want my sister to be an alcoholic too, right? Seriously, it's people's own choice (/mistake) if they want to become a prostitute. They could always do what men do and take up a normal job. They choose not to for some reason (the obvious reason being it pays like shit).
Nobody is forcing them to be prostitutes. They themselves have chosen to do what they do. They are not "innocent young girls", they're 25 year old women with full knowledge of what they are doing and full power over whether or not they do it.
Tell me again, what part of that is amoral again? Or do you just want to be a pathetic "knight in shiny armor that protects women from danger" because the weak women in this world obviously can't take care of themselves, right?
Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts. And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller.
On August 03 2011 07:54 Tommie wrote: I think sex is accepted in society. Noone is gonna scream at you if you say: yo dude i have sex sometimes. I get your point but its not the only difference. I think there is a big difference between being a garbageman and being a whore just apart from what society 'thinks'. ( if there is such a thing as society and if it can think )
I understand that the jobs are very different. I'm just saying the things tying these ladies down are the same things tying garbage men down to their jobs. Also, if society accepted selling sex then garbage collecting and prostitution would simply be jobs (And when I say prostitution, I don't mean people who are kidnapped and sold into it, I mean women who willingly pursue it).
It's interesting, because so many people work for companies that do (subjectively) immoral things, like abuse farm animals, screw small businesses, use overseas slave labor, etc. and the reason they work for these companies is why? Because they need the money. Joe Schmoe who works as an accountant at Tyson foods is seen as an everyman while his bosses bully the competition and torture innocent animals, but Sally Sultry is seen as a worthless whore because she gets her money by engaging in a consensual act between two people that hurts nobody. Hypocrisy, really. Joe would probably rather be a doctor saving lives and Sally would rather be playing SC2 in Korea, but not everyone can live their dream, you know?
(Note: I wasn't singling you out, I quoted you because I agreed with you.)
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote: Well there's two different perspectives I think. Firstly you can have women who are 'forced' into this choice which they may consider to be the 'lesser of two evils' as I think some people mentioned before, but that doesn't mean that the choice won't be 'damaging' for them anyway just because it's the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are in a position where they have to choose such a thing is the root detriment here though.
If prostitution is taken due to debt concerns and the woman is free to choose other jobs if she wished, prostitution is no different from any other job you'd take when debt-constrained. The extent of "damage" differs on the person but, if they have a choice to choose other jobs, they've determined the "damage" is less than what they think they'd have taken at any other job.
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote: Secondly, you have women who may view this as an easy way of paying off debts, and have a rather casual perspective of whoring themselves out in the process. Depending on the context, I may personally have disrespect for such actions/attitude.
Not my right to tell you whether or not to approve, I guess.
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote: I'm not denying the coercion isn't there in other jobs, just that there is a difference in terms of implication as to whether this coercion forces you to accept a low-paid job, or to whore yourself out. The magnitude of the abovementioned implication is of course based on both societal opinion and personal opinion :-)
The coercion is identical; there is no difference. Either you're debt-contained, or you're not. If prostitution is the ONLY way for someone to overcome their debt, then outlawing or shunning it is even worse in implication.
On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote: He's actually very right. Prostitution is pretty much the result of economic circumstances, and legalizing/unionizing doesn't change fuck all about it. The dutch prostitution scene is probably the most regulated in the world, but that doesn't change the simple fact that most of the dutch prostitutes are foreigners coming from absolute poverty.
To be frank, they could work at a minimum wage job if the wanted to. Who put a gun to their head and told them to work for higher pay? After all, the majority are working in the legal side, not the illegal side, coercion certainly isn't a factor for most of them...
On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote: Noone actually wants to be a prostitute. They do it for the money, either because they're addicted to dope or because they need money to survive. The red light district isn't some kind of entrepreneurship, it still is pure exploitation.
The second sentence does not follow. No one works for anything but money to survive, except maybe the rich. A tenth of prostitutes in the RL district are addicted to drugs. They have the choice to work in a lower-wage profession if they want to, except the ones tied up in the illegal, not the legal, prostitution business. Explain why it's all pure exploitation.
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote: Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
That's true for any job, not just prostitution.
First of all: A minimum wage job (in holland) pays more then prostitution. Their hourly rate is higher, but they lose significant amounts because they average about 2 customers a day and have to pay for their 'overhead costs' (space, 'organisation') on top of that.
Secondly: Women in prostitution (in holland) can't actually compete for minimum wage jobs. Even getting a minimum wage job requires certain skills, like speaking the language and being mentally able of showing up for work every day (which is hard when you're addicted to booze or drugs, which it is estimated that over half of them are, not just a tenth).
Thirdly: The women working as prostitutes aren't in the same position as your normal 'average joe'. If I loose my job, I'll collect social security and while I'll have to cut back on everything, in the grand scheme of things, I'll be relatively comfortable and I won't be on the streets. You can't make the same argument for the ukrainians/nigerians/thais currently standing behind the windows in Amsterdam.
And keep in mind that the red light district is actually the 'highlight' of dutch, legalized, prostitution. The other part of it is the women in my hometown standing around an official hooker parking lot in the middle of nowhere, or those working in an extremely shady club downtown. It's all legal, and it being legal is better then it being illegal, but it's still sad as fuck.
These women are choosing a 'job' that offers them better opportunities then they would have had in their home countries, that's true, but that reflects more on the dire conditions part of this world lives in then on the actual merits of prostitution.
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote: Well there's two different perspectives I think. Firstly you can have women who are 'forced' into this choice which they may consider to be the 'lesser of two evils' as I think some people mentioned before, but that doesn't mean that the choice won't be 'damaging' for them anyway just because it's the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are in a position where they have to choose such a thing is the root detriment here though.
If prostitution is taken due to debt concerns and the woman is free to choose other jobs if she wished, prostitution is no different from any other job you'd take when debt-constrained. The extent of "damage" differs on the person but, if they have a choice to choose other jobs, they've determined the "damage" is less than what they think they'd have taken at any other job.
Yeah of course, if they make such a choice the damage is the lesser of two evils. But I think if I would have such a massive debt that either I have to choose between robing a bank and potentially ending up in jail or spending 30 minutes with an 80 year old guy, that doesn't make the end result any less shitty/detrimental so to say ;-)
But I'm off to get some sleep now, got to do some work tomorrow ;-\
Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have. I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
Are we not still talking about the article from the OP, where it's college student girls that are doing it more frequently, or are we just talking about prostitution in general? I was assuming the former.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: First of all: A minimum wage job (in holland) pays more then prostitution. Their hourly rate is higher, but they lose significant amounts because they average about 2 customers a day and have to pay for their 'overhead costs' (space, 'organisation') on top of that.
I'm fairly certain this depends on the prostitute. Some go for a lot of money, some don't. This also applies to foreign prostitutes.
Two customers a day also implies a lot of extra time. Are you sure this isn't a side job?
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: Secondly: Women in prostitution (in holland) can't actually compete for minimum wage jobs. Even getting a minimum wage job requires certain skills, like speaking the language and being mentally able of showing up for work every day (which is hard when you're addicted to booze or drugs, which it is estimated that over half of them are, not just a tenth).
If they can't even compete for minimum-wage jobs due to language barriers, then the alternative is even worse. The half statistic is independently unverified, which is why I'm using the 10% one.
That said, there are plenty of people in minimum wage jobs that speak broken English. Anyone going through a drive-through can testify to that. The barrier doesn't seem too big.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: Thirdly: The women working as prostitutes aren't in the same position as your normal 'average joe'. If I loose my job, I'll collect social security and while I'll have to cut back on everything, in the grand scheme of things, I'll be relatively comfortable and I won't be on the streets. You can't make the same argument for the ukrainians/nigerians/thais currently standing behind the windows in Amsterdam.
Once again, the alternative is even worse. If they can't even make money at minimum wage and have no safety net...one offers a way up, the other doesn't.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: And keep in mind that the red light district is actually the 'highlight' of dutch, legalized, prostitution. The other part of it is the women in my hometown standing around an official hooker parking lot in the middle of nowhere, or those working in an extremely shady club downtown. It's all legal, and it being legal is better then it being illegal, but it's still sad as fuck.
These women are choosing a 'job' that offers them better opportunities then they would have had in their home countries, that's true, but that reflects more on the dire conditions part of this world lives in then on the actual merits of prostitution.
If it wasn't better and they weren't coerced, most of them wouldn't be in the Netherlands. I do agree this type is sad, though. Guess it's part of your "least harm" doctrine, just like drugs...
On August 03 2011 08:14 Bartuc wrote: Yeah of course, if they make such a choice the damage is the lesser of two evils. But I think if I would have such a massive debt that either I have to choose between robing a bank and potentially ending up in jail or spending 30 minutes with an 80 year old guy, that doesn't make the end result any less shitty/detrimental so to say ;-)
The action you choose is what you consider the lesser evil, neither evil is identical.
Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts. And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller.
You really don't sound old enough to post on such a grown up subject
You dont sound like fun to me. This twat was making such I shitty post I just could not respond in any serious manner. I got the same with you. Funny you dont reply to the twat accusing ( lol accusing ) me of being a knight in shiny armour, who also did not read my post at all/did not understand it, but you do reply to my post which is encouraging and stimulative: ' Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts.' AND FUNNY: ' And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller'
On August 03 2011 08:24 IAttackYou wrote: This site honestly should be shut down. It is immoral to prey on the poor and this is nothing short of prostitution.
The site doesn't prey on the poor. It "preys" on college students who don't want to work off their debt the traditional way. Also, anyone who's super poor with a college degree most likely had a ton of financial aid to pay for their tuition AND part of their housing costs, so they're already better off than most students from the middle class. And if you're from the middle class and just out of college, you're most likely going to be fine. It's for girls that want the easy way out, that's it.
On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote: Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically.
Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution...
How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
Not it's intended purpose? Says who? Your religion? Children are just a side effect to one of my favorite recreational activities.
I see nothing wrong with it and believe the site should be left up. I would do the same if I was in their position. I would do it now if it worked for males.
This is prostitution, not that I think it should be illegal, but it is. Further, who thinks these girls are going to stop putting out for $$ when the loans are paid off ? Are they then going to take some office job when they could just continue making significantly more $$ prostituting themselves ? College loans are a red herring. These girls are simply learning they can make more $$ selling themselves than by any other means.
On August 03 2011 08:30 Kaitlin wrote: This is prostitution, not that I think it should be illegal, but it is. Further, who thinks these girls are going to stop putting out for $$ when the loans are paid off ? Are they then going to take some office job when they could just continue making significantly more $$ prostituting themselves ? College loans are a red herring. These girls are simply learning they can make more $$ selling themselves than by any other means.
Well, if they're going to top schools, it shouldn't be too difficult in a decade to get a job that pays more than anything but the highest-end prostitution. When we're out of this recession.
On August 03 2011 08:24 IAttackYou wrote: This site honestly should be shut down. It is immoral to prey on the poor and this is nothing short of prostitution.
The website itself doesn't prey on anything.
It simply offer the chance for poor college students to work. One may even say that it is services like this that create new jobs in this economy. This website create more jobs than congress sitting on their lazy asses doing nothing.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: First of all: A minimum wage job (in holland) pays more then prostitution. Their hourly rate is higher, but they lose significant amounts because they average about 2 customers a day and have to pay for their 'overhead costs' (space, 'organisation') on top of that.
I'm fairly certain this depends on the prostitute. Some go for a lot of money, some don't. This also applies to foreign prostitutes.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: Secondly: Women in prostitution (in holland) can't actually compete for minimum wage jobs. Even getting a minimum wage job requires certain skills, like speaking the language and being mentally able of showing up for work every day (which is hard when you're addicted to booze or drugs, which it is estimated that over half of them are, not just a tenth).
If they can't compete for minimum-wage jobs, then the alternative is even worse. The half statistic is independently unverified, which is why I'm using the 10% one.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: Thirdly: The women working as prostitutes aren't in the same position as your normal 'average joe'. If I loose my job, I'll collect social security and while I'll have to cut back on everything, in the grand scheme of things, I'll be relatively comfortable and I won't be on the streets. You can't make the same argument for the ukrainians/nigerians/thais currently standing behind the windows in Amsterdam.
Once again, the alternative is even worse. If they can't even make money at minimum wage and have no safety net...
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: And keep in mind that the red light district is actually the 'highlight' of dutch, legalized, prostitution. The other part of it is the women in my hometown standing around an official hooker parking lot in the middle of nowhere, or those working in an extremely shady club downtown. It's all legal, and it being legal is better then it being illegal, but it's still sad as fuck.
These women are choosing a 'job' that offers them better opportunities then they would have had in their home countries, that's true, but that reflects more on the dire conditions part of this world lives in then on the actual merits of prostitution.
If it wasn't better and they weren't coerced, most of them wouldn't be in the Netherlands. I do agree it's sad, though. Guess it's part of your "least harm" doctrine, just like drugs...
On August 03 2011 08:14 Bartuc wrote: Yeah of course, if they make such a choice the damage is the lesser of two evils. But I think if I would have such a massive debt that either I have to choose between robing a bank and potentially ending up in jail or spending 30 minutes with an 80 year old guy, that doesn't make the end result any less shitty/detrimental so to say ;-)
The action you choose is what you consider the lesser evil, neither evil is identical.
The point is this: Prostitution, at it's most common level, is the result of circumstances, where the most viable choice becomes selling your body for peanuts, whether it's in your own country or in another. It's the result of society failing a group of people (or the 'global community failing entire countries), and we should be offering other, better options then that, which I'd say is the general consensus in dutch politics. The fact that we regulate it doesn't mean that we think it's a good thing or anything like that, no matter how the international press reports on it.
The same argument can be made in this case. If tuition fees are at a point where your future job earnings can't cover them anymore, something is wrong in the system as a whole. I'm not questioning the decision individuals make in order to get by, I'm questioning the system as a whole. If college graduates feel the need to sell themselves off (which most of them obviously would prefer not to), that's a major signal that the system is failing entirely.
You're supposed to be going to college in order to get a good job, not to spend 4 years of good times and then being forced into this. I honestly think we pretty much agree on most of this to be honest ;p.
On August 03 2011 08:34 Derez wrote: The point is this: Prostitution, at it's most common level, is the result of circumstances, where the most viable choice becomes selling your body for peanuts, whether it's in your own country or in another. It's the result of society failing a group of people (or the 'global community failing entire countries), and we should be offering other, better options then that, which I'd say is the general consensus in dutch politics. The fact that we regulate it doesn't mean that we think it's a good thing or anything like that, no matter how the international press reports on it.
The same argument can be made in this case. If tuition fees are at a point where your future job earnings can't cover them anymore, something is wrong in the system as a whole. I'm not questioning the decision individuals make in order to get by, I'm questioning the system as a whole. If college graduates feel the need to sell themselves off (which most of them obviously would prefer not to), that's a major signal that the system is failing entirely.
You're supposed to be going to college in order to get a good job, not to spend 4 years of good times and then being forced into this. I honestly think we pretty much agree on most of this to be honest ;p.
Oh, there is no doubt that tuition fees in the states are extremely overpriced, but I think you give these girls (strictly the ones in this article) too much credit. They are in this situation because of their own fault, they either accumulated tons of debt by running up their credit cards with unnecessary things like smart phone bills (the number of girls that have blackberry's and can't afford to have them is ridiculously high) or they made a poor investment when entering into college. That being said, while times are rough, these tuition fees are by no means horrible enough for you to have to prostitute yourself (this is of course going under the assumption that prostitution is literally the last resort). Most of the girls are simply doing this as it is a quick and easy way out, the old men are literally sugar daddy's, they are not giving money to some poor girl who has nothing to eat, they are funding the irresponsible lifestyle some of these girls possess.
On August 03 2011 08:34 Derez wrote: The point is this: Prostitution, at it's most common level, is the result of circumstances, where the most viable choice becomes selling your body for peanuts, whether it's in your own country or in another. It's the result of society failing a group of people, and we should be offering other, better options then that, which I'd say is the general consensus in dutch politics. The fact that we regulate it doesn't mean that we think it's a good thing or anything like that, no matter how the international press reports on it.
You're still grouping all prostitution together, from debt-constrained to immigrant to completely uncoerced. I agree that you'd be far better off with state-paid assimilation/ESL classes for immigrants and there's plenty of things you could do to make prostitution by immigrants due to a lack of better options less attractive. However, to call all prostitution a "societal failing", however, is an individual moral issue, not a societal one.
On August 03 2011 08:34 Derez wrote: The same argument can be made in this case. If tuition fees are at a point where your future job earnings can't cover them anymore, something is wrong in the system as a whole. I'm not questioning the decision individuals make in order to get by, I'm questioning the system as a whole. If college graduates feel the need to sell themselves off (which most of them obviously would prefer not to), that's a major signal that the system is failing entirely.
The example here is too extreme, however. They do have options like attending universities with lower tuition. Their choice reflects that they consider this the best alternative, not that society itself is failing. Just because they'd prefer not to doesn't mean that they don't have options, or that it's necessarily a societal failure. Not all prostitution is alike...
Morally, in terms of "force", there's nothing different about this than college girls working at strip bars or fast food restaurants to pay off college debt. No one wants to, but they consider it necessary, and it isn't societal failure. This gives people more options if they want to attend higher-priced colleges, and is strictly voluntary.
...well, I suppose the recession is a societal failure, but everyone missed that.
Not that I'd be opposed to more government scholarships or subsidies to higher education in exchange for higher taxes. Seriously, having to work at something that you'll probably never be doing again after college is bullshit on many levels, including future productivity.
On August 03 2011 08:34 Derez wrote: You're supposed to be going to college in order to get a good job, not to spend 4 years of good times and then being forced into this. I honestly think we pretty much agree on most of this to be honest ;p.
They'll probably get a good job at the end of it all. If they didn't think they were going to get a good job, they wouldn't be doing this. We do agree on most of it, definitely.
On August 03 2011 08:34 Derez wrote: The point is this: Prostitution, at it's most common level, is the result of circumstances, where the most viable choice becomes selling your body for peanuts, whether it's in your own country or in another. It's the result of society failing a group of people (or the 'global community failing entire countries), and we should be offering other, better options then that, which I'd say is the general consensus in dutch politics. The fact that we regulate it doesn't mean that we think it's a good thing or anything like that, no matter how the international press reports on it.
The same argument can be made in this case. If tuition fees are at a point where your future job earnings can't cover them anymore, something is wrong in the system as a whole. I'm not questioning the decision individuals make in order to get by, I'm questioning the system as a whole. If college graduates feel the need to sell themselves off (which most of them obviously would prefer not to), that's a major signal that the system is failing entirely.
You're supposed to be going to college in order to get a good job, not to spend 4 years of good times and then being forced into this. I honestly think we pretty much agree on most of this to be honest ;p.
Oh, there is no doubt that tuition fees in the states are extremely overpriced, but I think you give these girls (strictly the ones in this article) too much credit. They are in this situation because of their own fault, they either accumulated tons of debt by running up their credit cards with unnecessary things like smart phone bills (the number of girls that have blackberry's and can't afford to have them is ridiculously high) or they made a poor investment when entering into college. That being said, while times are rough, these tuition fees are by no means horrible enough for you to have to prostitute yourself (this is of course going under the assumption that prostitution is literally the last resort). Most of the girls are simply doing this as it is a quick and easy way out, the old men are literally sugar daddy's, they are not giving money to some poor girl who has nothing to eat, they are funding the irresponsible lifestyle some of these girls possess.
That's undoubtedly true, but it's part of bigger societal issues. It's a combination of several problems:
1) Overpriced tuitions. 2) Societal acceptance of running crazy debts. 3) The dimishing 'value' associated with sleeping with someone. (rise of the one night stand etc.) 4) Economic downturn, hard to get a job
I'd say that at least the first 3 things are issues that are a problem in our current society at large, not only in the USA, and that this is just the implication of them for the recently graduated. Obviously the girls doing this made poor choices, it's just that I wish they never had to face the choice in the first place. It's not 'just' college girls making poor choices (guys also), it's society encouraging them to make the wrong choices in the first place.
Yes, you can avoid having to do this entirely. And yes, some of the women doing this choose this option too easily. But the fact that apparantly so many of them are doing it has to mean something.
The topics discussed in the article are morally questionable for sure. But it is all relative... so there is nothing, IMO, to suggest that the process is fundamentally wrong from a moral perspective (again, this depends on your personal views regarding sex, religious affiliation, moral upbringing, etc.). Nothing has been done legally about it yet... so presumably the legal system has deemed it appropriate, since you can't hold the website responsible for what takes place in real life between the two parties involved in the "arrangement".
But if the question is, are these women hookers/whores/sluts/prostitutes?... then the answer to that is an unquestionable "yes". If they aren't, then there must be newly accepted definitions of those words that I have not yet come across. The difference is only that this is prostitution at an individual, more personal level... where these women aren't being hired by a pimp who organizes and monitors the service. Without doubt though, the services these "sugar babies" plan to provide to their "sugar daddies" is identical to the services that "professional" prostitutes provide. However, I can see how these "sugar babies" may be more enjoyable for "sugar daddies" to spend their time with... since these girls aren't whores professionally and so the relationship that they may develop with their "sugar daddies" may not be as mundane/lame/meaningless as the type you would get from an escort service or a pimp.
A "professional" prostitute is more likely to want to get paid for sex ASAP... whereas these "sugar babies" are willing to bask in the richness of their "sugar daddies" and enjoy the dates and other wealthy excursions that these old men are wiling to provide to them, since they know that they will most likely never be able to experience that life-style. Plus, these "sugar babies" are probably more likely to end up having meaningful/intelligent discussions with their "sugar daddies", something that "professional prostitutes" aren't interested in doing... this is probably another reason why rich old men would want to seek relationships with these types of heavily in-debt college girls compared to "real" prostitutes"
Just my two cents... But interesting article overall and definitely a relevant one in today's economic situation and struggle.
On August 03 2011 08:54 Derez wrote: That's undoubtedly true, but it's part of bigger societal issues. It's a combination of several problems:
1) Overpriced tuitions. 2) Societal acceptance of running crazy debts. 3) The dimishing 'value' associated with sleeping with someone. 4) Economic downturn, hard to get a job
I'd say that at least the first 3 things are issues that are a problem in our current society at large, not only in the USA, and that this is just the implication of them for the recently graduated. Obviously the girls doing this made poor choices, it's just that I wish they never had to face the choice in the first place. It's not 'just' college girls making poor choices (guys also), it's society encouraging them to make the wrong choices in the first place.
Overpriced tuition is definitely a big concern. Probably the biggest concern for our future performance as a nation. It's extremely difficult to see how we'd get people to accept higher taxes in exchange for larger education subsidies, though; just look at any econ thread on this forum. America is crazy and I don't see the crazy going down any time soon. Hell, I've just stated something that's incredibly controversial in America and might attract the black hole of education.
Alternatively, we could reform the education system, but this would die even faster in Congress.
The acceptable level of debt accumulated really depends on the utility you get out of the debt; as long as you get out more than you pay in interest, it's good to run up debt. Generally. This is certainly not true for all circumstances, and I'm not a finance major.
Three is blatant individual moralizing, to list this as a "problem of society" is absurd.
On August 03 2011 08:24 IAttackYou wrote: This site honestly should be shut down. It is immoral to prey on the poor and this is nothing short of prostitution.
Preying on the poor? So if I pay you handsomely for a job that you agree to do I am "preying" on you? Or is it "preying" simply because it is something which one doesn't want to do but has to due to his or her circumstances? According to that definition everyone who has a contract to do work is being preyed upon. Everyone who has a second job waiting tables to pay his mortgage/rent is an innocent little bunny.
No one is forcing these kids to leverage their entire financial futures to get a useless degree that at best will get them an entry level sales position.
The problem is that society doesn't do the responsible thing and tell our kids that college education is currently way overpriced and is going through the same government-sponsored overvaluation that our housing market went through.
Yet we have Obama, who is the most listened-to person in the country, saying that we need more college education, the same way that Bush told us we need to borrow more against our home equity.
On August 03 2011 08:45 acker wrote: They'll probably get a good job at the end of it all. If they didn't think they were going to get a good job, they wouldn't be doing this. We do agree on most of it, definitely.
Umm, no... they're doing this precisely because they can't get a good job and/or don't think they'll get a good job. In fact, a lot of these women eventually develop an addiction to this sort of thing where they end up doing it for several years of their lives. So, to think that they believe they'll eventually get a good job is not true... and it's probably quite the opposite.
On August 03 2011 09:06 Kahuna. wrote: Umm, no... they're doing this precisely because they can't get a good job and/or don't think they'll get a good job. In fact, a lot of these women eventually develop an addiction to this sort of thing where they end up doing it for several years of their lives. So, to think that they believe they'll eventually get a good job is not true... and it's probably quite the opposite.
The bolded part is almost certainly true, the recession is really bad. The rest of it is prognostication and does not follow; recessions end after a decade or two and jobs will, in the long run, come back. Especially jobs that require university-level knowledge, they've started to recover faster than menial wage jobs...
I'm not sure what it is to get "addicted" to prostitution, either...it might become compulsory? They might start liking the work? The former is illegal, the latter is moral.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: First of all: A minimum wage job (in holland) pays more then prostitution. Their hourly rate is higher, but they lose significant amounts because they average about 2 customers a day and have to pay for their 'overhead costs' (space, 'organisation') on top of that.
I'm fairly certain this depends on the prostitute. Some go for a lot of money, some don't. This also applies to foreign prostitutes.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: Secondly: Women in prostitution (in holland) can't actually compete for minimum wage jobs. Even getting a minimum wage job requires certain skills, like speaking the language and being mentally able of showing up for work every day (which is hard when you're addicted to booze or drugs, which it is estimated that over half of them are, not just a tenth).
If they can't compete for minimum-wage jobs, then the alternative is even worse. The half statistic is independently unverified, which is why I'm using the 10% one.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: Thirdly: The women working as prostitutes aren't in the same position as your normal 'average joe'. If I loose my job, I'll collect social security and while I'll have to cut back on everything, in the grand scheme of things, I'll be relatively comfortable and I won't be on the streets. You can't make the same argument for the ukrainians/nigerians/thais currently standing behind the windows in Amsterdam.
Once again, the alternative is even worse. If they can't even make money at minimum wage and have no safety net...
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote: And keep in mind that the red light district is actually the 'highlight' of dutch, legalized, prostitution. The other part of it is the women in my hometown standing around an official hooker parking lot in the middle of nowhere, or those working in an extremely shady club downtown. It's all legal, and it being legal is better then it being illegal, but it's still sad as fuck.
These women are choosing a 'job' that offers them better opportunities then they would have had in their home countries, that's true, but that reflects more on the dire conditions part of this world lives in then on the actual merits of prostitution.
If it wasn't better and they weren't coerced, most of them wouldn't be in the Netherlands. I do agree it's sad, though. Guess it's part of your "least harm" doctrine, just like drugs...
On August 03 2011 08:14 Bartuc wrote: Yeah of course, if they make such a choice the damage is the lesser of two evils. But I think if I would have such a massive debt that either I have to choose between robing a bank and potentially ending up in jail or spending 30 minutes with an 80 year old guy, that doesn't make the end result any less shitty/detrimental so to say ;-)
The action you choose is what you consider the lesser evil, neither evil is identical.
The point is this: Prostitution, at it's most common level, is the result of circumstances, where the most viable choice becomes selling your body for peanuts, whether it's in your own country or in another. It's the result of society failing a group of people (or the 'global community failing entire countries), and we should be offering other, better options then that, which I'd say is the general consensus in dutch politics. The fact that we regulate it doesn't mean that we think it's a good thing or anything like that, no matter how the international press reports on it.
The same argument can be made in this case. If tuition fees are at a point where your future job earnings can't cover them anymore, something is wrong in the system as a whole. I'm not questioning the decision individuals make in order to get by, I'm questioning the system as a whole. If college graduates feel the need to sell themselves off (which most of them obviously would prefer not to), that's a major signal that the system is failing entirely.
You're supposed to be going to college in order to get a good job, not to spend 4 years of good times and then being forced into this. I honestly think we pretty much agree on most of this to be honest ;p.
Not at all. It's not for "peanuts" that these girls are doing it. It's for the substantial amount of money they're offered. Please, the girls aren't doing this for $50 a night. They're doing it for hundreds, far more than I make working a 9-6pm shift. Girls are doing these things so they can have their rent paid for them, so they can keep partying, etc. It's a joke to even assume that these girls are doing it to survive.
On August 03 2011 09:06 Kahuna. wrote: Umm, no... they're doing this precisely because they can't get a good job and/or don't think they'll get a good job. In fact, a lot of these women eventually develop an addiction to this sort of thing where they end up doing it for several years of their lives. So, to think that they believe they'll eventually get a good job is not true... and it's probably quite the opposite.
The bolded part is almost certainly true, the recession is really bad. The rest of it is prognostication and does not follow; recessions end after a decade or two and jobs will, in the long run, come back. I'm not sure what it is to get "addicted" to prostitution, either...it might become compulsory? They might start liking the work?
Recession or not, a prostitute will not give up an increasingly lucrative career path to get a job where she has to work more hours and get paid less, it is naive to say that she will. Economic growth = more rich men, hence more business and higher fee's collected by the prostitute. As any enterprising individual will tell you. The more time you put in, the bigger your book grows and the more money you make. They have built a valuable business in the process of "simply trying to pay the college bills" and they will not toss it away so easily.
On August 03 2011 09:06 Kahuna. wrote: Umm, no... they're doing this precisely because they can't get a good job and/or don't think they'll get a good job. In fact, a lot of these women eventually develop an addiction to this sort of thing where they end up doing it for several years of their lives. So, to think that they believe they'll eventually get a good job is not true... and it's probably quite the opposite.
The bolded part is almost certainly true, the recession is really bad. The rest of it is prognostication and does not follow; recessions end after a decade or two and jobs will, in the long run, come back. Especially jobs that require university-level knowledge, they've started to recover faster than menial wage jobs...
I'm not sure what it is to get "addicted" to prostitution, either...it might become compulsory? They might start liking the work? The former is illegal, the latter is moral.
Easy money and luxuries. When they're pocketing good cash it can be really hard to start working 9-5 with a shitty wage.
Just want to throw in (if it hasn't been mentioned): The ONLY way you get rid of your student loan debt is by dying or by becoming physically unable to work. You CAN NOT declare bankruptcy or just walk away.
I can provide links to official sites but I've got a friend working on this topic for a piece on how students deal with debt after school and that's one of the big elements.
So, when there aren't many options to pay for that debt and you can't just walk away? Seems to me like you do what you can to make ends meet.
On August 03 2011 08:54 Derez wrote: That's undoubtedly true, but it's part of bigger societal issues. It's a combination of several problems:
1) Overpriced tuitions. 2) Societal acceptance of running crazy debts. 3) The dimishing 'value' associated with sleeping with someone. 4) Economic downturn, hard to get a job
I'd say that at least the first 3 things are issues that are a problem in our current society at large, not only in the USA, and that this is just the implication of them for the recently graduated. Obviously the girls doing this made poor choices, it's just that I wish they never had to face the choice in the first place. It's not 'just' college girls making poor choices (guys also), it's society encouraging them to make the wrong choices in the first place.
Overpriced tuition is definitely a big concern. Probably the biggest concern for our future performance as a nation. It's extremely difficult to see how we'd get people to accept higher taxes in exchange for larger education subsidies, though; just look at any econ thread on this forum. America is crazy and I don't see the crazy going down any time soon. Hell, I've just stated something that's incredibly controversial in America and might attract the black hole of education.
Alternatively, we could reform the education system, but this would die even faster in Congress.
The acceptable level of debt accumulated really depends on the utility you get out of the debt; as long as you get out more than you pay in interest, it's good to run up debt. Generally. This is certainly not true for all circumstances, and I'm not a finance major.
Three is blatant individual moralizing, to list this as a "problem of society" is absurd.
I was trying to respond to your earlier post still! Dont post so damn fast ;p.
Anyhow, for this one:
1) Agreed.
2) That's the economic principle indeed, but it doesn't actually work like that. In general, running a personal debt has become more acceptable in the western world (especially US, UK). There is no reason to assume that running a debt in the US in more profitable then in France (or wherever), yet holding a debt is more common in the US then anywhere else in the world. Running in the deep red is more acceptable in some countries then in others. Some societies promote it more then others. Can you really blame college students for doing it when their parents are doing it too?
3) I shouldn't have listed that as a 'problem'. It was me being preachy, and I agree there. It still doesn't actually change the fact that 'casual sex' has become more acceptable tho. I agree that it doesn't have to be a problem, but it does seem to me that the actual 'price of sex' is decreasing.
All I'm saying is that if people were warier of running a personal debt and less inclined to give 'it' away for free on a schoolnight, this would be less of a 'problem'. As it is, I see this largely as a result of changing values within our respective societies, not as a significant change in the amount of recent female graduates making 'poor' choices.
Recession or not, a prostitute will not give up an increasingly lucrative career path to get a job where she has to work more hours and get paid less, it is naive to say that she will. Economic growth = more rich men, hence more business and higher fee's collected by the prostitute. As any enterprising individual will tell you. The more time you put in, the bigger your book grows and the more money you make. They have built a valuable business in the process of "simply trying to pay the college bills" and they will not toss it away so easily.
Wouldn't this depend on expected returns in the future? It's not at all clear that the wages from prostitution will increase faster than the wages of a graduate of a top college, nor is it clear that said wages will be as stable. Prostitution loses wages as time passes by, while normal jobs increase in wage as time passes...
On August 03 2011 09:19 Daray wrote: Easy money and luxuries. When they're pocketing good cash it can be really hard to start working 9-5 with a shitty wage.
Even in the worst case scenario, where prostitute wage grows so fast that is makes future returns from college trivial in comparison, what's the problem? They'd be making a ton of money by choice for fewer hours, putting more women into the prostitution business. Which decreases supply in other industries, pushing wages up...
On August 03 2011 09:06 Kahuna. wrote: Umm, no... they're doing this precisely because they can't get a good job and/or don't think they'll get a good job. In fact, a lot of these women eventually develop an addiction to this sort of thing where they end up doing it for several years of their lives. So, to think that they believe they'll eventually get a good job is not true... and it's probably quite the opposite.
The bolded part is almost certainly true, the recession is really bad. The rest of it is prognostication and does not follow; recessions end after a decade or two and jobs will, in the long run, come back. Especially jobs that require university-level knowledge, they've started to recover faster than menial wage jobs...
I'm not sure what it is to get "addicted" to prostitution, either...it might become compulsory? They might start liking the work? The former is illegal, the latter is moral.
I just don't think that these girls wake up in the morning thinking something along the lines of: "Oh I'll be a prostitute for now, because in 2-3 years I think I'll definitely be a lawyer making 100k+ a year." It's probably more like: "Oh, my degree is useless because I have a position in retail and it doesn't look like I'm going to get the promotion to store-manager (which will barely help me anyway) and the future doesn't look any brighter... so let me turn to prostitution."
And when I mentioned "addiction to prostitution" I didn't mean it as literally, like the way a medical addiction would be defined. What I meant was that after these girls pay off their debts and return to their typical 9-to-5 , they realize that their prostitution methods were much more rewarding financially so they keep going back because nothing pays like it. To make my point more clear see the product description of this book called "Sugar Daddy Diaries" on Amazon: ----- + Show Spoiler +
SUGAR DADDY DIARIES: "This confessional memoir shows journalist Helen Croydon's soul-searching journey after she set out to explore her penchant for older men. She finds herself propelled into a world of highbrow sex parties and London's finest hotels. But it soon becomes a dangerous addiction."
On August 03 2011 09:22 Derez wrote: 2) That's the economic principle indeed, but it doesn't actually work like that. In general, running a personal debt has become more acceptable in the western world (especially US, UK). There is no reason to assume that running a debt in the US in more profitable then in France (or wherever), yet holding a debt is more common in the US then anywhere else in the world. Running in the deep red is more acceptable in some countries then in others. Some societies promote it more then others. Can you really blame college students for doing it when their parents are doing it too?
There actually is a very crude way to calculate whether or not running a deficit is good for a country. If long-run bond interest rates are lower than expected GDP growth over the same time with the immediate cash, debt is ok.
Personal debt is similar. Interest rates were low and growth rate was high in the United States in the 2000s, so running a personal debt for most people and companies actually was better in the US than in France or other countries with higher interest rates and lower expected growth. Now that expected growth is low, savings are going up, if slowly. it's a cyclical thing, and I wouldn't worry about the moral issues. People are, in the end, driven by economics, even if they don't realize it.
In this case, the debt the girls are racking up now is expected to be paid for by future returns, and they're already working off part of the debt they owe...to be quite honest, it sounds a lot like med school.
On August 03 2011 09:22 Derez wrote: 3) I shouldn't have listed that as a 'problem'. It was me being preachy, and I agree there. It still doesn't actually change the fact that 'casual sex' has become more acceptable tho. I agree that it doesn't have to be a problem, but it does seem to me that the actual 'price of sex' is decreasing.
The "price" of consensual sex certainly is decreasing. Two hundred years ago, custom demanded that you had to wait to marry before someone could have sex with you and adultery was a crime. The extent to which this is a bad thing is debatable.
On August 03 2011 09:22 Derez wrote: All I'm saying is that if people were warier of running a personal debt and less inclined to give 'it' away for free on a schoolnight, this would be less of a 'problem'. As it is, I see this largely as a result of changing values within our respective societies, not as a significant change in the amount of recent female graduates making 'poor' choices.
To be honest, liberalization of consensual sex has been coming for a long time since the advent of reliable birth control, irregardless of debt or other matters. And if the girls think prostitution is "better" for them than other jobs they could take...well, that's their choice, really. I'm not going to force them into jobs that they like less.
On August 03 2011 09:25 Kahuna. wrote: I just don't think that these girls wake up in the morning thinking something along the lines of: "Oh I'll be a prostitute for now, because in 2-3 years I think I'll definitely be a lawyer making 100k+ a year." It's probably more like: "Oh, my degree is useless because I have a position in retail and it doesn't look like I'm going to get the promotion to store-manager (which will barely help me anyway) and the future doesn't look any brighter... so let me turn to prostitution."
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.
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 15:18 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 15:18 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 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 [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)"
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.
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 16:46 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 16:24 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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 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.
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 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
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.
It's absolutely prostitution. It just removes most of the horrors normally associated with prostitution... like abusive pimps, dangerous street corners, a large number of johns per night, etc.
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.
It's absolutely prostitution. It just removes most of the horrors normally associated with prostitution... like abusive pimps, dangerous street corners, a large number of johns per night, etc.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It's prostitution without the negatives typically associated with prostitution as it occurs in reality. I'm guessing the drugs and disease problems are also far smaller, and the ability to outright refuse a John is also worth something.
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....
Technically, allowing people to sell organs should increase the supply of organs and save more lives...with donate-only, it's kind of like a market with the government enforcing a price ceiling of zero dollars, with the associated inefficiencies...
But there are huge problems with this train of thought for obvious reasons, unless someone figures out how to stop abuse of a system like that.
On August 04 2011 03:50 Drowsy wrote: That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It's prostitution without the negatives typically associated with prostitution as it occurs in reality. I'm guessing the drugs and disease problems are also far smaller, and the ability to outright refuse a John is also worth something.
we can just regulate prostitution, just like how porn movies are produced. in both cases, women are paid for sex. it will be done at a safe location with safe ppl and have medical insurance available.
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:
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.
No comment; like I said, your arguments are just as invalid and we're bound to disagree. I'm glad you're convinced it is at least a "life-changing" moment. And, nothing is wrong with UofT... you just give college graduates too much credit and think that they're all living at a higher level of understanding of life than those who didn't attend college. And that opinion is not reflective of real life since people who haven't attended college can be just as successful and sometimes even better than college students at planning their future. Perhaps you aren't as critical/analytical of an observer of the personalities around you at your institution? And by the way, the site has been in business since 2006... when there was no recession... so there's proof that, college students (whom you put in very high regard), were making bad diploma choices then too (at a time when there were NO economic problems).
On August 04 2011 03:50 Drowsy wrote: That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It's prostitution without the negatives typically associated with prostitution as it occurs in reality. I'm guessing the drugs and disease problems are also far smaller, and the ability to outright refuse a John is also worth something.
we can just regulate prostitution, just like how porn movies are produced. in both cases, women are paid for sex. it will be done at a safe location with safe ppl and have medical insurance available.
Hmm this is interesting because I never knew... Are porn stars actually given medical insurance by their employers?
On August 04 2011 04:20 dybydx wrote: we can just regulate prostitution, just like how porn movies are produced. in both cases, women are paid for sex. it will be done at a safe location with safe ppl and have medical insurance available.
Hmm this is interesting because I never knew... Are porn stars actually given medical insurance by their employers?
depending on how you regulate it. for example, in Germany, prostitutes even get a pension plan. in exchange, a portion of their earning is taxed.
maybe TLO can tell us more about this.
but in general, employers are required provide a safe work environment. if the employees became ill/injured as direct result of unsafe work conditions, there is usually a good chance of lawsuit.
On August 04 2011 06:04 Kahuna. wrote: No comment; like I said, your arguments are just as invalid and we're bound to disagree. I'm glad you're convinced it is at least a "life-changing" moment.
If moral attitudes are different between individuals, I thought you might have picked up that what people consider "life changing" would, consequently, also differ between individuals.
You have yet to explain, if it's the legality that separates the job from roofing and garbage pickup, why you still would not consider college students paying off loans using sex in Nevada or Canada equivalent to college students paying off loans through other dangerous, high-paying jobs with low entry requirements.
On August 04 2011 06:04 Kahuna. wrote: And, nothing is wrong with UofT... you just give college graduates too much credit and think that they're all living at a higher level of understanding of life than those who didn't attend college. And that opinion is not reflective of real life since people who haven't attended college can be just as successful and sometimes even better than college students at planning their future. Perhaps you aren't as critical/analytical of an observer of the personalities around you at your institution?
I don't think so, it's a habit of mine to keep track of the competition and in this case, the competition is quite literally the floor, we were organized that way. And so far, the people I compete against aren't that different from me. In many cases, they're quite a bit smarter than I am. I wish that wasn't so but hey, that's life.
Is everyone who goes through college as intelligent as everyone who doesn't? Of course not. Some idiots will survive four years. But I have yet to meet someone in college who holds the long term so...indifferently. I certainly haven't met anyone close to what you're describing, and obviously not at the frequency you're implying. An alternate explanation could be that you're predisposed to see your peers as inferiors, but that doesn't make much sense, either.
On August 04 2011 06:04 Kahuna. wrote: And by the way, the site has been in business since 2006... when there was no recession... so there's proof that, college students (whom you put in very high regard), were making bad diploma choices then too (at a time when there were NO economic problems).
I'm fairly sure you haven't read the article; college students mushroomed by over 350% on the site after the recession hit. Now, I'm not going to argue that all the girls aren't short sighted; there are idiots in almost every profession, not just prostitution. But even if you assume that every single college girl working at Seeking Arrangements before the recession was "short-sighted" and hold this as the baseline*, that leaves a ridiculous number of girls who...aren't. It certainly isn't true that you can collectively label them "short-sighted" as you repeatedly have.
*Simply because, in times that aren't recessions, alternate jobs are somewhat easy to find and full employment happens. Normally. The current recession technically ended in 2009, but jobs are still difficult to find. The dot com bubble recession did have significant job drag, but let's assume it didn't and jobs were readily available just for simplicity.
On August 04 2011 04:20 dybydx wrote: we can just regulate prostitution, just like how porn movies are produced. in both cases, women are paid for sex. it will be done at a safe location with safe ppl and have medical insurance available.
Hmm this is interesting because I never knew... Are porn stars actually given medical insurance by their employers?
depending on how you regulate it. for example, in Germany, prostitutes even get a pension plan. in exchange, a portion of their earning is taxed.
maybe TLO can tell us more about this.
but in general, employers are required provide a safe work environment. if the employees became ill/injured as direct result of unsafe work conditions, there is usually a good chance of lawsuit.
I see. This is curious... So, do the employers of porn stars promise to their employees that they won't get STDs if they have unsafe sex (e.g. without condoms), as is common in pornos? And, if porn stars do get STDs during their work, can they sue the company for it? Or, does the employer let the porn star know that one potential risk that they have to accept while engaging in the work is the transfer of STDs?
On August 04 2011 11:06 acker wrote: You have yet to explain, if it's the legality that separates the job from roofing and garbage pickup, why you still would not consider college students paying off loans using sex in Nevada or Canada equivalent to college students paying off loans through other dangerous, high-paying jobs with low entry requirements.
This is pretty simple. The roofing and garbage pickup work doesn't carry all the other negative baggage/potential guilt/eventual lack of self-esteem (the list goes on) that being a "sugar baby" would entail. Read the article if you need examples of the baggage/guilt these women carry. So even if the jobs are equally dangerous... they are still not equivalent in other ways (this includes the potential illegality of being a "sugar baby"). There's the explanation you're seeking. And yeh, you might not agree, since you have a bunch of other questionable assumptions and views based on your responses in this thread.
I'm fairly sure you haven't read the article; college students mushroomed by over 350% on the site after the recession hit.
I'm actually positive that I have read the article, so the first portion of your statement is incorrect. As for the latter part, again this is really quite simple. It just means that the college students who are slightly less "short-sighted" than the ones who had joined prior to the recession decided that it was now time to join the party.
On August 04 2011 04:20 dybydx wrote: we can just regulate prostitution, just like how porn movies are produced. in both cases, women are paid for sex. it will be done at a safe location with safe ppl and have medical insurance available.
Hmm this is interesting because I never knew... Are porn stars actually given medical insurance by their employers?
depending on how you regulate it. for example, in Germany, prostitutes even get a pension plan. in exchange, a portion of their earning is taxed.
On August 04 2011 11:06 acker wrote: You have yet to explain, if it's the legality that separates the job from roofing and garbage pickup, why you still would not consider college students paying off loans using sex in Nevada or Canada equivalent to college students paying off loans through other dangerous, high-paying jobs with low entry requirements.
This is pretty simple. The roofing and garbage pickup work doesn't carry all the other negative baggage/potential guilt/eventual lack of self-esteem (the list goes on) that being a "sugar baby" would entail. Read the article if you need examples of the baggage/guilt these women carry. So even if the jobs are equally dangerous... they are still not equivalent in other ways (this includes the potential illegality of being a "sugar baby"). There's the explanation you're seeking. And yeh, you might not agree, since you have a bunch of other questionable assumptions and views based on your responses in this thread.
You're still projecting your morals onto others, here. Not everyone has the same moral compass you do, therefore different jobs have different effects on everyone. If it's consensual between all parties and they are rational adults, they can quit if it offends their moral sense to that extent. If some don't quit and still have moral problems, then they're doing something that happens in quite a few other professions; exchanging ethical qualms for cash. The latter is, quite frankly, their responsibility to choose what they're prepared to accept, just the same as any other job where individuals may have differing ethical boundaries.
Garbage pickup and meat packing would cause great distress to some Hindus of upper caste. Both are dangerous jobs. Should we ban both jobs to college students on the grounds that some people would suffer moral scarring if they chose to do them? Or should we let people judge their own morals and apply for jobs accordingly? If you have problems with the legality, would you be ok with it if similar steps were taken independently by college girls in Canada, or any other country with legal prostitution?
If you have problems with garbage pickup and meat packing on technicalities, I'm sure you can think up a whole host of dangerous jobs that might scar segments of society for life if they chose to apply. The key word being "chose".
A disclaimer: if we're taking into consideration those who are literally trapped into it with no other recourse by negative pressure (due to debt), then it's a whole other can of worms. For the purposes of the above, I'm assuming that you think that the girls have "acceptable" alternative choices.
I'm fairly sure you haven't read the article; college students mushroomed by over 350% on the site after the recession hit.
I'm actually positive that I have read the article, so the first portion of your statement is incorrect. As for the latter part, again this is really quite simple. It just means that the college students who are slightly less "short-sighted" than the ones who had joined prior to the recession decided that it was now time to join the party.
Five people are unemployed for every job opening nowadays. The BLS data is on page ten and covers it by profession (or, more accurately, industry). Almost all professions were and are on the same trend, though some have recovered relatively more than others over the last year. It was twice as bad immediately after and during the recession. Some party, huh?
Incidentally, you're still assuming "only "short-sighted" people become prostitutes; therefore all prostitutes are "short-sighted"". I thought we went over why this is absurd to claim for the collective. Threw it right out alongside my statement that "since all college kids have long run foresight, all college kids can plan ten years ahead into the future".
I don't see anything wrong with what's happening here. As long as both sides cotribute their end of the bargain, both sides come out ahead. I also don't see how this is ethically wrong as was mentioned earlier. No one is forcing anyone to do anything and/or cheating anyone out of anything.
From an objective viewpoint there is nothing wrong with whoring. It is perfectly natural to use what you have to gain more.
It has been done as long as humanity has existed and will continue until we are extinct. It is very human and occurs in all layers of society.
Christianity has leaked into "free will" through mass media thus causing the belief that it is wrong. The christian brainwash has happened to such an extent that no western politician can contradict it without being doomed.
What the heck?! There are girls in their 20's on that site.
It's a scam like almost all dating sites, fake profiles that give you fake emails that you must become a member to open then once you sign up you realize the site is only men who fell for the same stupid trick.
On August 04 2011 16:32 acker wrote: Incidentally, you're still assuming "only "short-sighted" people become prostitutes; therefore all prostitutes are "short-sighted"". I thought we went over why this is absurd to claim for the collective. Threw it right out alongside my statement that "since all college kids have long run foresight, all college kids can plan ten years ahead into the future".
Bro, this discussion can go on for a lifetime... but since I don't have a lifetime to discuss it let's just leave it at this: I have my assumptions, and you have yours... we're both making claims for the collective, and we both disagree when it comes to which of those claims are more reasonable. This applies to almost every one of the disagreements we've had in this thread... which is why our conclusions regarding the issues at discussion are different. Yes, I do think these women are short-sighted and yes, I do think that being a "sugar baby" is wildly different from having a career in roofing and garbage pick-up (which is why many women who engage in this type of activity do feel guilt afterwards, some feel dirty/worthless and so on)... I have my reasons behind my views. You disagree when it comes to this and you have your reasons behind your views. To me, my assumptions, claims and reasoning behind them are more acceptable than yours (and, yes, I know that this depends on the person who is making the judgments) based on my observations in life which is why I hold my stance on the issue... You feel the other way around. I am not imposing my views upon you or anyone else, it's just what I think, and based on many of the responses in this thread there are similar sentiments. (e.g. "this is really sad", "this is wrong", "there are other, more acceptable ways to get out of student debt", etc.). You don't need to share them, but the sentiments are there. At the end of the day, both our views are based on claims we've made for the collective. Which is why neither of our views on the issue is no more valid than the others... it's purely relative. Think what you want... I've pitched in my more than two-cents on the issue and the intent was not to impose my views on others, but just to share my views like one generally does on a forum.
On August 04 2011 04:20 dybydx wrote: we can just regulate prostitution, just like how porn movies are produced. in both cases, women are paid for sex. it will be done at a safe location with safe ppl and have medical insurance available.
Hmm this is interesting because I never knew... Are porn stars actually given medical insurance by their employers?
depending on how you regulate it. for example, in Germany, prostitutes even get a pension plan. in exchange, a portion of their earning is taxed.
maybe TLO can tell us more about this.
LOL.
"Hey TLO, nice BO3, congratulations for taking the win. Now, on another subject. Do prostitutes in germany get a pension plan? Do you have some personal experience to share? Where to you spend all your prize money?"
But, its true actually. Prostitutes have to pay taxes like everyone else has to (of course some of them probably dont pay them...).
On August 04 2011 11:06 acker wrote: You have yet to explain, if it's the legality that separates the job from roofing and garbage pickup, why you still would not consider college students paying off loans using sex in Nevada or Canada equivalent to college students paying off loans through other dangerous, high-paying jobs with low entry requirements.
This is pretty simple. The roofing and garbage pickup work doesn't carry all the other negative baggage/potential guilt/eventual lack of self-esteem (the list goes on) that being a "sugar baby" would entail. Read the article if you need examples of the baggage/guilt these women carry. So even if the jobs are equally dangerous... they are still not equivalent in other ways (this includes the potential illegality of being a "sugar baby"). There's the explanation you're seeking. And yeh, you might not agree, since you have a bunch of other questionable assumptions and views based on your responses in this thread.
You're still projecting your morals onto others, here. Not everyone has the same moral compass you do, therefore different jobs have different effects on everyone. If it's consensual between all parties and they are rational adults, they can quit if it offends their moral sense to that extent. If some don't quit and still have moral problems, then they're doing something that happens in quite a few other professions; exchanging ethical qualms for cash. The latter is, quite frankly, their responsibility to choose what they're prepared to accept, just the same as any other job where individuals may have differing ethical boundaries.
Garbage pickup and meat packing would cause great distress to some Hindus of upper caste. Both are dangerous jobs. Should we ban both jobs to college students on the grounds that some people would suffer moral scarring if they chose to do them? Or should we let people judge their own morals and apply for jobs accordingly? If you have problems with the legality, would you be ok with it if similar steps were taken independently by college girls in Canada, or any other country with legal prostitution?
I am sorry, but you are projecting the "lets have no morals whatsover in our society" here and that doesnt work. Morals are part of the culture of a country and last time I checked the US had pretty strict community morals against sex and even "beep words". Last time I checked the US wasnt populated by Hindus as a majority either, so thats just another stupid argument to have no rules. You do need "community rules" (morals, codes of conduct, ...) though to define a country and having none will just make you a globalized citizen without any culture.
Prostitution is prostitution, regardless if you give it other names. Dont try to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. It is - and should be - illegal. People are just too lazy to do "the dirty but honest job"; if you cant afford college you shouldnt try for it; if you cant afford a child (both due to time you are willing to "sacrifice" and money) you shouldnt have one. Prostitution is the "easy way out" for girls, but its a bad solution and really only supports the "perverted" way of men paying for sex. Its like saying "I only grow marihuana plants which are natural, so that should be acceptable."
I have to quote Dumbledore from one of the Harry Potter movies here: "We have to decide between what is right and what is easy!"
i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
I think no-one would disagree with you here. See, prostitution is needed for the society, because having your primal needs satisfied maker you a better worker. But the fact that there are whores, as there were, and there will always be doesn't mess with other people's ideas of true love or probably only sex with people who you're attracted to. As long as there are girls, who wouldn't do this, I'm OK with that (even though in my country they are quite rare to find). But think of it that way - would you pay for whores when you turn 60-70 ? If you would, then you're equally disgusting, if you wouldn't - well chances are, there are girls who think that way too
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
I think no-one would disagree with you here. See, prostitution is needed for the society, because having your primal needs satisfied maker you a better worker. But the fact that there are whores, as there were, and there will always be doesn't mess with other people's ideas of true love or probably only sex with people who you're attracted to. As long as there are girls, who wouldn't do this, I'm OK with that (even though in my country they are quite rare to find). But think of it that way - would you pay for whores when you turn 60-70 ? If you would, then you're equally disgusting, if you wouldn't - well chances are, there are girls who think that way too
a. Calling sex a "primal need" is a bit of an exaggeration IMO, because it makes it sound totally necessary. It reminds me of one episode of Boston Legal:
Alan defends a judge suing a company promising to cure him of "same sex attraction disorder,"
... which is simply "being gay" instead of a disease. The same should apply here: Dont invent fancy names which make something sound "less bad" than it actually is.
b. Humanity has survived without sex being as important as the pill, the sexual liberation, our media (especially the "sex sells" ad campaigns) and the porn industry make it. I have to go back to the novel DUNE by Frank Herbert again, where there is this "test of the box". Only if you are able to override your instincts will you truly be a human and "free love" is exactly the opposite of that. Being able to override your instincts is ever more important, because if we dont learn that skill we are going to be cheated by any stupid ad campaign, politician or journalist, just because they are adressing the "basic instincts". Could you say NO if [insert the most attractive person here] would come up and said "Hey, lets spend the night together doing naughty things.".
This is just another issue where we can see the decline of our western culture. Prostitution and having sex without being married is turned into an issue without consequences and that is bad for a human character. Teenagers getting pregnant (and screwing up their education in the process because they have a child to care for), spending too much time on "fun" instead of "work" while you are living on borrowed money (and thus amassing a huge debt over time), becoming a prostitute (and losing interest in sex due to having to do it with detestable "sugar daddys" repeatedly), smoking, spending all your time at the computer playing video games (instead of going out with real life friends OR learning how to make real life friends in the first place) ... everything has consequences and most of the bad ones can really screw you up for the rest of your life. It mostly comes from the "nothing bad can ever happen" attitude which we are taught by our media and the propaganda adopted after the social revolution in 1968.
Prostitution is only needed because we are taught to value having sex too much. I once saw a 13 year old boy who said that "50% of conjugal success is having good sex." (or something like that). If we didnt value sex as highly those 70 year old sugar daddys wouldnt feel the need to pay young girls for their services, but sadly it is easiest to sell things with sex ... and since we dont restrict ad campaigns every company will use it.
On August 04 2011 11:06 acker wrote: You have yet to explain, if it's the legality that separates the job from roofing and garbage pickup, why you still would not consider college students paying off loans using sex in Nevada or Canada equivalent to college students paying off loans through other dangerous, high-paying jobs with low entry requirements.
This is pretty simple. The roofing and garbage pickup work doesn't carry all the other negative baggage/potential guilt/eventual lack of self-esteem (the list goes on) that being a "sugar baby" would entail. Read the article if you need examples of the baggage/guilt these women carry. So even if the jobs are equally dangerous... they are still not equivalent in other ways (this includes the potential illegality of being a "sugar baby"). There's the explanation you're seeking. And yeh, you might not agree, since you have a bunch of other questionable assumptions and views based on your responses in this thread.
You're still projecting your morals onto others, here. Not everyone has the same moral compass you do, therefore different jobs have different effects on everyone. If it's consensual between all parties and they are rational adults, they can quit if it offends their moral sense to that extent. If some don't quit and still have moral problems, then they're doing something that happens in quite a few other professions; exchanging ethical qualms for cash. The latter is, quite frankly, their responsibility to choose what they're prepared to accept, just the same as any other job where individuals may have differing ethical boundaries.
Garbage pickup and meat packing would cause great distress to some Hindus of upper caste. Both are dangerous jobs. Should we ban both jobs to college students on the grounds that some people would suffer moral scarring if they chose to do them? Or should we let people judge their own morals and apply for jobs accordingly? If you have problems with the legality, would you be ok with it if similar steps were taken independently by college girls in Canada, or any other country with legal prostitution?
If you have problems with garbage pickup and meat packing on technicalities, I'm sure you can think up a whole host of dangerous jobs that might scar segments of society for life if they chose to apply. The key word being "chose".
A disclaimer: if we're taking into consideration those who are literally trapped into it with no other recourse by negative pressure (due to debt), then it's a whole other can of worms. For the purposes of the above, I'm assuming that you think that the girls have "acceptable" alternative choices.
I'm fairly sure you haven't read the article; college students mushroomed by over 350% on the site after the recession hit.
I'm actually positive that I have read the article, so the first portion of your statement is incorrect. As for the latter part, again this is really quite simple. It just means that the college students who are slightly less "short-sighted" than the ones who had joined prior to the recession decided that it was now time to join the party.
Five people are unemployed for every job opening nowadays. The BLS data is on page ten and covers it by profession (or, more accurately, industry). Almost all professions were and are on the same trend, though some have recovered relatively more than others over the last year. It was twice as bad immediately after and during the recession. Some party, huh?
Incidentally, you're still assuming "only "short-sighted" people become prostitutes; therefore all prostitutes are "short-sighted"". I thought we went over why this is absurd to claim for the collective. Threw it right out alongside my statement that "since all college kids have long run foresight, all college kids can plan ten years ahead into the future".
let me get something straight, you are defending the rights of high class prostitutes due to the unemployment rate and high tuition costs and basing this on the ability of a college student to plan for the future? Prostitutes sell pussy, Most college students do drugs or drink/smoke
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
I think no-one would disagree with you here. See, prostitution is needed for the society, because having your primal needs satisfied maker you a better worker. But the fact that there are whores, as there were, and there will always be doesn't mess with other people's ideas of true love or probably only sex with people who you're attracted to. As long as there are girls, who wouldn't do this, I'm OK with that (even though in my country they are quite rare to find). But think of it that way - would you pay for whores when you turn 60-70 ? If you would, then you're equally disgusting, if you wouldn't - well chances are, there are girls who think that way too
a. Calling sex a "primal need" is a bit of an exaggeration IMO, because it makes it sound totally necessary. It reminds me of one episode of Boston Legal:
Alan defends a judge suing a company promising to cure him of "same sex attraction disorder,"
... which is simply "being gay" instead of a disease. The same should apply here: Dont invent fancy names which make something sound "less bad" than it actually is.
b. Humanity has survived without sex being as important as the pill, the sexual liberation, our media (especially the "sex sells" ad campaigns) and the porn industry make it. I have to go back to the novel DUNE by Frank Herbert again, where there is this "test of the box". Only if you are able to override your instincts will you truly be a human and "free love" is exactly the opposite of that. Being able to override your instincts is ever more important, because if we dont learn that skill we are going to be cheated by any stupid ad campaign, politician or journalist, just because they are adressing the "basic instincts". Could you say NO if [insert the most attractive person here] would come up and said "Hey, lets spend the night together doing naughty things.".
Did you just quote a fantasy *fiction* novel as a model of society in the past? (and an episode of a fictitious television series as an example of misguided political correctness?)
Sex has been a HUGE part of humanity ever since we still lived in wandering tribes. To say otherwise is absurd. Consensual sex is a relatively modern invention. Just a few hundred years ago, women would be beaten for refusing their husbands, (who they likely did not choose btw). You had sex probably daily, and had however many children that naturally ended in. How on Earth are we somehow less "moral" than our progenitors?
It's human nature to glorify the past. We always lament the "new, depraved world we live in today" and wistfully long for the "good ol' days" of our fathers. It's a running theme we seem to never tire of.
When the Waltz first grew in popularity, it was deemed to be "destroying society", due to a 3-beat tempo, (which symbolized the devil), and that it required young men and women to physically touch each other. The first books which were not the bible were criticized as garbage which would erode the brain and distract people from their work. Newspapers criticized radio, claiming it would destroy society, and radio in turn condemned television. Politicians lambasted segregation, women's suffrage, and now gay marriage all as things which are "destroying our good moral society."
I know what it's like to imagine a perfect past world, but to claim that our civilization was more "moral" in the past is ridiculous blind nostalgia.
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
I think no-one would disagree with you here. See, prostitution is needed for the society, because having your primal needs satisfied maker you a better worker. But the fact that there are whores, as there were, and there will always be doesn't mess with other people's ideas of true love or probably only sex with people who you're attracted to. As long as there are girls, who wouldn't do this, I'm OK with that (even though in my country they are quite rare to find). But think of it that way - would you pay for whores when you turn 60-70 ? If you would, then you're equally disgusting, if you wouldn't - well chances are, there are girls who think that way too
a. Calling sex a "primal need" is a bit of an exaggeration IMO, because it makes it sound totally necessary. It reminds me of one episode of Boston Legal:
Alan defends a judge suing a company promising to cure him of "same sex attraction disorder,"
... which is simply "being gay" instead of a disease. The same should apply here: Dont invent fancy names which make something sound "less bad" than it actually is.
b. Humanity has survived without sex being as important as the pill, the sexual liberation, our media (especially the "sex sells" ad campaigns) and the porn industry make it. I have to go back to the novel DUNE by Frank Herbert again, where there is this "test of the box". Only if you are able to override your instincts will you truly be a human and "free love" is exactly the opposite of that. Being able to override your instincts is ever more important, because if we dont learn that skill we are going to be cheated by any stupid ad campaign, politician or journalist, just because they are adressing the "basic instincts". Could you say NO if [insert the most attractive person here] would come up and said "Hey, lets spend the night together doing naughty things.".
This is just another issue where we can see the decline of our western culture. Prostitution and having sex without being married is turned into an issue without consequences and that is bad for a human character. Teenagers getting pregnant (and screwing up their education in the process because they have a child to care for), spending too much time on "fun" instead of "work" while you are living on borrowed money (and thus amassing a huge debt over time), becoming a prostitute (and losing interest in sex due to having to do it with detestable "sugar daddys" repeatedly), smoking, spending all your time at the computer playing video games (instead of going out with real life friends OR learning how to make real life friends in the first place) ... everything has consequences and most of the bad ones can really screw you up for the rest of your life. It mostly comes from the "nothing bad can ever happen" attitude which we are taught by our media and the propaganda adopted after the social revolution in 1968.
Prostitution is only needed because we are taught to value having sex too much. I once saw a 13 year old boy who said that "50% of conjugal success is having good sex." (or something like that). If we didnt value sex as highly those 70 year old sugar daddys wouldnt feel the need to pay young girls for their services, but sadly it is easiest to sell things with sex ... and since we dont restrict ad campaigns every company will use it.
Looking at things you try to frown upon, like sex without marriage, I guess you're a religious person. Would you be so kind to elaborate (without resorting to religious ethics for arguments), why giving up obsolete social restrictions is harmful for individuals constituting our society?
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
I wouldn't have any problem dating such girl if I would be sure enough that I won't get STD from her(actually had a relationship with an escort girl for some time). And I'm not interested in marriage at all due to various rationalistic reasons.
Prostitution is only needed because we are taught to value having sex too much. I once saw a 13 year old boy who said that "50% of conjugal success is having good sex." (or something like that). If we didnt value sex as highly those 70 year old sugar daddys wouldnt feel the need to pay young girls for their services, but sadly it is easiest to sell things with sex ... and since we dont restrict ad campaigns every company will use it.
I find it amusing you'r saying society caused sex to be so important, and drive people to "achieve" it, so to speak. This is the same society that's been telling us for the last century or so that being thin is a virtue, and yet there are more people suffering from over - weight then the ones suffering from under = weight in the US. It's basic instinct - I wan't to eat a chocolate and so I do.
On August 04 2011 19:29 Rabiator wrote: I am sorry, but you are projecting the "lets have no morals whatsover in our society" here and that doesnt work. Morals are part of the culture of a country and last time I checked the US had pretty strict community morals against sex and even "beep words". Last time I checked the US wasnt populated by Hindus as a majority either, so thats just another stupid argument to have no rules. You do need "community rules" (morals, codes of conduct, ...) though to define a country and having none will just make you a globalized citizen without any culture.
It's true that the people of the United States have deep, ingrained feelings about the "proper" way to have consensual sex. The majority of society thinks that homosexuals burn in hell and that boobs are more harmful than corpses. Whether or not a majority thinks something is right or wrong does not necessarily make it so.
Where exactly did you see me say "let's have no morals" or that rules should not exist? I've stated neither, I believe neither. Nor am I sure why being "globalized" is a slur. Care to explain?
The rest reads like something you ripped directly out of a Catholic sermon. Especially your views on nonmarital sex. This guy put it best:
On August 05 2011 01:57 Evilmystic wrote: Looking at things you try to frown upon, like sex without marriage, I guess you're a religious person. Would you be so kind to elaborate (without resorting to religious ethics for arguments), why giving up obsolete social restrictions is harmful for individuals constituting our society?
On August 04 2011 23:12 Puph wrote: let me get something straight, you are defending the rights of high class prostitutes due to the unemployment rate and high tuition costs and basing this on the ability of a college student to plan for the future? Prostitutes sell pussy, Most college students do drugs or drink/smoke
No, I'm replying to the assumption that prostitutes can necessarily find alternative jobs in a recession. This is based off of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
wow, so timely. you know the tyra banks show did an episode on this years ago. even showed the website. MTV did a "true life- i want a sugar daddy" or something.
it's just lazy people wanting to go out and do expensive things, without having to pay for anything. These girls recoil at the touch of their sugar daddy's sometimes. it's disgusting.
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
You fail logic forever. I can support homosexual marriage being legal without wanting one myself. I can support the right of people to drink and smoke without wanting my little sister to do the same. Neither of those mean that I'm secretly against homosexuality or against drinking/smoking.
Likewise, I can support the right to free speech for idiots like you, even if you disgust me. The fact that you disgust me doesn't mean that I secretly hate free speech. I just openly hate you.
The 2nd example bout smoking and drinking makes u a hypocrite the first is because ur not gay yourself which is fine. His logic isn't flawed, if u would find someone close to you beig a slut u probably wouldn't agree with it, but if it's a stranger u would go as far as to support it. that's being two faced and is logically acceptable but having that kinda view point makes u seem like ur just playing devils advocate. To express ur true support or ill will towards the subject u have u put urself in the position as these people or someone who knows a person like this... Most people seem to think it's fine, in this thread, cuz it doesn't really matter are affect them and society now adays preach "if it's not ur business then it's fine, so leave it alone"
On August 05 2011 05:01 Malgrif wrote: The 2nd example bout smoking and drinking makes u a hypocrite the first is because ur not gay yourself which is fine. His logic isn't flawed, if u would find someone close to you beig a slut u probably wouldn't agree with it, but if it's a stranger u would go as far as to support it. that's being two faced and is logically acceptable but having that kinda view point makes u seem like ur just playing devils advocate. To express ur true support or ill will towards the subject u have u put urself in the position as these people or someone who knows a person like this... Most people seem to think it's fine, in this thread, cuz it doesn't really matter are affect them and society now adays preach "if it's not ur business then it's fine, so leave it alone"
People have completely rational reasons to care about their relatives' safety but not about problems of random people. With that being said, I'd be much more worried if my hypothetical brother (I happen to be the only child) would serve in army or work in a mine than if he decides to become a gay slut or smoke weed occasionally.
On August 04 2011 19:54 hmmm... wrote: i just wonder how many of those people saying there's nothing wrong with it, would themselves date/marry a girl who's done the same?
of course, guys on teamliquid would probably say "uh we only said it's not wrong, that doesn't mean we'd like our own gf/wife to have done the same when she was in college"
people here like to look logical, going beyond political correctness, etc. but i am willing to bet that if you knew some girl personally fucking gramps for necessary cash, you'd probably be disgusted.
it's like how many people claim upfront they aren't racist but secretly, they are racist, whether or not they realize it or not.
I think no-one would disagree with you here. See, prostitution is needed for the society, because having your primal needs satisfied maker you a better worker. But the fact that there are whores, as there were, and there will always be doesn't mess with other people's ideas of true love or probably only sex with people who you're attracted to. As long as there are girls, who wouldn't do this, I'm OK with that (even though in my country they are quite rare to find). But think of it that way - would you pay for whores when you turn 60-70 ? If you would, then you're equally disgusting, if you wouldn't - well chances are, there are girls who think that way too
a. Calling sex a "primal need" is a bit of an exaggeration IMO, because it makes it sound totally necessary. It reminds me of one episode of Boston Legal:
Alan defends a judge suing a company promising to cure him of "same sex attraction disorder,"
... which is simply "being gay" instead of a disease. The same should apply here: Dont invent fancy names which make something sound "less bad" than it actually is.
b. Humanity has survived without sex being as important as the pill, the sexual liberation, our media (especially the "sex sells" ad campaigns) and the porn industry make it. I have to go back to the novel DUNE by Frank Herbert again, where there is this "test of the box". Only if you are able to override your instincts will you truly be a human and "free love" is exactly the opposite of that. Being able to override your instincts is ever more important, because if we dont learn that skill we are going to be cheated by any stupid ad campaign, politician or journalist, just because they are adressing the "basic instincts". Could you say NO if [insert the most attractive person here] would come up and said "Hey, lets spend the night together doing naughty things.".
This is just another issue where we can see the decline of our western culture. Prostitution and having sex without being married is turned into an issue without consequences and that is bad for a human character. Teenagers getting pregnant (and screwing up their education in the process because they have a child to care for), spending too much time on "fun" instead of "work" while you are living on borrowed money (and thus amassing a huge debt over time), becoming a prostitute (and losing interest in sex due to having to do it with detestable "sugar daddys" repeatedly), smoking, spending all your time at the computer playing video games (instead of going out with real life friends OR learning how to make real life friends in the first place) ... everything has consequences and most of the bad ones can really screw you up for the rest of your life. It mostly comes from the "nothing bad can ever happen" attitude which we are taught by our media and the propaganda adopted after the social revolution in 1968.
Prostitution is only needed because we are taught to value having sex too much. I once saw a 13 year old boy who said that "50% of conjugal success is having good sex." (or something like that). If we didnt value sex as highly those 70 year old sugar daddys wouldnt feel the need to pay young girls for their services, but sadly it is easiest to sell things with sex ... and since we dont restrict ad campaigns every company will use it.
Hey, that's pretty fun you went into Dune. Have you read the other 5 books he wrote? Because I have.
Books 5 and 6 slam that shit into the dirt, shortly after book 4 derails it.
Next, you seem to have an issue with sex. The western culture isn't declining because we're all having sex. Also, teen birthrates have been fluctuating for some time now...in fact...shit man reading through it again...are you 60+ years old or something? It's 2011, get with the times. If we all thought the same way you did, we'd still be puritans. (Psst, btw, they burned people for having premarital sex...wanna go back to that?)
Wow...actually..I should've just bolded it all...that post if fucking retarded.
What is really funny is that people in this thread actually think that these women don't neccessarily have other options...". You always have other options... always... yes, I said always. In the rare scenario where you have a gun to your head and someone is forcing you to be a prostitute then you can consider an individual to be out of options (even then you can agree to be killed, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that we will not consider that to be a valid option). It's just so ridiculous that people justify this sort of behaviour by making such terrible assumptions about the choices people can make. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 05 2011 05:07 DuneBug wrote: Pretty clearly this is prostitution. In terms of prosecuting it, seems like a pretty victimless crime.
In terms of self-respect, clearly these girls have none.
I agree. Short and (in my opinion) accurate. Well put sir.
On August 05 2011 05:12 sanya wrote: am i the only one reading this as :
"rich men fucking lazy women which isn't going to affect anyone whatsoever so why is this a thread?"
mhh..
except that these lazy women are going to get their dregrees bought and paid for by said rich men and then be placed in charge of people upon graduation, due to them having (assumedly) high ranking degrees.
[edit, for clarification] Meaning that the future business middle and upper middle management is going to be worse off than the current wealth of slime, since it will be made up of people with no willpower or determination. Just children with the "I want it so I should have it" mentality.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n211/gamegenex2/Fuuuuuck.png)
![[image loading]](http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n211/gamegenex2/FFFFFFFFFFFFFF.png)
![[image loading]](http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7425/flyingnunk.jpg)
. ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/12/business/economy/economix-12jolts/economix-12jolts-custom1.jpg)
