JamesM Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 The discussion is interesting, but unproductive. That would be your opinion. Only each person reading and posting here can answer if it is productive to them. One thing is sure, however: neither position on prostitution has any right whatsoever to judge the other side (in moral terms). Actually, that is far from certain. There are plenty of moral grounds with which to determine the right and wrong of hiring prostitutes and being a prostitute. Whether you choose to agree with those positions does not validate or invalidate them. Also, to make conclusions and judgements based on moral assumptions rather than fact (from either side of the argument) is silly and violation of basic rules of logic. No one said this was a logical debate. As evidenced many times on threads, posts are typed and read with the belief that they will be helpful...not that they will contribute to some logical argument and must be written with those rules in mind. This is a subject that apparently stirs a lot of emotions, and that's fine. But, in a public discussion emotions and mere opinions are pretty much worthless - they're like a behind - everyone has them. Again, since this is your opinion....well, you said it. However, I think even a simple cursory examination of every arena of public life will show you that "mere opinions" are far from worthless. Many. many decisions are made based on opinions. While everyone has them, not all are worthless. Arguments supported by reasoning are more useful. Well, it seems that your argument feel flat, because this is your opinion and is not supported by any reasoning. And even when utilizing reasoning in a debate, we quickly see that some reasoning is weak and others are stronger. Yet the strength of one's reasoning does not determine truth...it only determines who wins more points in that debate. Like most things in life, there are pros and cons associated with prostitution. Finally, a statement where we can agree.
clv0116 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 It's just rude to some of us, that women would stoop so low to spread'em for money. Why is it low to do for money what almost everyone else does for free?
Trialbyfire Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Why is it low to do for money what almost everyone else does for free? Did it ever occur to some of you people that there are people in this world who view sex not as a game or an appetite but as something special between two caring individuals? To denigrate it to the level of a cash transaction is revolting. Try to read the next paragraph first. Perhaps it's not a concept you understand thus are unable to grasp the significance of it, in application to the previous paragraph.
calazhage Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Many people would judge you for having pre-marital sex. Should I say I will never date a woman whom had a one night stand? Or had a FWB. Or had any type of sex outside of a committed relationship? How is paying a woman for sex more denigrating than having sex with her for free during a one night stand? To be honest many prostitutues are more respected than the avg women having sex for free that you meet at the bar.
Sam Spade Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 That would be your opinion. Only each person reading and posting here can answer if it is productive to them. Actually, that is far from certain. There are plenty of moral grounds with which to determine the right and wrong of hiring prostitutes and being a prostitute. Whether you choose to agree with those positions does not validate or invalidate them. No one said this was a logical debate. As evidenced many times on threads, posts are typed and read with the belief that they will be helpful...not that they will contribute to some logical argument and must be written with those rules in mind. Again, since this is your opinion....well, you said it. However, I think even a simple cursory examination of every arena of public life will show you that "mere opinions" are far from worthless. Many. many decisions are made based on opinions. While everyone has them, not all are worthless. Well, it seems that your argument feel flat, because this is your opinion and is not supported by any reasoning. And even when utilizing reasoning in a debate, we quickly see that some reasoning is weak and others are stronger. Yet the strength of one's reasoning does not determine truth...it only determines who wins more points in that debate. Finally, a statement where we can agree. Opinions are useful only insofar they could provide a different perspective, which one may choose or not to consider, but they provide no reason to adopt one perspective or another. Ethics can be a relatively formal excercise only after the guiding moral axioms are chosen a priori, which is always completely arbitrary. And not, you're wrong that most decisions in a democratic regimes are made based on mere opinions. Sure, opinions can and do confound logic and fact (or use them selectively), but the expectation is that there is some rational argument to interfere with private choice. In a pluralist society these arguments cannot be faith/moral-based because that would inevitably be opression. If this was not the case we would still be stuck in the dark ages, riping our heads off. Both the pro-prostitution camp "inferring" that the anti-camp consists of stuck-up control freaks, and the anti- camp "inferring" that the pro-prostitution camp consists of morally degraded monsters are equally silly. Neither will get convinced by name calling, which is what's going on, no matter how dressed-up.
JamesM Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Opinions are useful only insofar they could provide a different perspective, which one may choose or not to consider, but they provide no reason to adopt one perspective or another. "It is my opinion that this line of reasoning makes this decision necessary." "Well, I think that this reasoning is the way to go." You are correct that opinions by themselves...(ie "I like chocolate.") are of not much value, but when it is followed by the reasons for that opinion, then it provides the listener with a way to make his or her own decision. And here on this thread we see opinions followed by reasons. And not, you're wrong that most decisions in a democratic regimes are made based on mere opinions. Sure, opinions can and do confound logic and fact (or use them selectively), but the expectation is that there is some rational argument to interfere with private choice. "Mere" opinions however can and are often the driving force for a particular line of reasoning. "I think prostitutes are sluts...because....they let all sorts of men use their bodies for sex." And in democratic societies, opinions bring about "facts" and reasons which then further develop into policies and decisions. Take the good old USA....are facts and reasons behind the current decisions being made in the financial arena by the government? Yes. BUT....are they actually driven BY the facts and reasons or are they driven by the opinions of the current administration? And the latter we see is true. Rational arguments can be made from all sides of the aisle, but this in no way means they are actually the truth or even the best way to move forward. Simply because the majority of the government or the society is in agreement does not mean that reasoning and facts are actually in support of this. So we see here. Escorts are seen by some as perfectly normal and beneficial, and reasons are given. Logic is used. And we see that the opposite is also posted. The point is...opinions are behind it all. Both the pro-prostitution camp "inferring" that the anti-camp consists of stuck-up control freaks, and the anti- camp "inferring" that the pro-prostitution camp consists of morally degraded monsters are equally silly. Neither will get convinced by name calling, which is what's going on, no matter how dressed-up. I am sorry...I don't see this as what is happening here. Yes, there is some of it as there is in even the best logical debate, but overall, I see reasons given for every position. Yes, I see logical rules being broken occasionally, but yet I see opinions followed by reasons followed by conclusions.
Geishawhelk Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Interesting that summerusa (The OP) hasn't been back since page 4 to explain to me why her values have made it so difficult for her to get her head around this. or to address other points put forward.....
Sam Spade Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 "It is my opinion that this line of reasoning makes this decision necessary." "Well, I think that this reasoning is the way to go." You are correct that opinions by themselves...(ie "I like chocolate.") are of not much value, but when it is followed by the reasons for that opinion, then it provides the listener with a way to make his or her own decision. And here on this thread we see opinions followed by reasons. "Mere" opinions however can and are often the driving force for a particular line of reasoning. "I think prostitutes are sluts...because....they let all sorts of men use their bodies for sex." And in democratic societies, opinions bring about "facts" and reasons which then further develop into policies and decisions. Take the good old USA....are facts and reasons behind the current decisions being made in the financial arena by the government? Yes. BUT....are they actually driven BY the facts and reasons or are they driven by the opinions of the current administration? And the latter we see is true. Rational arguments can be made from all sides of the aisle, but this in no way means they are actually the truth or even the best way to move forward. Simply because the majority of the government or the society is in agreement does not mean that reasoning and facts are actually in support of this. So we see here. Escorts are seen by some as perfectly normal and beneficial, and reasons are given. Logic is used. And we see that the opposite is also posted. The point is...opinions are behind it all. I am sorry...I don't see this as what is happening here. Yes, there is some of it as there is in even the best logical debate, but overall, I see reasons given for every position. Yes, I see logical rules being broken occasionally, but yet I see opinions followed by reasons followed by conclusions. Yeah, I'm arguing with heither of the above, these are good points. But things get out of control - as far as debate is concerned - once the logical premises and logical conclusions begin to be switched indiscriminately. As you said - any averagely intelligent person cane come up with any number of rational reasons for any side of any debate. For example, if the true reason prostitutes are looked down on is because they're "sluts", then the exact same judgement should be extended to all women who engage in promiscuous sexual behavior ), even if they are not actually prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, the variable of prostitution would be merely a minor premise for this conclusion. I personally have mixed feelings about prostitution - it is clearly correlated with some social ills, there is a major uncertainty about what proportion of women engage in it voluntarily, etc. But, in a safe environment it can also be a mutually beneficial transaction. In any case, I would refrain from bestowing moral judgement on the consenting adults who chose to engage in it based on this fact alone - people from all walks of life get involved with it, on either side, for different reasons. Everybody's morals are their own business and I'll respect them as long as they're not being promoted as the truth. That's why stripping rational argument from morals as much as possible is so important in this case. Since nobody will be persuaded by beliefs (opinions), the only constructive way to conduct a (policy, if you will) debate is to focus on costs and benefits, and consequences. Basically the same kind of debate that you'd have on issues such as should there be a free market for organs, whether or not abortion should be legal, etc. Atually, abortion is a good example: it will never be outlawed again, simply because the core of the controversy are different beliefs about the origins of life, which no amount of reasoning will resolve. And that's why we should have a choice (rather than have one part of the population impose their blief on the other).
clv0116 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Try to read the next paragraph first. Perhaps it's not a concept you understand thus are unable to grasp the significance of it, in application to the previous paragraph. So based on that anyone who has had casual sex would be viewed as undatable by you? While I disagree at least your view would then be internally and logically consistent. Many people would judge you for having pre-marital sex. Should I say I will never date a woman whom had a one night stand? Or had a FWB. Or had any type of sex outside of a committed relationship? How is paying a woman for sex more denigrating than having sex with her for free during a one night stand? To be honest many prostitutues are more respected than the avg women having sex for free that you meet at the bar. Apparently it's anyone who has sex outside the bounds of 'something special between two caring individuals' that pushes the wrong buttons. I can respect that.
Taramere Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 I personally have mixed feelings about prostitution - it is clearly correlated with some social ills, there is a major uncertainty about what proportion of women engage in it voluntarily, etc. But, in a safe environment it can also be a mutually beneficial transaction. In any case, I would refrain from bestowing moral judgement on the consenting adults who chose to engage in it based on this fact alone - people from all walks of life get involved with it, on either side, for different reasons. Everybody's morals are their own business and I'll respect them as long as they're not being promoted as the truth. Well stated. I didn't get a strong sense of the OP being judgemental in her opening post. She's been faced with a situation she hasn't knowingly encountered before (a guy she's involved with having gone to prostitutes on occasion). It's taken her out of her comfort zone. She's trying to figure out what kind of guy goes to prostitutes. I don't think there's necessarily a negative judgement in there (ie as in "Ugh...what sort of man would do such a thing??") Maybe she's just looking for a variety of men to give an honest account of whether or not they have gone to prostitutes. Something that will help her to consider whether her existing values are realistic, and are going to help or hinder her in forming relationships with a man she could be happy with. I think we get quite a strong sense of who people are from the way they post. If I were her, asking this kind of question, my thinking would be along these lines: "If it transpires, in my research on the subject of men going to prostitutes, that the kind of men whose posts I generally get a positive feeling about consider it normal to occasionally use the services of a prostitute, then perhaps I'll have to reassess this whole thing." Probably the most helpful way guys could help her to do that would involve simply give honest responses along the lines of "I go to prostitutes often/never/occasionally. I would/would not consider going to a prostitute. Take a look at some of my previous posts if you like, and make up your own mind about whether I sound like your kind of person."
clv0116 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 If you spend the night dancing and drinking with a cute girl, buying drinks, food, games, and then in the morning she decides to come back to your apt and boink, is that prostitution? What about if you buy her a late lunch after the marathon boink and sleep sessions are finished? What if you meet a cute girl in a mall, buy her lunch, see a movie, and then get her a cute necklace and a fruit smoothie before she decides to go home with you? Is she a whore, or "just easy"?
Sam Spade Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 If you spend the night dancing and drinking with a cute girl, buying drinks, food, games, and then in the morning she decides to come back to your apt and boink, is that prostitution? What about if you buy her a late lunch after the marathon boink and sleep sessions are finished? What if you meet a cute girl in a mall, buy her lunch, see a movie, and then get her a cute necklace and a fruit smoothie before she decides to go home with you? Is she a whore, or "just easy"? The grey area is very wide, and probably extends even to what we'd consider committed relationship between caring individuals. The above examples probably would not qualify as prostitution, but this is still casual sex in which the woman in question has engaged in exchange for something. This something could be anything: the companionship, the fun evening, sex for the sake of sex etc. If her motivator was money, this hardly changes the fact that sex is exchanged for something else (even if it is just her own pleasure). We consider committed relationships much more holistically, but they are still based on exchanges, if implicit ones. People in comitted relationship would not be in this relationship (and have sex with the other person) unless they believed that that person is their 'soulmate', broadly defined. In this situatoin sex is not an explicit "token of exchange", but still it would not happen if both people didn't feel that it was "right" having it with this particular person (for some identifiable reasons), rather than anybody else. Human sexuality is very complex and to confine its expression to the above very narrow (if desireable and certainly socially 'acceptable') scenario among so many possibilities is unrealistic, and could even be opressive. Just as prostitution is unthinkable for many people in the present day, extramarital sex was unthinkable for the most part just some decades ago. Moreover, sex can be different things at different times, even for the exact same person... For most humans it is an ongoing back and forth between the "pure love" and "anything goes a'la Maruise De Sade" scenarios. (Speaking of the latter, it is often forgotten that his writings were mostly thought experiments on 'complete freedom' rather than juicy 'chronicles' of anything.)
Jersey Shortie Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Just pointing out that for the man who said it and many others it's merely reality and nothing more or less. You don't ask a plumber to come to your house to fix your pipes and say he paid that plumber to leave. You paid the plumber to provide a service. You don't ask an escort to come fix your pipes and say you paid that escort to leave. You pay an escort to provide a service. A man who is a very weak individual who wants to make himself feel better about paying for sex says the things that Charlie Sheen did. He said it to make himself feel better about paying for sex. Not because it's the truth of the situation. Men don't pay escorts to leave, they pay them to provide a service. That escort 10 times out of 10 doesn't want to stick around herself. Many people would judge you for having pre-marital sex. Should I say I will never date a woman whom had a one night stand? Or had a FWB. Or had any type of sex outside of a committed relationship? That would be your choice to do so. And if you never wanted to date a woman that had a one night stand, it would be unfair for other women to call you names for that choice or say that you just want to be controlling. How is paying a woman for sex more denigrating than having sex with her for free during a one night stand? To be honest many prostitutues are more respected than the avg women having sex for free that you meet at the bar. Then why doesn't the average man date the average prostitute? I mean, seriously if men really have that much respect for prostitutes, maybe all of us woman should just become prostitutes than. One more thing, If the average man who is having sex with the average woman that he met in the bar and thinks she deserves to not be respected but he does, really needs to revaluate their logical thinking skills. Because two and two don't equal three. The grey area is very wide, and probably extends even to what we'd consider committed relationship between caring individuals. The above examples probably would not qualify as prostitution, but this is still casual sex in which the woman in question has engaged in exchange for something. This something could be anything: the companionship, the fun evening, sex for the sake of sex etc. If her motivator was money, this hardly changes the fact that sex is exchanged for something else (even if it is just her own pleasure). Would this theory apply to men as well? If his motivator is getting something in exchange for something else, does that perhaps mean he is the sell out? That perhaps we should look at him as we do at women for whatever her motivator would be? You seem to be saying that only women have a motivator for x,y or z. Men have their own motivators and they are no less or more important than a woman's. You also seem to be saying that even in a committed relationships, there are commodities being sold. If that's the way you personally see relatoinsihps, that's fine. But the way I see relationships would make that statement a complete untruth. What happens between two people that care for each other that are trying to meet their partners needs and have their needs met as well, and what happens between two people that are only concerned about getting their own needs met; are completely different. People aren't exchanging commodities because they have other desires and needs and other people help them get those needs and desire meet, so that they can use that person if they care about said person. In the context of a relationship, the rules change. I am sure many men can see the difference between buying a diamond neckless for a woman he just started dating and one he has been dating for a while. It's the level of commitment and receptivness you build with someone that makes you want to give to them and not only see it as a tit for tat exchange.
clv0116 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 You don't ask a plumber to come to your house to fix your pipes and say he paid that plumber to leave We're not supposed to talk about this here any more. Start a thread if you want me to pummel you.
Lizzie60 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Bottom line.. some women spread'em for a stupid diamond.. others spread'em for cash.. To each their own..
Jersey Shortie Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 I am on the topic of escorts, as this thread is. And I've made my case quite nicely.
mr.dream merchant Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 It shouldn't matter if he payed for sex in the past, if he's good to you now and you're both happy then who cares. I dont see the difference between this and a guy who can't get over his GF being a total dick fiend in her past.
You'reasian Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Try to read the next paragraph first. Perhaps it's not a concept you understand thus are unable to grasp the significance of it, in application to the previous paragraph. Sex is both. It is something special between two people who love and care about each other. It is also an appetite, base needs thing - maybe more so for males, but sometimes females too. Usually that basic need is met by someone who loves and cares about you - but lets face it, not everyone is in the same place at the same time. Not just we guys, but ladies too. Sometimes ladies just wanna get their rocks off as well and that's fine - instead of paying for it, they trade sex for favors, do what they have to to get a good ONS and I'm talking about women who are not escorts... Again I'm not judging anyone and I hope no one was offended.. Just statin' the facts, ma'am. And back to the matter at hand, I'd hope that the OP's man isn't doing this while they are involved because that would obviously be a huge issue. Let by gones be by gones, and hopefully the two can move on to caring for and loving each other.
calazhage Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 I think it also depends on the type of prostitution, and amount used. If a guy is cruising around for crack whores, I would stay away from him if I were a female. But if you ask me, prostitutes offer a much needed service. I read a book about Japanese hookers after ww2 whom were considered heroes for servicing American Gi's. This actually prevented many women from being raped. I was in Egypt for about a month, and that is not exactly the place to meet women. So you go to a disco that has lots of hot working women, and more or less you also pay them for their time. They provide you with company, you learn about where they are from, learn about life in Egypt, learn about them, and also have sex. Does that make me some guy whom can't get laid, or some guy with horrible values? I don't think so. That was probably my best experience from the entire trip. For me it was more about the company.. Do I get hookers in the states? No, not my thing. But I can't judge guys that do.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I don't think anyone thinks it makes a man a horrible person. But whether you like it or not, men that pay for it makes them seem desperate that they had to pay a woman to spend time with him. Women don't want to be with men that can only get other women by paying for it. Whether he can or not doesn't matter too much because his actions are saying he needs to pay for it and that is why he is paying for it. So we can play it off that every put together cool man that has it together pays for sex, that's not the reality. We need to know a man developed the skills to manage to deal with women rather then flashing some cash just to get a woman go off with him. It also comes off that the man is insecure and desperate.
calazhage Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 LOL We can name hundreds of CEO's, athletes, rock stars, actors, and multi millionaires that can get millions of women that use escorts.. They are far from insecure and desperate.
JamesM Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 LOL We can name hundreds of CEO's, athletes, rock stars, actors, and multi millionaires that can get millions of women that use escorts.. They are far from insecure and desperate. Actually, simply because someone is one of those you listed does not make that person secure and not desperate in his or her personal relationships. Many of the most successful men when measured by their career are very insecure and desperate in their dating and marital lives. And we need to go no farther than Bill Clinton. And then we move on to Governor Spitzer. Are you a CEO? Actually, he IS Clinton.
clv0116 Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Actually, simply because someone is one of those you listed does not make that person secure and not desperate ... If you're telling me that Charlie Sheen can't get laid without paying for it, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one.
Sam Spade Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I don't think anyone thinks it makes a man a horrible person. But whether you like it or not, men that pay for it makes them seem desperate that they had to pay a woman to spend time with him. Women don't want to be with men that can only get other women by paying for it. Whether he can or not doesn't matter too much because his actions are saying he needs to pay for it and that is why he is paying for it. So we can play it off that every put together cool man that has it together pays for sex, that's not the reality. We need to know a man developed the skills to manage to deal with women rather then flashing some cash just to get a woman go off with him. It also comes off that the man is insecure and desperate. Most of my guy friends have seen a hooker at some point in life. They are all married or in long term relationships now, and their relationship skills and the way they treat and are devoted to their wifes/girlfriends are way above average Joe Schmo's relationships skills. Any woman that would have turned them down based on the hooker episode/s alone would have done herself a huge disservice. Basically, it is not true that the only reason men would consider a hooker is that they cannot get laid otherwise or have some issues. This is like saying that the only reason you'd eat fast food is because you can't cook and grossly disrespect your body, while in reality there is a huge variety of possible explanations/motivations, such as: nothing else is open, the McDonald breakfast is actually good, you generally eat healthy but every once in a while need a naughty fix, you're tired, you're in a hurry, etc., etc., etc.
Recommended Posts