ThaWholigan Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 The funniest thing about that page was the 'Gift Package' That made me chuckle 'here son, you're a man, I booked you a prossie' LOL. Also BOY, the amount of guys that have said they are virgins before... and they are clearly not. If they are then you KNOW *awkward sex* !! Also what is this 'special training' all about?! Sounds kinda like a sleazy agency owner... gross... xx You'd be surprised how many dads have paid for their sons to lose their virginity . My brothers were keen to get me to do something similar - I wasn't sure it was a good idea for me to lose it to an escort. I'm fairly comfortable with how things are, and would rather find someone who doesn't care about my virginity . Would you recommend seeing an escort for a male virgin?
casey1989 Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 You'd be surprised how many dads have paid for their sons to lose their virginity . My brothers were keen to get me to do something similar - I wasn't sure it was a good idea for me to lose it to an escort. I'm fairly comfortable with how things are, and would rather find someone who doesn't care about my virginity . Would you recommend seeing an escort for a male virgin? I wouldn't actively encourage it. If the guy wants to do it though then like anything I would respect that decision. I just feel like a lot of guys that are virgins get so nervous, and it's an un-natural situation as it is, and my feeling is that a lot of guys are not prepared to deal with an escort type situation. When a client comes to see me, he takes the lead in how he wants it to go, it's all about what he wants, so when a guy has little to no sexual experience, and can't communicate what he wants, it can become awkward. (but I've conquered this through just taking the lead- but then I'm quite experienced, and a lot of escorts act differently) Plus because it's a new experience some become attached to the escort, and that is just a disaster, because the client can get hurt, because he fails to see that he is just another job. In general I believe you should try and lose it with someone who you at least care about to some degree, but having said that, that's what everyone would want. Sometimes a guy just needs to get it out of his system, and I completely understand that, but I think it's a rather personal decision to lose your virginity to an escort, and you would just have to know yourself well enough to know how you would cope with it. 1
somedude81 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Yes, sometimes they are looking for bareback 'oh but baby I'm a virgin I'm completely clean' with my reply 'well sweetie that might be well, but get the HELL out of my apartment' ROFL! Yeah I get it why they would say that. Urm yes. Honestly it's hard work. You have to baby sit them because they are vulnerable and make them feel really comfortable, plus some get so errr excited that you have to be very careful. The sex is almost always awful, but now I pretty much just do the work for them, because it makes it so much better, and they don't know what feels good for them. BTW that is a lot: 3 hours with me would cost £410 or 510 euro. Yeah that makes since, a virgin guy would have no idea what he wants or how to do anything. Probably just tell him to lie on his back the whole time
123321 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Well, I don't think it IS 100%, to be honest - trafficking is a very real problem Yeah that's why I qualified it with "in my experience", I'm sure it happens but I've really never seen actual slavery. I do see the bars advertising to hire GROs and I do see the girls riding public transportation to get to work in droves. Now the farm workers who were confined to working on the farm with security guards, those guys were trafficked and enslaved. Is your uncertainty based on other studies that contradict the ones I've referred to? My doubts are based on witnessing how (some of) the statistics are collected, and by the stark contrast with the reality I witness. For instance if a study says that 80% of the cars on the road drive over the speed limit at any given moment, and in years of driving I never witnessed someone speeding, I would doubt the accuracy of the statistic. Obviously the above about speeding is probably true, but it serves to illustrate the point.
Taramere Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 My doubts are based on witnessing how (some of) the statistics are collected, and by the stark contrast with the reality I witness. For instance if a study says that 80% of the cars on the road drive over the speed limit at any given moment, and in years of driving I never witnessed someone speeding, I would doubt the accuracy of the statistic. Obviously the above about speeding is probably true, but it serves to illustrate the point. On account of Casey's input, this discussion has turned into one about call girls/elite prostitutes who work discreetly from home and have wealthy clients. However, the thread title is about "hookers"...a name which suggests "street-walker" due to the connotations of active solicitation. Who really speaks for those women? You? Casey? You talk as though you've done your own independent research amongst prostitutes....well what sample group? Are these girls in strip clubs? Girls you know socially who do what Casey does? Do you visit red light areas at night and talk to streetwalkers? You've mentioned before talking to hundreds (I think you said hundreds) of prostitutes, but I'm not sure about the circumstances. Not only that, but people don't tend to make disclosure about ugly issues (like abuse) in social settings or in superficial discussion....and nothing you've ever said suggests that you're having these conversations with prostitutes in anything other than a superficial or social context. You can correct me if I'm wrong there. If you've had training in counselling, interviewing and handling sensitive disclosures, and if your conversations with prostitutes have taken place in the context of you having confidential sessions with them, then obviously that's very different....but it's certainly not the impression I've had regarding this anecdotal evidence you offer up. Who do people make disclosures about highly sensitive and painful issues to? I think they're most likely to make those disclosures to somebody who they trust not to judge them, and who they also trust to believe them. The same girl might tell one story about her background to you, and quite another in a private setting with a professional who is bound by rules of confidentiality. Who's she telling the truth to? I take your point, certainly, that in a situation where the police have become involved and a prostitute wants to escape criminal charges she might well claim to have been coerced into the role. However, that's a separate issue relating to the impact of criminal law. In another context, where a prostitute is offloading to somebody in a counselling role, in a confidential and safe feeling environment, there aren't any tangible benefits to her making disclosures about abuse...beyond the usual benefit of experiencing relief on sharing a dark secret. 2
denise_xo Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Yeah that's why I qualified it with "in my experience", I'm sure it happens but I've really never seen actual slavery. I do see the bars advertising to hire GROs and I do see the girls riding public transportation to get to work in droves. Now the farm workers who were confined to working on the farm with security guards, those guys were trafficked and enslaved. My doubts are based on witnessing how (some of) the statistics are collected, and by the stark contrast with the reality I witness. For instance if a study says that 80% of the cars on the road drive over the speed limit at any given moment, and in years of driving I never witnessed someone speeding, I would doubt the accuracy of the statistic. Obviously the above about speeding is probably true, but it serves to illustrate the point. I really suggest that you seriously reconsider the importance of your personal experience. I think personal experience is valuable input into any conversation, but to challenge population wide statistics on the grounds of limited experience doesn't hold. You need to go into the methodological issues behind the stats, which is what Taramere is doing in the post above. 2
casey1989 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 On account of Casey's input, this discussion has turned into one about call girls/elite prostitutes who work discreetly from home and have wealthy clients. However, the thread title is about "hookers"...a name which suggests "street-walker" due to the connotations of active solicitation. Who really speaks for those women? You? Casey? You talk as though you've done your own independent research amongst prostitutes....well what sample group? Are these girls in strip clubs? Girls you know socially who do what Casey does? Do you visit red light areas at night and talk to streetwalkers? You've mentioned before talking to hundreds (I think you said hundreds) of prostitutes, but I'm not sure about the circumstances. Not only that, but people don't tend to make disclosure about ugly issues (like abuse) in social settings or in superficial discussion....and nothing you've ever said suggests that you're having these conversations with prostitutes in anything other than a superficial or social context. You can correct me if I'm wrong there. If you've had training in counselling, interviewing and handling sensitive disclosures, and if your conversations with prostitutes have taken place in the context of you having confidential sessions with them, then obviously that's very different....but it's certainly not the impression I've had regarding this anecdotal evidence you offer up. Who do people make disclosures about highly sensitive and painful issues to? I think they're most likely to make those disclosures to somebody who they trust not to judge them, and who they also trust to believe them. The same girl might tell one story about her background to you, and quite another in a private setting with a professional who is bound by rules of confidentiality. Who's she telling the truth to? I take your point, certainly, that in a situation where the police have become involved and a prostitute wants to escape criminal charges she might well claim to have been coerced into the role. However, that's a separate issue relating to the impact of criminal law. In another context, where a prostitute is offloading to somebody in a counselling role, in a confidential and safe feeling environment, there aren't any tangible benefits to her making disclosures about abuse...beyond the usual benefit of experiencing relief on sharing a dark secret. I never said I spoke for them- all I did was speak of myself and people I know (and yes I am not denying the fact that I am in a privileged position). I originally posted in this thread, because no one had considered anything but the bad sides, and I just wanted to give people another side of the industry. My main point is those of us that are in this position don't talk about what we do- we would never sit down in an interview and give our real name or show our face, because many of us have too much at stake, so it is in my view that the statistics are skewed in a negative way. I have never pretended that I was anything other than in the better side of the industry- and yes in my professional context I work in research, and am indeed trained in both counselling and practical research methods, and have in a this context come into conact with those that are in the darker side of it. I have deliberately ignored the legalisation/ trafficking talk because of my belief that stats are not reliable, and not a true representation of how the industry actually is, and I really have nothing further to say on it. I am here to give an opinion based on my personal experience of the industry, and of those I have come into contact with. I am not saying it's fact but opinion, and something to consider.
Taramere Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) I have deliberately ignored the legalisation/ trafficking talk because of my belief that stats are not reliable, and not a true representation of how the industry actually is, and I really have nothing further to say on it. I am here to give an opinion based on my personal experience of the industry, and of those I have come into contact with. I am not saying it's fact but opinion, and something to consider. The stats I referred to, which 123321 took issue with, don't refer to trafficking. They do mention the large percentage of prostitutes working in the UK who are from overseas, but they don't claim (with regard to that figure) that the women have been trafficked. They (the stats) are more concerned with rates of violence against prostitutes, common socio-economic factors and drug use. My limited contact with prostitutes has been at the other end. A middle class, educated woman who has a discreet arrangement with a number of clients is highly unlikely to get involved with the authorities. The police and social work agencies aren't going to be interested in the situation of somebody like you who has a discreet sex-for-cash arrangements with a number of clients. No more than they would care if a woman has a string of boyfriends who all give her expensive gifts as incentive to sleep with/keep sleeping with them. The women who are of concern to the authorities are those who are out hooking publicly and who are picked up by the police for doing so. They're a concern because they place themselves at risk....and by creating red light districts of certain areas, they place other women at risk too. The other study I referred to looked at issues such as the incidence of sex offending amongst men who regularly visit prostitutes - and found it to be higher. I doubt many people would be seriously surprised by (though some might protest that the findings of such studies stigmatise non sex offenders who visit prostitutes). It's not the fault of street-walkers that sex offenders exist...but those street walkers are part of what attracts some of the seediest characters around to certain areas, in which women who aren't prostitutes are also liable to be approached and propositioned for sex. lot of them are drug users and a lot of them are going to be carrying a variety of STDs, but broke clients will take their chances with them on account of them charging low rates. There will always be people who want to operate outwith the law because either they don't meet the regulatory criteria that the law would demand they meet, or because abiding by the law and its various regulations involves bureaucratic hassle. Prostitution is an easy way for women in that category to make money...and from clients who would similarly prefer to operate outside of legal regulations. When people talk about regulating the profession, what do they mean exactly? It all sounds very professional and sanitary....but does regulation involve mandatory health checks that apply to both prostitutes and their clients? Mandatory health checks for prostitutes only takes us back to the Contagious Diseases legislation of the Victorian age and its double standard whereby prostitutes had to submit to health checks, but the servicemen who used them didn't. If an occupation like that is to be regulated in terms of health checks being applied, for that to mean anything then the people who use prostitutes must surely be part of that regulatory system. I'm sure there are many consumers of prostitution out there who would flatly refuse to co-operate with such a regulatory system, and who would prefer to carry on seeing girls who operate outside of the law. It's a vice industry because like money-lending, drug trading and gambling, it's attractive to people (both providers and consumers) who prefer (or feel restricted to) operating outside of the law - even where it's possible to conduct such business activities within the law.. Edited June 15, 2012 by Taramere
Scottdmw Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 No, you have not thought this through at all. Forget about 'statistics' for the moment. Focus on the logic of what you're saying. Let us assume that you are right and that legalization indeed increases the number of men using prostitution. Okay. Where does that increase come from? Mostly from men who were afraid to use brothels before because they were illegal. Where will those men go? Legal brothels. So there is an increase in the use of legal brothels, but there is no increase in the use of illegal brothels. You agree with me to this point, I hope? Now, when legalization is implemented properly, legal brothels will never accept coerced or trafficked women. This creates two entirely separate supply and demand pools - the legal and illegal ones. There will be no additional demand for trafficked women because trafficked women will only be in the illegal pool. It MIGHT not decrease - it hopefully will, since some men will be shifting from illegal to legal, as you said - but there is absolutely no rationale for it to INCREASE. What do you say to this logic? And please, don't quote the Australia study. Just talk about logical sequences of causation and effect here. The question is, where do the women come from to supply the newly created legal brothels? Obviously, they have to come from the existing illegal ones or from new women entering prostitution. Unless you think there is a pool of women who would willingly enter prostitution if it were legal that is sufficient to meet the demand of the men who would start using prostitutes if it were legal, the new women have to be coerced. So if prostitution were legalized do you think it would cause the number of men interested in using prostitution to increase more, or would it cause the number of women interested in being prostitutes to increase more? Scott
Scottdmw Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 The focus does always seem to be on blaming the woman, in these discussions about prostitution. Here is a study of buyers versus non buyers (of sex). 101 from each category interviewed as part of the study. Its findings probably wouldn't be a surprise to many people...though I'm sure consumers of prostitutes would protest vociferously. Regardless, I think people in the mainstream generally view men who regularly frequent prostitutes as being part of an undesirable subculture (which the prostitute is also a part of)....and this study outlines why. The kind of strong anti-social elements and attitudes that lead a person to be okay with the notion of renting another human being's body. Not to say every man who has visited a prostitute is an antisocial, but I think the average prostitute is likely to encounter a fair number of them. Particularly those who, unlike Casey, may not be able to afford to screen out many of their clients. Some statistics on prostitution. 62% are likely to be subjected to violence in the course of their work, nearly half involved in street prostitution were sexually abused as children...and prostitutes are 18 times more likely to be murdered than the general population Prostitution : AVA - Against Violence & Abuse The difference between these individuals and so-called "high class prostitutes" strikes me as being not dissimilar to the difference between recreational drug users and hard core addicts. That a recreational user can take it or leave it, and has a blast with their drug use, doesn't negate the very harmful impact of drug use has on a whole different section of society. Glad to see you here Taramere. If you read back the last 20 or so pages of the discussion, you will see that a great deal of it has centered around the position several posters have taken that sociological evidence and data on this issue is to be generally disbelieved and ignored. I'm glad to see that someone else is interested in looking at evidence. Scott
Els Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 The question is, where do the women come from to supply the newly created legal brothels? Obviously, they have to come from the existing illegal ones or from new women entering prostitution. Unless you think there is a pool of women who would willingly enter prostitution if it were legal that is sufficient to meet the demand of the men who would start using prostitutes if it were legal, the new women have to be coerced. So if prostitution were legalized do you think it would cause the number of men interested in using prostitution to increase more, or would it cause the number of women interested in being prostitutes to increase more? Scott But that's a HUGE extrapolation, Scott. That's like saying, if the police raided illegal brothels and put the women involved away, more women would be trafficked to fill up the gaps left behind. So does that mean that there should not be raids on illegal brothels? Surely when you take some away, they may be replaced, but that doesn't justify just leaving them there in the first place.
somedude81 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 On account of Casey's input, this discussion has turned into one about call girls/elite prostitutes who work discreetly from home and have wealthy clients. However, the thread title is about "hookers"...a name which suggests "street-walker" due to the connotations of active solicitation. Not how I saw it. A hooker is a woman who has sex in exchange for money. People still think lowly of them regardless if they are street-walkers or call-girls. It doesn't matter if the woman charges $5 or $5,000 it's still prostitution. IMO Casey is doing it the best way. Not walking the street, not in a brothel, not working for anybody while she keeps all the money she makes and being discrete.
Scottdmw Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 But that's a HUGE extrapolation, Scott. That's like saying, if the police raided illegal brothels and put the women involved away, more women would be trafficked to fill up the gaps left behind. So does that mean that there should not be raids on illegal brothels? Surely when you take some away, they may be replaced, but that doesn't justify just leaving them there in the first place. Well, what do you think would happen? Let's say we legalized. Do you believe that there will be no increase in male demand? That sounds very unlikely to me. Whenever you make a service more easy to access or more palatable that tends to increase demand. But then, this gets back to my original point. We can argue for days about who is making the extrapolation, or we can look at the evidence of what actually happened in other similar cases. Scott
somedude81 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 The question is, where do the women come from to supply the newly created legal brothels? Obviously, they have to come from the existing illegal ones or from new women entering prostitution. Unless you think there is a pool of women who would willingly enter prostitution if it were legal that is sufficient to meet the demand of the men who would start using prostitutes if it were legal, the new women have to be coerced. So if prostitution were legalized do you think it would cause the number of men interested in using prostitution to increase more, or would it cause the number of women interested in being prostitutes to increase more? Scott How'd you even come to the idea that the amount of supply has to go up to meet demand? There isn't some kind of hooker quota. Maybe supply would stay the same and prices rise if demand goes up? But of course, if prostitution does become legalized then the number of women who choose to go into will increase.
casey1989 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 IMO Casey is doing it the best way. Not walking the street, not in a brothel, not working for anybody while she keeps all the money she makes and being discrete. Thanks! But I have to say I wish we had some system hereby 2 or 3 girls could work out of an apartment together and it not be regarded as a brothel. Working with girls here is a grey area. I'm too scared to take part in it because I don't want to get arrested even though it wouldn't be illegal. See this case: BBC News - 'Happy endings' massage boss cleared of running brothel As long as one person isn't controlling the others then its legal, however you have to prove it, and because of tenancy agreements and things, it just becomes too much of a risk. But I already said this in a thread, and talked about the legalities in the UK. I think generally the UK has a pretty good stance on it. In terms of legalisation I think you're all making it to black and white. Let me explain: In the UK we are allowed to work independently. That is the Law states that No one other but the lady in question should be profitting from her services. This is called 'control for gain'. This is supposed to stop pimps- but these days it's mostly applied to agency owners. ( the benefits/ negatives of which is a whole other debate entirely) Furthermore running a brothel is illegal as well as soliciting services. The biggest law that protects women forced into prostitution though (especially trafficking) is the 'paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force' law, in which clients are held accountable if they see a girl that is being forced into the industry. These laws are not perfect by any means- but the last one and the first one have helped to minimise trafficking in the UK, and mean that clients become more aware that girls may have been trafficked, so they look for warning signs, request information from other punters online, are more careful who they book. The brothel law is in my opinion a bit silly- it is much safer to work with other girls than to work alone, but I understand that people don't want brothels popping up in their area. A good compromise would be allowing girls to set up their own brothels in small 2 or 3 bedroom flats- with no one person being held accountable just because their name is on the lease, but this is all very complicated and hard to decipher legally. Anyway I just wanted to show that specific laws can be put in place to protect the most vulnerable all the while allowing girls that want to work in safety, so it's not really so cut and dry as just 'legalising prostitution'.
somedude81 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Thanks! But I have to say I wish we had some system hereby 2 or 3 girls could work out of an apartment together and it not be regarded as a brothel. Working with girls here is a grey area. I'm too scared to take part in it because I don't want to get arrested even though it wouldn't be illegal. See this case: BBC News - 'Happy endings' massage boss cleared of running brothel As long as one person isn't controlling the others then its legal, however you have to prove it, and because of tenancy agreements and things, it just becomes too much of a risk. But I already said this in a thread, and talked about the legalities in the UK. I think generally the UK has a pretty good stance on it. Yeah it does seem complicated. If one person is on the lease and the other people pay her money for rent, then it's hard to prove that the other person isn't working for you, even if they were only giving rent. What might be possible is having each tenant give their own rent check to the manager. So you can have three girls living in the same apartment, each pays their own rent and nobody is in charge. Of course it could only work that girls that you fully trust.
casey1989 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Yeah it does seem complicated. If one person is on the lease and the other people pay her money for rent, then it's hard to prove that the other person isn't working for you, even if they were only giving rent. What might be possible is having each tenant give their own rent check to the manager. So you can have three girls living in the same apartment, each pays their own rent and nobody is in charge. Of course it could only work that girls that you fully trust. Yup- as long as the letting agent (I guess that's what you mean by manager) doesn't know what is going on.
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Yeah that's why I qualified it with "in my experience", I'm sure it happens but I've really never seen actual slavery. I do see the bars advertising to hire GROs and I do see the girls riding public transportation to get to work in droves. I spent about a year living in Japan. There were a considerable number of young women and some men from the Philippines who were brought in as cheap domestic labor, "entertainers" of various sorts including B-girls, singers and musicians, and also as prostitutes. Most of these people were brought by agencies and not given the full details of what they would be doing. Many of them found themselves in dire circumstances. They were under contracts that were similar to indentured servitude, their pay was doled out in small increments and held back for "expenses," and it would be very difficult for them to leave. Still, they were not "enslaved" and most all of them that I met felt like they were better off than they would have been at home regarding opportunity to work and make some income - though their rate of pay was unbelieveably low compared to what the natives would earn, or what they'd pay Americans or Europeans who came to work in bars, as entertainers, etc. On the other hand, they WERE being traded as a commodity, and the people doing the dealing were making a great deal of money off the backs of these workers, who were viewed as extremely low class and dispensable by the natives even if they had jobs outside of the sex trade, like that of a maid. Many young girls were lured there under false pretenses. They did not know they were supposed to provide sex when they signed up. In many cases, the yakuza did control these girls to the point of virtual enslavement. You might still see them going to work on a bus. In many other cases, the girls became used to the idea of their new lives; it became sort of "normalized" because other girls just like them were doing the same thing. They did not feel like "slaves" but they were trapped and traded and had no idea how difficult to impossible it would have been to find a way home if they changed their minds. Just a perspective.
Taramere Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Glad to see you here Taramere. If you read back the last 20 or so pages of the discussion, you will see that a great deal of it has centered around the position several posters have taken that sociological evidence and data on this issue is to be generally disbelieved and ignored. I'm glad to see that someone else is interested in looking at evidence. Scott Thanks Scott, and yes I see that. Not how I saw it. A hooker is a woman who has sex in exchange for money. People still think lowly of them regardless if they are street-walkers or call-girls. It doesn't matter if the woman charges $5 or $5,000 it's still prostitution. I don't dispute that it's a stigmatised occupation regardless of which rung of the ladder the prostitute in question occupies. However, there are some pretty clear differences between a hooker and a call girl and the lifestyles they're likely to lead. A hooker is visible to the public, because that's how she's getting her work. She's going to be exposed to public stigma in a very harsh way. I can remember guys I knew who, when they were young and ignorant, would drive round by the harbour in order to catcall and make fun of the prostitutes....sometimes with girls in their car while they were doing it. A call girl whose activities are hidden isn't going to be exposed to that. Then there's the woman who marries a wealthy man purely for his money (who, in turn, marries her because of her looks and sexual abilities). You think she's going to be looked down on by society? No doubt there are lots of people who will talk ill of her, but with cash comes bought respect and status...whether people want that to be the case or not. There's always been recognition in society of differences between courtesans and common prostitutes who work the streets or operate from brothels....and the differences include power, autonomy and quality of client. You're not seriously suggesting that the bottom of the ladder hooker who is performing sex acts with/to some of the worst elements in society for small sums of cash is equal in status to a call girl who has a small list of elite clients? You might think that should be the case, but to argue that it is the case is wilfully blind of the realities in life and the various factors involved in the status people tend to hold.
nofool4u Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Just saying. Prostitution can be a way out for many women. What if a women, who screwed up their life, wanted a second shot, and the ONLY way they could afford a course to better their skills and chances in life, was to be a hooker? Of course it is not ideal!!!! It is a terrible thing to subject yourself to.. but is IS needed, for SOME women who want to better themselves, but have no means to get better skills or get a degree? And the ugly men who deserve sex ONCe in their lifetime, from an attractive women? Hmmm, fair enough I suppose. But if they did get away from hooking, if they end up finding a decent man in the future, she better not let him find out.
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 I know that prostitution has been "a way out" for some women. I have never encountered one, though. It's more often a trap.
casey1989 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Hmmm, fair enough I suppose. But if they did get away from hooking, if they end up finding a decent man in the future, she better not let him find out. That's a very silly thing to say.
Els Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Well, what do you think would happen? Let's say we legalized. Do you believe that there will be no increase in male demand? That sounds very unlikely to me. Whenever you make a service more easy to access or more palatable that tends to increase demand. But then, this gets back to my original point. You ARE back to your original point, that I have already disproved via logic. You are not simply extrapolating that the 'demand goes up'. You are extrapolating that 'women switch over from illegal brothels to legal ones when it is legalized so the empty spots in illegal brothels need to be filled and women are trafficked in to fill that'. That is as good a reason against legalizing prostitution, as it would be against rescuing women from prostitution or counselling them out of it or raiding illegal brothels - they ALL leave 'empty spots to be filled'.
KathyM Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Hmmm, fair enough I suppose. But if they did get away from hooking, if they end up finding a decent man in the future, she better not let him find out. Wow, how awful would that be for a guy to marry someone under false pretenses, never really knowing the woman he is marrying, or what her life in the past entailed. Keeping that kind of secret from the man you marry is not something you do with someone you love. They should be marrying with their eyes wide open, and not with that kind of secret lingering over their relationship.
casey1989 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Wow, how awful would that be for a guy to marry someone under false pretenses, never really knowing the woman he is marrying, or what her life in the past entailed. Keeping that kind of secret from the man you marry is not something you do with someone you love. They should be marrying with their eyes wide open, and not with that kind of secret lingering over their relationship. That's the first thing you have said that I actually agree with
Recommended Posts