Why Do People think Lowly Of Hookers?

[Els]

LOL. It's just too unfathomable to me why any women would want to promote and defend an industry that exploits women and children, trafficks women and children, and reduces them to objects to be bought and sold. Why any woman would want to promote that treatment of women is unimaginable to me.

 

Key word being = unfathomable to YOU. Nobody is defending an industry that exploits and trafficks women and children, btw. If you can't understand that much, then this entire thread and everyone's explanation to you was an utter waste of time.

 

So what are your motives for defending prostitution?

 

Oh pulleeze, I have no concerns about my husband, and if he ever were to want to stray (which he doesn't), he'd have plenty of other options--he wouldn't have to pay for it. Is it really that hard to understand that a woman who is very pro marriage, dedicating her life to save marriages as a profession, as well as to advocate for abused women and children, would be against a profession where most customers are married men, and where women are trafficked, abused, and treated like pieces of meat? Apparently you don't care that women are treated that way and who is hurt in the process, but I do.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Which is that if you have no selfish RL motives for supporting prostitution being illegal, why should the rest of us need selfish RL motives for supporting the legalization of prostitution? Also, your bolded is an excellent point. What was all that about prostitutes being enablers again? Doesn't this mean that they're only enablers when the man is unable to find ANY woman to have sex with him without paying her? Such a sad insinuation, isn't it?

 

Is it that hard to understand that people who are pro human rights and pro women's rights want everyone to have the legal right to choose what they want to do with their own sexuality, whether they want to sell it or otherwise? If you need to make prostitutes illegal to 'save marriages', then those marriages were really not worth saving to begin with.

[123321]

If you need to make prostitutes illegal to 'save marriages', then those marriages were really not worth saving to begin with.

 

Word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0123456789

[KathyM]

All that quote for "No comment"? Really?

My response was the bolded sentences in the quote. The final paragraph, to which I said "no comment" was addressed to someone else. I responded to what was directed towards me.

[KathyM]

Key word being = unfathomable to YOU. Nobody is defending an industry that exploits and trafficks women and children, btw. If you can't understand that much, then this entire thread and everyone's explanation to you was an utter waste of time.

 

So you're saying other women think prostitution is perfectly fine, nothing harmful at all, and it's just me that doesn't think it's a good thing for people or for society.

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point. Which is that if you have no selfish RL motives for supporting prostitution being illegal, why should the rest of us need selfish RL motives for supporting the legalization of prostitution? Also, your bolded is an excellent point. What was all that about prostitutes being enablers again? Doesn't this mean that they're only enablers when the man is unable to find ANY woman to have sex with him without paying her? Such a sad insinuation, isn't it?

 

Anyone who knowingly has sex with a married man is an enabler. Why is that so difficult to understand? And I do question someone's motives that would support an industry that is damaging and demeaning to women.

 

Is it that hard to understand that people who are pro human rights and pro women's rights want everyone to have the legal right to choose what they want to do with their own sexuality, whether they want to sell it or otherwise? If you need to make prostitutes illegal to 'save marriages', then those marriages were really not worth saving to begin with.

You talk about women's rights, but yet you support an industry that promotes trafficking of women and children and forces them into that position against their will. What about the rights of women that don't want their husbands/bfs/SOs to be approached or solicited by prostitutes? What about the rights of mothers who don't want their sons to be solicited by prostitutes?

[Els]

I will say this to you for the 28367896347867472647264747283424th time: Legal prostitution involves laws that disallow prostitution against the prostitute's will. Seeing as you keep bringing that up as a red herring despite being informed so multiple times by multiple people, I see no reason that any sort of reasonable or logical discussion can ensue with you. Anything I answer will simply be ignored, either on purpose or because you simply cannot process it. I could tell you that prostitutes aren't legally allowed to solicit people in public areas so legalization is completely unrelated to those 'rights' you speak of, but hey, you're just going to quote it again in a post further along to someone else. You're like a broken tape recorder with no microphone or possibility of new input.

 

I'm done. And it's fine, I think you have the 'right' to have your husband not approached/solicited by prostitutes where you live, so that must ease your mind a lot. I'm happy to live in a country where prostitutes are accorded medical benefits and legal rights.

[joystickd]

You talk about women's rights, but yet you support an industry that promotes trafficking of women and children and forces them into that position against their will. What about the rights of women that don't want their husbands/bfs/SOs to be approached or solicited by prostitutes? What about the rights of mothers who don't want their sons to be solicited by prostitutes?

LOL! Your stance on this seems to come from a place of being threatened of prostitution. There are probably more marriages ruined from women giving it up for free so essentially banning based on that is illogical. Human trafficking happens for other reason other than prostitution. The illogical this to me is the woman that bangs every man breathing gets more respect than the woman that actually places a monetary value on her sexuality. We look down on the pornstar, stripper and prostitute but don't even really judge as harsh the woman who has had sex with everyone in town or the one who does gangbangs.

[KathyM]

I will say this to you for the 28367896347867472647264747283424th time: Legal prostitution involves laws that disallow prostitution against the prostitute's will. Seeing as you keep bringing that up as a red herring despite being informed so multiple times by multiple people, I see no reason that any sort of reasonable or logical discussion can ensue with you. Anything I answer will simply be ignored, either on purpose or because you simply cannot process it. I could tell you that prostitutes aren't legally allowed to solicit people in public areas so legalization is completely unrelated to those 'rights' you speak of, but hey, you're just going to quote it again in a post further along to someone else. You're like a broken tape recorder with no microphone or possibility of new input.

 

I'm done. And it's fine, I think you have the 'right' to have your husband not approached/solicited by prostitutes where you live, so that must ease your mind a lot. I'm happy to live in a country where prostitutes are accorded medical benefits and legal rights.

And you keep denying the fact that when prostitution is legalized, human trafficking to those countries is increased. In countries where prostitution is legal, prostitutes aren't hidden away somewhere. They approach men in hotels, heck they are even offered up by the hotels to its customers sometimes.

[KathyM]

LOL! Your stance on this seems to come from a place of being threatened of prostitution. There are probably more marriages ruined from women giving it up for free so essentially banning based on that is illogical. Human trafficking happens for other reason other than prostitution. The illogical this to me is the woman that bangs every man breathing gets more respect than the woman that actually places a monetary value on her sexuality. We look down on the pornstar, stripper and prostitute but don't even really judge as harsh the woman who has had sex with everyone in town or the one who does gangbangs.

The majority of human trafficking is for prostitution. And because some women who are not prostitutes have a ONS or affair with a married man means that the women who sell those ONS or affairs have no culpability? A homewrecker is a homewrecker, whether they get paid for it or not. I'm not giving the unpaid ones any respect for what they do. But at least those not in the profession aren't doing it at a pace of five or ten a day. That's a lot of marriages they are sending straight to the dumpster.

[nofool4u]

He can be a gigolo if he chooses, y'know. How is that a double standard?

 

You didn't read the whole post, so never mind.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Have you got any citations for this appeal to emotion, particularly evidencing pro bono work done by lawyers solely to legalize prostitution on behalf of the prostitutes and not because they have Nevada backing?

 

I did not say they were working solely to legalize prostitution, or even that it was pro bono. i said:

 

There are a great many people working towards ceasing the marginalization and promoting rights of sex workers in the United States who have no interest in being or hiring sex workers, and have never been sex workers. Lawyers and social workers, for the most part, though plenty of sex workers do indeed have an interest in those goals.

 

But, you knew that.

 

I was thinking of "Coyote" in San Francisco, which was started by a very smart sex worker, Margo St. James, and had nothing whatsoever to do with "Nevada backing." When I went to college I volunteered with them, and that is why I have a particular interest in this subject.

 

Frankly, it's not interesting or fun to discuss an issue with people who deliberately misconstrue what others present.

 

I think the "appeal to emotion" is really only coming from you and Kathy M, who both simply feel that prostitutes and prostitution are "bad" and "gross" and are prepared to abandon all semblance of reason to stand by and defend that feeling. Also, both of you seem to be deeply threatened on a very personal level by the existence of "the world's oldest profession" and people who function in it. Why?

 

 

So why not legalize burglary? This will ensure safety for them too.

 

Not even worth addressing.

 

I'm not here to make life easier for hookers since they appear to not give a crap about anyone or anything else, besides money for themselves.

 

As I said in another post, I can assure you that hookers have just as good a chance of being a compassionate individual as people in other professions. Or, of being sociopaths.

 

I am offended by the superior, shaming and judgmental attitude you and Kathy have about people who happen to do something that you don't like, but whatever. You are certainly entitled to feel however you do. You don't know anything about the reality of the lives of prostitutes, or what motivates (or drives) women and men to get into it, though.

[Els]

And you keep denying the fact that when prostitution is legalized, human trafficking to those countries is increased. In countries where prostitution is legal, prostitutes aren't hidden away somewhere. They approach men in hotels, heck they are even offered up by the hotels to its customers sometimes.

 

You keep waving your claims around as if they are the gospel truth, while conveniently turning a blind eye to other claims that refute it.

 

Yes, the legal prostitutes ARE hidden away somewhere - those places are called brothels. Come on, don't give me that. I've stayed in many hotels around here. Surely you think I'll notice if prostitutes are plying their wares in the open. But they're not - those who do either do it on the sly or, more commonly, the customer knows via word of mouth that the hotel offers 'services' and he/she requests it. In fact, they do so a lot more in countries where prostitution is illegal. Why? Well, take a wild guess. When you can't work in legal brothels, the next most convenient place is a ____? Fill in the blanks, my dear.

 

But again, why do I bother? You keep throwing around accusations of those of us supporting legalization as 'having something to gain from it' or supporting the act itself, and when logic backs you into a corner you retreat momentarily before surfacing with those ludicrous claims again. Well, do you support abortion in itself, would you do it? No? Do you support the legalization of abortion? ....Oh, wait.

[joystickd]

The majority of human trafficking is for prostitution. And because some women who are not prostitutes have a ONS or affair with a married man means that the women who sell those ONS or affairs have no culpability? A homewrecker is a homewrecker, whether they get paid for it or not. I'm not giving the unpaid ones any respect for what they do. But at least those not in the profession aren't doing it at a pace of five or ten a day. That's a lot of marriages they are sending straight to the dumpster.

There are a few doing five or ten a day for free not prostitutes and these women go on to meet men and get married and portray a deceptive wholesome image.

[Els]

You didn't read the whole post, so never mind.

 

I absolutely did. You have something against people who aren't in monogamous relationships and it shows, even in your posts in threads where people ARE in mutual open relationships (yep, that's what they specifically call open Rs where BOTH parties sleep around).

[123321]

My response was the bolded sentences in the quote. The final paragraph, to which I said "no comment" was addressed to someone else. I responded to what was directed towards me.

 

Please for the love of all that's holy watch

and understand it.

 

 

The majority of human trafficking is for prostitution.

 

Only because prostitution is illegal. It's a sort of a circular argument, first you make X illegal, then anyone who was assisted to engage in X is trafficked, those who bought their bus ticket are traffickers, and therefore X is a huge source of a trafficking problem.

 

When it comes to actual human slavery, farming is first by a country mile but I don't see people clamoring to outlaw farming.

[KathyM]

I did not say they were working solely to legalize prostitution, or even that it was pro bono. i said:

 

 

 

But, you knew that.

 

I was thinking of "Coyote" in San Francisco, which was started by a very smart sex worker, Margo St. James, and had nothing whatsoever to do with "Nevada backing." When I went to college I volunteered with them, and that is why I have a particular interest in this subject.

 

Frankly, it's not interesting or fun to discuss an issue with people who deliberately misconstrue what others present.

 

I think the "appeal to emotion" is really only coming from you and Kathy M, who both simply feel that prostitutes and prostitution are "bad" and "gross" and are prepared to abandon all semblance of reason to stand by and defend that feeling. Also, both of you seem to be deeply threatened on a very personal level by the existence of "the world's oldest profession" and people who function in it. Why?

 

 

 

 

Not even worth addressing.

 

 

 

As I said in another post, I can assure you that hookers have just as good a chance of being a compassionate individual as people in other professions. Or, of being sociopaths.

 

I am offended by the superior, shaming and judgmental attitude you and Kathy have about people who happen to do something that you don't like, but whatever. You are certainly entitled to feel however you do. You don't know anything about the reality of the lives of prostitutes, or what motivates (or drives) women and men to get into it, though.

I'm also personally against the abuse of children. Does that mean I feel personally threatened by it? I'm also against the abuse of animals. Does that mean I feel personally threatened by it? I'm also against anyone knowingly getting into an affair with a married person and ruining a family over it. Does that mean I'm personally threatened, or think my own husband is unfaithful? Pullleeze, I can't believe some of the things thrown around here. And I do know a lot about the profession, since I have studied the dynamics of it, read many studies on it, read many testimonies of those in it, etc., etc.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I absolutely did. You have something against people who aren't in monogamous relationships and it shows, even in your posts in threads where people ARE in mutual open relationships (yep, that's what they specifically call open Rs where BOTH parties sleep around).

 

It's obvious. It's hard to have a decent discussion about this subject, on this thread, anyway. The 3 (I think) voices who are 100% in favor of "thinking lowly of hookers" all come from a place of moral superiority and evident terror about sexual lives happening outside of the controlled and sanctioned environment of a one man, one woman monogamous relationship - preferably sealed by a legal and church marriage.

 

As I have said before, I am not "pro-prostitution." I know about a lot of serious problems with the way it really is for those women and all the people who can profit from what they do.

 

Calling them "bad," "gross," incapable of caring about anything but money, etc. does nothing towards either eliminating the existence of prostitution (impossible, imo) or improving the lives and prospects for many of the women who are in "the life."

[Els]

I'm also personally against the abuse of children. Does that mean I feel personally threatened by it? I'm also against the abuse of animals. Does that mean I feel personally threatened by it? I'm also against anyone knowingly getting into an affair with a married person and ruining a family over it. Does that mean I'm personally threatened, or think my own husband is unfaithful? Pullleeze, I can't believe some of the things thrown around here. And I do know a lot about the profession, since I have studied the dynamics of it, read many studies on it, read many testimonies of those in it, etc., etc.

 

Mmm, yet you conveniently insinuated that those of us who supported legalization have personal and selfish reasons for it.

 

Pot, meet kettle maybe?

[Els]

It's obvious. It's hard to have a decent discussion about this subject, on this thread, anyway. The 3 (I think) voices who are 100% in favor of "thinking lowly of hookers" all come from a place of moral superiority and evident terror about sexual lives happening outside of the controlled and sanctioned environment of a one man, one woman monogamous relationship - preferably sealed by a legal and church marriage.

 

As I have said before, I am not "pro-prostitution." I know about a lot of serious problems with the way it really is for those women and all the people who can profit from what they do.

 

Calling them "bad," "gross," incapable of caring about anything but money, etc. does nothing towards either eliminating the existence of prostitution (impossible, imo) or improving the lives and prospects for many of the women who are in "the life."

 

I completely agree. The saddest thing is that they don't realize that they're turning reasonable and logical people away from the faith that two of them also profess very vocally (they brought it into this thread, in fact). I mean, with representatives like that, why would anyone choose to follow their beliefs?

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm also personally against the abuse of children. Does that mean I feel personally threatened by it?

 

Means nothing in this argument.

 

I was speaking to your repeated claims that the existence of prostitution is a threat to marriages. We (and other posters) have been around and around this dumb circle with you several times in this thread.

 

You ARE personally threatened by it. If I wanted to take any more time, I would go back and find many posts of yours that express this.

 

I believe that a man who is going to have extramarital sex is absolutely going to find someone to do it with him whether he pays $ or not. Getting rid of prostitution is not going to keep anybody faithful.

 

You are not good at arguing.

[Els]

That being said, I have this niggly feeling of this thread taking on the resemblance of an SD-thread. Nothing going through at all. So, I think it's time for me to bow out of it (or try to).

[123321]

That being said, I have this niggly feeling of this thread taking on the resemblance of an SD-thread. Nothing going through at all. So, I think it's time for me to bow out of it (or try to).

 

Awwww, hate to see that but I understand. Sally.

[nofool4u]

I absolutely did. You have something against people who aren't in monogamous relationships and it shows

 

I have no problem with people not in monogamous relationships, as long as the R is on even ground for both partners. Its their choice.

 

What I have a problem with is someone using an excuse to not be monogamous, in this case using her profession as an excuse to enjoy the sex she has with other men, and saying he is not allowed to also enjoy sex with other women unless he is getting paid for it.

 

And again, although there are rare exceptions, women simply aren't the ones that pay for sex like men do. So her saying "as long as he's getting paid for it" is a ridiculous argument. But if he is ok with that, then thats on him. He has to decide if she is allowed to have sex with other men and enjoy it when he isn't unless the women are paying.

 

 

even in your posts in threads where people ARE in mutual open relationships (yep, that's what they specifically call open Rs where BOTH parties sleep around).

 

Thats because those posts almost always end up with a problem, therefore not really being a good argument for an open R.

 

If someone is in a truly open relationship, and they never have a problem with that arrangement, hey, more power to them.

 

But too many times on here we hear the stories of people in their open R's, swinging, whatever you want to call it, and lo and behold!....there is a problem stemming from the fact that they don't always like that their partner went off and boned someone else, therefore not being so open as they thought.

[Mme. Chaucer]

What I have a problem with is someone using an excuse to not be monogamous, in this case using her profession as an excuse to enjoy the sex she has with other men,

 

But … isn't this between the two of them? Evidently they have an agreement and understanding.

 

So, then, WHY should she need an "excuse" not to be monogamous, or an "excuse" to enjoy sex with other men if she's not monogamous?

 

She's not lying or cheating.

 

 

and saying he is not allowed to also enjoy sex with other women unless he is getting paid for it.

 

Well, as I understand this scenario, she IS allowed to have sex (and even enjoy it, evidently) with other men as long as SHE is getting paid for it, so why should the same rules not apply to him?

 

For the record: I need a 100% monogamous relationship with my man; that applies to both of us and whether somebody's paying for it does not make any difference. Extramarital sex is not okay for me. But I'm not all indignant over Casey's situation. I don't care, either, that she does not refuse her services to married men. Those men are responsible for their own conduct and marriages.

 

Funny that this kind of bashing of women who knowingly engage in relationships or plain old sex with married men is strictly prohibited on our OW/OM forum, especially by one of our new moderators. But if the woman is getting paid for it - or if we don't have a specific forum for the "support" of prostitutes - berating and trashing them is A-OK.

 

Why?

[nofool4u]

But … isn't this between the two of them? Evidently they have an agreement and understanding.

 

Uh ya, and I said as much. Its his chioce. The question was posed to see just what casey felt was fair.

 

So, then, WHY should she need an "excuse" not to be monogamous, or an "excuse" to enjoy sex with other men if she's not monogamous?

 

Because she isn't monogamous. She is using her "profession" as an excuse, and telling him that he can also have sex with other women, so long as they are paying for it. Thats a cop out because she knows that won't happen.

 

So basically he is NOT allowed to have sex with other women for pleasure. She gets to do it and says she enjoys having sex with different men, and uses her "profession" as a cover up.

 

 

She's not lying or cheating.

 

I agree. But she is denying him the same pleasures as she is indulging. I think if she gets to ENJOY sex with other men, hooker or not, then so should he. She says no.

 

But if he is ok with that arrangement, then thats up to him. He is being a pushover about it, lapdog if you will, but up to him just the same.

 

 

Well, as I understand this scenario, she IS allowed to have sex (and even enjoy it, evidently) with other men as long as SHE is getting paid for it, so why should the same rules not apply to him?

 

Because she was doing it before him. Why should the same rules not apply? Because he isn't going to be able to charge for sex. A gigolo is a rare thing because women in general don't need to pay for sex. Even the most unattractive of women can get laid if they want to.

 

The point is, the "rule" doesn't apply evenly to both sexes.

 

Again, its his choice if he wants to put up with the inequality.

 

 

Funny that this kind of bashing

 

When did I call her a name or anything? If I used a term like hooker, that IS the term. You can make it out to be a negative or not.

 

No bashing, I simply don't agree with the lifestyle. And in casey's situation, hey, like you, and I, said, its their choice and her man chose to put up with it.

I just take issue with what I see as a double standard, getting paid for it or not.

 

But if the woman is getting paid for it - or if we don't have a specific forum for the "support" of prostitutes - berating and trashing them is A-OK.

 

Why?

 

Again, show me where I berated or trashed. Disagreeing with a lifestyle, or something said is neither.

 

If I had called casey or anyone else a derogatory name, then you have a point. But I didn't. Even if, and I will abbreviate just in case, someone used the W word, its a proper definition in any dictionary, just as prostitute is.

[threebyfate]

I did not say they were working solely to legalize prostitution, or even that it was pro bono. i said:

 

But, you knew that.

Then your attempt to rebutt my post about self-interest or attempts to validate past actions, as to why people support prostitution has just been nullified by your own post.

 

I was thinking of "Coyote" in San Francisco, which was started by a very smart sex worker, Margo St. James, and had nothing whatsoever to do with "Nevada backing." When I went to college I volunteered with them, and that is why I have a particular interest in this subject.

Self-interest once again.

 

Frankly, it's not interesting or fun to discuss an issue with people who deliberately misconstrue what others present.

Frankly, it's not interesting or fun to discuss topics with people who can't keep a logical flow.

 

I think the "appeal to emotion" is really only coming from you and Kathy M, who both simply feel that prostitutes and prostitution are "bad" and "gross" and are prepared to abandon all semblance of reason to stand by and defend that feeling. Also, both of you seem to be deeply threatened on a very personal level by the existence of "the world's oldest profession" and people who function in it. Why?

Nice attempt at emotional manipulation but it falls flat with me. There's no rational reason why people should support prostitution beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.

 

Not even worth addressing.

As is the legalization of a predatory profession like prostitution.

 

As I said in another post, I can assure you that hookers have just as good a chance of being a compassionate individual as people in other professions. Or, of being sociopaths.

Had hookers been compassionate, the marital status of their johns, hence disinterest in the welfare of innocent victims of prostitution like wives and children, wouldn't be irrelevant to their money grubbing and self-centered profession.

 

I am offended by the superior, shaming and judgmental attitude you and Kathy have about people who happen to do something that you don't like, but whatever. You are certainly entitled to feel however you do. You don't know anything about the reality of the lives of prostitutes, or what motivates (or drives) women and men to get into it, though.

Oh no, no emotional appeal or attempts to manipulate on your side. Time to sell some brooklyn bridges or snake oil to the individuals lapping up your post since you'd become a wealthy woman by doing so. There's one born every day.