Why Do People think Lowly Of Hookers?

[casey1989]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

So what you are pretty much saying is that I have to HATE my job for it to be acceptable? I'm not using it as a cover up for anything. It's not like I do the job for the sexual gratification (yes it was one of the perks at first, but hey it gets old after a while, especially when you are in love with someone). I do the job because of the lifestyle it affords me. I don't get to choose my clients- most of them I'm not in the slightest bit attracted to. Yes sometimes my clients are good in bed, well I'm sorry but sometimes people are allowed to enjoy their work.

 

Him going out and shagging random people is a completely different experience. for it to be the same I would also have to be going out shagging people for free.

 

You aren't bashing me, you are however being very disrespectful to my partner who you have insulted a number of times, who you have never even contacted online, let alone met. You can judge me, but you have no right to judge him.

 

Oh and I don't mind being called a whore

[nofool4u]

So what you are pretty much saying is that I have to HATE my job for it to be acceptable?

 

 

No, I'm saying its a load of bunk to deny your SO the same pleasures you are doing it for under the rule that he gets paid. Prostitution isn't a male dominated "profession", if not almost non-existent.

 

So basically you get to enjoy sex with strangers, but won't allow him to. Ya, I know you said he could if he gets paid, but we both know that isn't going to happen.

 

 

I'm not using it as a cover up for anything.

 

Ok great, then let your bf get the same sexual satisfaction with different partners as you do. Drop the silly requirement of getting paid for it if its not a cover.

 

 

It's not like I do the job for the sexual gratification (yes it was one of the perks at first, but hey it gets old after a while, especially when you are in love with someone).

 

You never spoke of it as an initial perk, you spoke of it in the present

 

I love my job.

 

Why?

 

I love sex

Hah well the idea of having sex with strangers turned me on

One day I just sort of decided to do it- loved it and never looked back!

 

Its right there, you love your job, present tense, because you love sex. And really, thats fine. But to be fair, because we both know your bf isn't going to get paid for sex, you should allow him to have sex with different people

 

 

I do the job because of the lifestyle it affords me. I don't get to choose my clients- most of them I'm not in the slightest bit attracted to. Yes sometimes my clients are good in bed, well I'm sorry but sometimes people are allowed to enjoy their work.

 

You enjoy sex with other men. So let your bf enjoy himself. You shouldn't get to be the one that gets to enjoy sex with different people.

 

 

Him going out and shagging random people is a completely different experience. for it to be the same I would also have to be going out shagging people for free.

 

You just HAPPEN to be getting paid for it and again, we both know your bf isn't going to be getting paid for it. Women don't really ever need to pay for sex. Even the most unattractive women can get laid. Women control whether the man gets sex, not the other way around.

 

 

You aren't bashing me, you are however being very disrespectful to my partner who you have insulted a number of times

 

Really? How? There are a number of reasons why he puts up with the situation. I am simply stating the possibilities.

 

Besides, how is trying to get him to balance out the relationship with you insulting to him? He deserves to be able to get off with other people as you are, no?

 

 

You can judge me, but you have no right to judge him.

 

No judgement of him at all. Just trying to understand whats going on in his head.

 

If he is ok with you making the rules, and going without the same gratification that you enjoy, then hey, to each his own. Thats up to him. If he wants to be manipulated and controlled, thats his choice.

 

Oh and I don't mind being called a whore

 

Thats good, because it is a proper dictionary based definition which describes several attributes that the word means.

[Furious]

Casey

 

Just wondering if it would ok with you if your boyfriend occasionally visited a prostitute.

[Mme. Chaucer]

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.

 

What is wrong with working for rights of a group one happens to be a member of? Nothing is wrong with it. The fact remains, though, that lots of folks volunteering with Coyote have nothing personal to gain, besides on a humanitarian level.

 

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

 

I agree with you. I think I have a much firmer grasp on the concept of "logical flow" than you are exhibiting on this particular thread. You seem enraged and not quite reasonable here.

 

There's no rational reason why people should support prostitution beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.

 

Yes, I know, says you, Kathy M and one other guy. That doesn't make it true.

 

Also, fyi, just because YOU think prostitutes are bad and gross, not everyone does. People might actually have a history with prostitution and NOT be supporting the rights and safety of prostitutes to "validate" past actions. Maybe they are perfectly validated. They might be doing it from a place of knowledge, justice, or desire to help.

 

You know, TBF, probably the majority of prostitutes are not "money grubbing predators." A lot of them are ignorant people and / or victims themselves who got into something that was destructive to them. They often have no idea how to get out.

 

I'm sure you and KathyM are heartened, though, by the facts that as a group, prostitutes are victims of violent crime more than (arguably, depending upon the study) any other group of people. Also, these crimes are often back-burnered because, like you guys, law enforcement and the criminal justice system often views these people as "not counting." So high five among yourselves.

 

As is the legalization of a predatory profession like prostitution.

 

Why is the selling of something that there's a market for "predatory"?

 

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.

 

Do you think we should ban the predatory, marriage and family ruining profession of divorce lawyer? At least prostitutes often provide their service for unmarried people. Divorce lawyers ONLY earn a living helping destroy marriages.

 

And what's so freaking sacred about MARRIAGE anyway? I think there are many things more crucial in our culture today which capitalistic professions are destroying, like the environment.

 

Obviously I am not going to make any inroads into the opinion you, KathyM and nofool have about this subject, and I am not really trying. It just gets me a bit riled up when I hear a whole group of people denigrated from a pious, self righteous and superior place. I'll shut up about it now.

[denise_xo]

So basically you get to enjoy sex with strangers, but won't allow him to. Ya, I know you said he could if he gets paid, but we both know that isn't going to happen.

 

In case you haven't noticed, there are male prostitutes. How you can't manage to grasp a simple distinction between getting paid for sex and not getting paid for sex, I have no idea.

[threebyfate]

What is wrong with working for rights of a group one happens to be a member of? Nothing is wrong with it. The fact remains, though, that lots of folks volunteering with Coyote have nothing personal to gain, besides on a humanitarian level.

You used it as a rebuttal against my post that points the way to self-interest and validation of past actions, to be the reason for why people support prostitution. And now, are claiming, what's wrong with self-interest? So we went from a purported high road perspective to one where there's nothing noble or really much different than hookers and their predatory money grubbing.

 

I agree with you. I think I have a much firmer grasp on the concept of "logical flow" than you are exhibiting on this particular thread. You seem enraged and not quite reasonable here.

Refer to above. Unfortunately, logical flow isn't your expertise.

 

Yes, I know, says you, Kathy M and one other guy. That doesn't make it true.

 

Also, fyi, just because YOU think prostitutes are bad and gross, not everyone does. People might actually have a history with prostitution and NOT be supporting the rights and safety of prostitutes to "validate" past actions. Maybe they are perfectly validated. They might be doing it from a place of knowledge, justice, or desire to help.

 

You know, TBF, probably the majority of prostitutes are not "money grubbing predators." A lot of them are ignorant people and / or victims themselves who got into something that was destructive to them. They often have no idea how to get out.

 

I'm sure you and KathyM are heartened, though, by the facts that as a group, prostitutes are victims of violent crime more than (arguably, depending upon the study) any other group of people. Also, these crimes are often back-burnered because, like you guys, law enforcement and the criminal justice system often views these people as "not counting." So high five among yourselves.

Much like your opinion, making sweeping generalizations which you can't back up? Strange dat it's perfectly okay for you to make generalizations but not anyone else.

 

Why is the selling of something that there's a market for "predatory"?

Ummm...it's illegal and it harms families whereby hookers find the marital status of their johns to be irrelevant. As long as they get paid, it's all good.

 

Do you think we should ban the predatory, marriage and family ruining profession of divorce lawyer? At least prostitutes often provide their service for unmarried people. Divorce lawyers ONLY earn a living helping destroy marriages.

When one partner "tells" another partner they want a divorce, it's quite different from one partner hiding their cheating through deception and lies, tapping into community funds to supplement their selfish habits. Hookers enable these cheaters to cheat since their marital status is irrelevant, as long as they get their money and pleasurable sex, no there's no pleasurable sex, yes, there is pleasurable sex (the view from the hooker keeps changing).

 

And what's so freaking sacred about MARRIAGE anyway? I think there are many things more crucial in our culture today which capitalistic professions are destroying, like the environment.

Why did you get married? Was it a business deal or is one of the tenets of marriage, monogamy?

 

Obviously I am not going to make any inroads into the opinion you, KathyM and nofool have about this subject, and I am not really trying. It just gets me a bit riled up when I hear a whole group of people denigrated from a pious, self righteous and superior place. I'll shut up about it now.

Nope, you're not changing my mind one bit with your attempts to emotionally manipulate and presentation of sweeping generalizations as facts with no citations. Oh and good idea.

[OhHey]

This reminds me.....I need to rent a hooker for this weekend.

 

You know....to get a foot massage and play tic-tac-toe on her belly.

[123321]

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.

 

Validation of past actions isn't really rational.

 

Moving on, let's see what other topics we can apply your reasoning to:

• There's no rational reason why people should support abolishing slavery beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support the right of women to vote beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support gay rights beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support a womans right to choose an abortion beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support non-segregated schools beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.

[123321]

Ummm...it's illegal and it harms families whereby hookers find the marital status of their johns to be irrelevant. As long as they get paid, it's all good.

 

"it's illegal because people that do it are outlaws since it's illegal ..."

 

You see the circular reasoning there I hope?

 

As for the rest, I suggest you look into the meaning of 'whereby' and then reword it so it makes sense. I think you mean 'because' or something similar but I'd hate to put anything in your mouth.

 

Whereby: by or through which

 

As written it says that "hookers find the marital status of their johns to be irrelevant because doing so harms families", which seems to likely be opposite what you meant?

[threebyfate]

Validation of past actions isn't really rational.

 

Moving on, let's see what other topics we can apply your reasoning to:

• There's no rational reason why people should support abolishing slavery beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support the right of women to vote beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support gay rights beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support a womans right to choose an abortion beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.
   
  
• There's no rational reason why people should support non-segregated schools beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.

None of these are analogous to the legalization of prostitution but you're welcome to use my analogy about legalizing thievery.

 

"it's illegal because people that do it are outlaws since it's illegal ..."

 

You see the circular reasoning there I hope?

 

As for the rest, I suggest you look into the meaning of 'whereby' and then reword it so it makes sense. I think you mean 'because' or something similar but I'd hate to put anything in your mouth.

 

Whereby: by or through which

 

As written it says that "hookers find the marital status of their johns to be irrelevant because doing so harms families", which seems to likely be opposite what you meant?

This entire post is worthless. You're stretching so hard, it's now become nitpicking excerpts out of context, as well as attempts to grammatically nitpick.

 

Just admit that it's all about self-interest for you and the protection of purported male rights to cheat within marriages. So very, very glad there's double jeopardy laws for married cheaters. They deserve the book thrown at them for vampiring community funds and enacting domestic emotional abuse and damage onto their families!

[123321]

None of these are analogous to the legalization of prostitution

 

How so?

 

 

This entire post is worthless. You're stretching so hard, it's now become nitpicking excerpts out of context, as well as attempts to grammatically nitpick.

 

Actually the grammar seems fine, but the words you picked don't seem to mean what you think they mean. Come to think of it, seems like you did it again, maybe you mean "semantically nitpick"?

 

 

Just admit that it's all about self-interest for you and the protection of purported male rights to cheat within marriages.

 

I'm single and I don't rent hookers. How is it in my interest again?

[Els]

There's no rational reason why people should support prostitution beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.

 

So people who support legalization of prostitution are automatically 'supporting prostitution', now? Well, I don't support sex for money. But I do support their freedom to make a living in their own way. Do these words sound familiar, TBF?

[KathyM]

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.

Yeah, I've spoken out about prostitution on this forum before, just like I am now. No difference. None of my posts insinuate that I am personally threatened. You are implying I'm afraid my husband is going to cheat with a hooker? I can see you have nothing legitimate to bolster your argument in favor of legalization rather than resorting to personal attacks against me or my husband, so I'll leave you to your ridiculous nonsense. Thank God the vast majority of people and the vast majority of countries, apart from a small handful, are not in favor of supporting, legitimizing or legalizing the exploitation of women and children. The vocal minority on this thread apparently prefer to feel good about women in their country being bought and sold like pieces of meat. Too bad.

[threebyfate]

I'm single and I don't rent hookers. How is it in my interest again?

There are two reasons why you support hookers. As a libertarian, you'd like as many legal restrictions removed from the citizenry which includes legalizing prostitution and incest. You're also an MRA supporter, which advocates a lot of misogynistic policies, including the right to have pussy where and when men wish, regardless of their marital obligations.

 

So people who support legalization of prostitution are automatically 'supporting prostitution', now? Well, I don't support sex for money. But I do support their freedom to make a living in their own way. Do these words sound familiar, TBF?

Similar to mine prior to hearing the tale about how hookers find the marital status of their johns irrelevant, as long as the hookers get paid. With this in mind, I can't see any reason why anyone with any moral fibre would support legalizing prostitution.

 

Oh wait, you live in a country where prostitution's already legal so your views will be different than westerners. Women are already considered second-class citizens with few job prospects in many Asian countries, so hooking isn't considered a big deal, especially since men cheat regularly with prostitutes and mistresses.

Edited June 22, 2012 by threebyfate

[123321]

There are two reasons why you support hookers. As a libertarian, you'd like as many legal restrictions removed from the citizenry which includes legalizing prostitution and incest. You're also an MRA supporter, which advocates a lot of misogynistic policies, including the right to have pussy where and when men wish, regardless of their marital obligations.

 

I find the phrase "support hookers" humorous in its amazing diversity of ambiguity, but moving on ....

 

• I am not a libertarian.
• I had to Google MRA, I had no idea what that was.
• In America, we don't explicitly legalize things, we decriminalize them.
• I'm not in favor of marital infidelity.
• On top of ALL that, you're trying to make an argument based on the logical fallacy known as poisoning the well, wherein the person opposed to the idea (that would be you) tries to discredit the person presenting the idea rather than the idea itself. BRAVO.

 

Also, none of the things you listed are ways legalizing prostitution would benefit me, which is what "being in my interest" means, so that whole thing was a fail to whatever degree comes two steps after trifecta.

[nofool4u]

In case you haven't noticed, there are male prostitutes. How you can't manage to grasp a simple distinction between getting paid for sex and not getting paid for sex, I have no idea.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I don't deny there are gigolos. But they are few and far between, and you know it, and for good reason as I already stated.

 

How you can't manage to grasp that simple piece of common sense, I have no idea.

[Els]

 

Similar to mine prior to ...

 

There's no rational reason why people should support prostitution beyond self-interest or validation of past actions.

 

As is the legalization of a predatory profession like prostitution.

 

Oh, my. So a mere month ago, you were either visiting prostitutes or one yourself? Interesting news, TBF. Or did all supporters of legalization suddenly become self-interested, self-validating people the very day you changed your stance? So convenient to always be on the 'right' side, isn't it?

 

Oh wait, you live in a country where prostitution's already legal so your views will be different than westerners. Women are already considered second-class citizens with few job prospects in many Asian countries, so hooking isn't considered a big deal, especially since men cheat regularly with prostitutes and mistresses.

 

For someone who speaks in such an intelligent manner, TBF, I find it amusing how half the time you don't actually know jack about what you're talking about. Go and look up how 'many' Asian countries have legal prostitution. Then go and look up which OTHER countries actually have legal prostitution. Aww, does that muck with your theory? I'm sorry.

 

BTW, lack of legal prostitution hasn't really helped the USA very much, mm, if your metric of success or failure is the frequency with which men cheat?

[KathyM]

Oh, my. So a mere month ago, you were either visiting prostitutes or one yourself? Interesting news, TBF. Or did all supporters of legalization suddenly become self-interested, self-validating people the very day you changed your stance? So convenient to always be on the 'right' side, isn't it?

 

 

 

For someone who speaks in such an intelligent manner, TBF, I find it amusing how half the time you don't actually know jack about what you're talking about. Go and look up how 'many' Asian countries have legal prostitution. Then go and look up which OTHER countries actually have legal prostitution. Aww, does that muck with your theory? I'm sorry.

 

BTW, lack of legal prostitution hasn't really helped the USA very much, mm, if your metric of success or failure is the frequency with which men cheat?

Well, since legalization has caused human trafficking to increase to those countries where it is legal, it's pretty safe to assume the problem would be worse here in the U.S. (human trafficking) if it were legalized. Fortunately, in the U.S., the majority of people still consider prostitution to be exploitative to women and children, and they don't believe in legitimizing and legalizing something that devalues women.

[joystickd]

Well, since legalization has caused human trafficking to increase to those countries where it is legal, it's pretty safe to assume the problem would be worse here in the U.S. (human trafficking) if it were legalized. Fortunately, in the U.S., the majority of people still consider prostitution to be exploitative to women and children, and they don't believe in legitimizing and legalizing something that devalues women.

Actually human trafficking in the US is for farming. It wouldn't increase because of decriminalization of prostitution. If you are so against human trafficking say something about farmers using people that were trafficked over here.

[123321]

Well, since legalization has caused human trafficking to increase ...

 

The issue is, and you keep ignoring it, simply that trafficking is a slippery statistic, in and of itself it's almost meaningless. Helping a woman from Thailand on a tourist visa in say, Australia, to find ANY work is reported as trafficking. If the work is illegal for ANY reason (immigration and labor law in this case) anyone who assists is a trafficker and the person is considered trafficked, even when they are begging to stay and work.

 

When statistics on actual human slavery are carefully collected, farming is the top offender, with Asia and Africa leading the charge. Abolish farming? Look into Nestle Cocoa farming ....

[KathyM]

Actually human trafficking in the US is for farming. It wouldn't increase because of decriminalization of prostitution. If you are so against human trafficking say something about farmers using people that were trafficked over here.

That's not true. You are misinformed. Over 80% of human trafficking in the U.S. is for the purpose of prostitution. I have posted a report from the U.S. government stating this, but apparently it is being reviewed by moderators before they will post it. I am against all human trafficking for whatever purpose, but since farming isn't the topic of this thread, I won't be addressing that topic. Sufficed to say, over 80% of human trafficking is for prostitution in the U.S.

[KathyM]

The issue is, and you keep ignoring it, simply that trafficking is a slippery statistic, in and of itself it's almost meaningless. Helping a woman from Thailand on a tourist visa in say, Australia, to find ANY work is reported as trafficking. If the work is illegal for ANY reason (immigration and labor law in this case) anyone who assists is a trafficker and the person is considered trafficked, even when they are begging to stay and work.

 

When statistics on actual human slavery are carefully collected, farming is the top offender, with Asia and Africa leading the charge. Abolish farming? Look into Nestle Cocoa farming ....

Can you stick with the topic? Human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution increased in countries where it was legalized. If you want to start a topic on farming in Africa and slavery, I suggest you start a new thread and not derail this one.

[123321]

Enjoy:

 

Modern Slavery, about 2/3 "forced labor" with "State sanctioned forced labor" adding about 11% more ....

[123321]

Can you stick with the topic? Human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution increased in countries where it was legalized.

 

Human slavery and human trafficking are not the same thing. Try to focus. Trafficking is often done at the request of the person being trafficked, but not always.

[KathyM]

Enjoy:

 

Modern Slavery, about 2/3 "forced labor" with "State sanctioned forced labor" adding about 11% more ....

So you're saying that because some parts of the world (Africa for one) is getting farm labor from human trafficking, that it should be OK that human trafficking is being done also for the purpose of prostitution?