# White Linen and Rough Concrete



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Since we've recently been talking about a woman's body and societal laws, this woman talks about the myth of the high class call girl. She knows, because she was one...

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/19/my_..._i_learned_the_myth_of_the_high_class_hooker/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Other than _one_ Hollywood movie, I personally don't recall too many stories, where a prostitute's life is "glamorous". It' usually the exact opposite.

Since most of the "high end hookers" are usually there by choice (at least in America), if they stay in the business, when they are not happy (at least with the money), they have no one to blame, but themselves.

As far as the "John" making it _all about himself, well, _he _is_ paying cash for sex, not acting out a Richard Gere love story.

Not usually anyways.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Other than _one_ Hollywood movie, I personally don't recall too many stories, where a prostitute's life is "glamorous". It' usually the exact opposite.
> 
> Since most of the "high end hookers" are usually there by choice (at least in America), if they stay in the business, when they are not happy (at least with the money), they have no one to blame, but themselves.
> 
> ...


You almost cleared that statement up :tmi:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

The article is interesting in that she says that almost all prostitutes - including her - have some serious psychological issues, or they wouldn't be in the business.

Therefore, if we hearken back to the abortion debate, and the oft-repeated mantra "it's a woman's body and she should do what she wants with it", why aren't those same folks leading the charge for legalized prostitution? Even if and when the sex workers are admittedly worsening their own psychological conditions by degrading themselves the way they do...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> The article is interesting in that she says that almost all prostitutes - including her - have some serious psychological issues, or they wouldn't be in the business.
> 
> Therefore, if we hearken back to the abortion debate, and the oft-repeated mantra "it's a woman's body and she should do what she wants with it", why aren't those same folks leading the charge for legalized prostitution? Even if and when the sex workers are admittedly worsening their own psychological conditions by degrading themselves the way they do...


I don't have a problem with legalizing prostitution and in my opinion, it would make the industry a lot safer for women and their clients. In countries that do have legalized prostitution, the industry is regulated and taxes are paid on earned income.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> The article is interesting in that she says that almost all prostitutes - including her - have some serious psychological issues, or they wouldn't be in the business.
> 
> Therefore, if we hearken back to the abortion debate, and the oft-repeated mantra "it's a woman's body and she should do what she wants with it", why aren't those same folks leading the charge for legalized prostitution? Even if and when the sex workers are admittedly worsening their own psychological conditions by degrading themselves the way they do...


It's her choice, isn't it? I don't want to control women... that's the point. 

I also won't judge her...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> The article is interesting in that she says that almost all prostitutes - including her - have some serious psychological issues, or they wouldn't be in the business.
> 
> Therefore, if we hearken back to the abortion debate, and the oft-repeated mantra "it's a woman's body and she should do what she wants with it", why aren't those same folks leading the charge for legalized prostitution? Even if and when the sex workers are admittedly worsening their own psychological conditions by degrading themselves the way they do...


Probably because it is not worth it.

Most countries it's legal (or they just don't care) and here if it's not legal, it's usually considered a misdemeanor crime.

A lot of people have physiological issues and are not prostitutes.

Is should be 100% legal (and regulated) IMO.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Why control anybody?

Why deny a pederast his pleasure, if the object of his affestions is willing?

Why do we make spouse abuse illegal? Some people enjoy abusing their spouses and oddly enough, some spouses enjoy being abused.

Why do we prosecute 21 year-olds for having sex with 16 year-olds?

I could go on, but isn't the motivating factor in these examples a need for society to protect some people for the good of society, _even if the individual feels like they should not be protected_?

Why give society's permission to let people further psychologically abuse a segment of society, when that segment has admitted they are already having problems?


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

My PERSONAL opinion, being an educated retired police officer with a dear friend from college who is a high end call lady type woman is this. Mental health issues are rampant through out our society. Especially since the early eighties when we began issuing everyone a label of one type or another. My friend of thirty years does not seem unhappy to me. She works for two men, has a good retirement plan, makes a good wage is college educated and generally at this point is retired so to speak and doing what ever she likes. She often travels with her special friends but is, of course free to go or not go where ever she likes. She enjoys life in the big city and likes to go out to eat and visit different Broadway shows. I am pretty certain that for each happy hooker there is at least one unhappy hooker as it is a difficult profession.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Why control anybody?
> 
> Why deny a pederast his pleasure, if the object of his affestions is willing?
> 
> ...


It needs controlled for safety and health IMO.

Although I don't partake personally, prostitutes in truck stops are somewhat common.

The idea of climbing into the sleeper, of a truck from some unknown origin, seems pretty frightening, even to me.

I'm surprised more don't end up in a shallow grave somewhere (or worse), although who knows, for sure. Maybe plenty do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Why control anybody?
> 
> Why deny a pederast his pleasure, if the object of his affestions is willing?
> 
> ...


I don't know.. you (collective you) are always complaining about a "nanny state" and you want MORE government involvement to further control what a woman can do with her body. I don't like the fact that it's illegal but I haven't lived her life. 

If a women wants to sell her body for sex or have an abortion both are her choice. Her body her choice. I'm not going to judge her for either one because both had to be hard decisions to have made. 

I'm not playing your what if game. I answered your original question as it was stated.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know.. you (collective you) are always complaining about a "nanny state" and you want MORE government involvement to further control what a woman can do with her body. I don't like the fact that it's illegal but I haven't lived her life.
> 
> If a women wants to sell her body for sex it's her choice. Her body her choice. I'm not going to judge her for either one because both have to be hard decisions to have made.
> 
> I'm not playing your what if game. I answered your original question as it was stated.


Not into the Socratic Method? It's actually a classic and very good way of lurching into the Truth.

"Her body, her choice" is simply a prosaism of an earlier day of feminism, which does not take into account how the deleterious acts of the individual negatively impacts the whole of society.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Jolly said:


> The article is interesting in that she says that almost all prostitutes - including her - have some serious psychological issues, or they wouldn't be in the business.
> 
> Therefore, if we hearken back to the abortion debate, and the oft-repeated mantra "it's a woman's body and she should do what she wants with it", why aren't those same folks leading the charge for legalized prostitution? Even if and when the sex workers are admittedly worsening their own psychological conditions by degrading themselves the way they do...


That's a good question.

49% of countries have legal prostitution. 60% have legal abortions.

Which is the more "_enlightened_"? Armenia for one?

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772
http://www.reproductiverights.org/s...iles/documents/AbortionMap_Factsheet_2013.pdf


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Abortion kills an innocent.

Prostitution involves no innocent, at least directly.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Not into the Socratic Method? It's actually a classic and very good way of lurching into the Truth.
> 
> "Her body, her choice" is simply a prosaism of an earlier day of feminism, which does not take into account how the deleterious acts of the individual negatively impacts the whole of society.


Women aren't submissive unless they want to be now. We have complete control of our bodies, and that will never change.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Abortion kills an innocent.
> 
> Prostitution involves no innocent, at least directly.


All forms of birth control destroys a life. 

An honest business relationship between two or more consenting adults is normally not going to harm anyone..... But it sure drives the meddlers nuts!


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Jolly said:


> The article is interesting in that she says that almost all prostitutes - including her - have some serious psychological issues, or they wouldn't be in the business......
> 
> ......... the sex workers are admittedly worsening their own psychological conditions by degrading themselves the way they do...


What's your opinion of the customers who demand the prostitutes' services? Do you believe they also have psychological issues too? Are the customers also degrading their own selves? ........ degrading themselves at the same time they are degrading the prostitutes that they demand the use of? 

Where there is a high demand for something there will always be a supply for it. Perhaps the demand for the service should be eliminated. If the demand no longer existed then there would be no need to supply the service. 

That would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it? I wonder how that could be done to eliminate the sex drive and the demand that is the root cause of all these sex problems that women are burdened with?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> *All forms of birth control destroys a life.*
> 
> An honest business relationship between two or more consenting adults is normally not going to harm anyone..... But it sure drives the meddlers nuts!


You already held this nonsensical debate.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Fennick said:


> What's your opinion of the customers who demand the prostitutes' services? Do you believe they also have psychological issues too? Are the customers also degrading their own selves? ........ degrading themselves at the same time they are degrading the prostitutes that they demand the use of?
> 
> Where there is a high demand for something there will always be a supply for it. Perhaps the demand for the service should be eliminated. If the demand no longer existed then there would be no need to supply the service.
> 
> That would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it? I wonder how that could be done to eliminate the sex drive and the demand that is the root cause of all these sex problems that women are burdened with?


I think part of your answer is contained within the article. Notice how she speaks of the difference between a street john and a person who employees a call girl, particularly the most wealthy people who employee a call girl.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All forms of birth control destroys a life.
> 
> An honest business relationship between two or more consenting adults is normally not going to harm anyone..... But it sure drives the meddlers nuts!


Will it not harm anyone?

Here's something to peruse:

http://www.embracedignity.org/uploads/10Reasons.pdf


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Do you want forced rehab/treatment for all mental illness and addiction as well? All are psychologically abusive... 

How much control over others do you (collective you) people want?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You already held this nonsensical debate.


Yes, I have, and after several pages of interesting discussion not one person brought forth anything to refute it. Lots of remarks such as yours but not a peep about the concept itself being flawed. Can you honestly say that the whole idea behind birth control is not to prevent the birth of a child?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Will it not harm anyone?
> 
> Here's something to peruse:
> 
> http://www.embracedignity.org/uploads/10Reasons.pdf


Of the ten reasons to not legalize prostitution I saw not one that was related to any harm being caused by the transaction itself. Claims of increasing the trade one would expect, but having more people engaging in the trade isn't really harmful.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, I have, and after several pages of interesting discussion not one person brought forth anything to refute it. Lots of remarks such as yours but not a peep about the concept itself being flawed. Can you honestly say that the whole idea behind birth control is not to prevent the birth of a child?


Using your reasoning, how could you prevent what already is?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

> how could you prevent what already is?


That's easy. Mandatory reversible sterilization of all boys at birth. To be reversed only at such time as the grown man has reached age 30 and has demonstrated that he is ready and WANTS to marry and fully afford to support a home and a family. Family will be limited to 1 wife and 2 children only. Upon the birth of his 2nd child the man must become permanently sterilized.

How do you like them little green apples? :happy2:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Fennick said:


> That's easy. Mandatory reversible sterilization of all boys at birth. To be reversed only at such time as the grown man has reached age 30 and has demonstrated that he is ready and WANTS to marry and fully afford to support a home and a family. Family will be limited to 1 wife and 2 children only. Upon the birth of his 2nd child the man must become permanently sterilized.
> 
> How do you like them little green apples? :happy2:


Wish on, because that's not medically possible.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> That's easy. Mandatory reversible sterilization of all boys at birth. To be reversed only at such time as the grown man has reached age 30 and has demonstrated that he is ready and WANTS to marry and fully afford to support a home and a family. Family will be limited to 1 wife and 2 children only. Upon the birth of his 2nd child the man must become permanently sterilized.
> 
> How do you like them little green apples? :happy2:


What a totally *odd* response..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Using your reasoning, how could you prevent what already is?


Any number of things can prevent the birth of a child.... But you knew that already.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fennick said:


> That's easy. Mandatory reversible sterilization of all boys at birth. To be reversed only at such time as the grown man has reached age 30 and has demonstrated that he is ready and WANTS to marry and fully afford to support a home and a family. Family will be limited to 1 wife and 2 children only. Upon the birth of his 2nd child the man must become permanently sterilized.
> 
> How do you like them little green apples? :happy2:


if you miss one male somewhere nothing will change. If however you sterilize the females your plan works much better, miss one? One child to be dealt with. Not thousands. It's also much easier to find the one that was missed, she's the pregnant one.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Will it not harm anyone?
> 
> Here's something to peruse:
> 
> http://www.embracedignity.org/uploads/10Reasons.pdf


Wonder how Sweden's lop-sided hooker laws, would fly here in the U.S.?



> Sweden's belief that prostitution is the most brutal expression of patriarchy has engendered a kind of paternalism about commodified sex that holds men responsible for their actions while assuming women can't be.
> 
> It wipes out the possibility of gray areas for men and women to be equal partners in exchanging money for sex. Those sex workers who are able to voluntarily achieve a safe relationship with their clients are understandably frustrated by it. But if the ubiquity of trafficking and violence in the industry are any indication, it's not clear that such scenarios are easy to create and protect in the world as it exists today.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's a commodity with a artificially inflated value created by creating artificial shortages.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Any number of things can prevent the birth of a child.... But you knew that already.


But you said no life is created.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> It's a commodity with a artificially inflated value created by creating artificial shortages.


What is?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> But you said no life is created.


Which is true, unless you can show us any life that is not a continuation of the previous generation. Got any examples of non living things springing forth with new life? I'm all ears. Life on the other hand can be destroyed at any point in its natural cycle. By its very nature life requires the proper environment in order to survive.... Anything that interrupts life's natural flow kills it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> What is?



Lol the commodity that the ladies that are the topic of discussion sell ... Or is it rent ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol the commodity that the ladies that are the topic of discussion sell ... Or is it rent ?


 I would call it rent, when they sell it rings are generally involved.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Jolly said:


> Wish on, because that's not medically possible.


Sure it is, the procedure has been getting done under trial with hundreds of men in USA since 2011. The first clinical trials started some time around 2002 or 2003 in India where effective men's birth control is so important to regulate their over-population. I imagine within another 10 years it will have become a more common procedure in favour over getting a permanent vasectomy. 

It's commonly called RISUG which is an acronym for Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance. It's a safe, temporary (10 years) procedure which can be repeated. A plug of a certain type of gel (you'll have to look up the name of it at the link below) is injected into the vas deferens and it blocks the passage of sperm.

http://malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug.php

I can foresee a time coming in the not too distant future where this procedure for men as well as more effective but likewise temporary procedures for women will become mandatory for everyone. 

If _"certain people"_ want to control women's sex lives and what they do with their bodies then those certain people will have to be prepared to submit to exactly the same mandatory controls for themselves too and that must include all men as well as women. No exceptions allowed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fennick said:


> Sure it is, the procedure has been getting done under trial with hundreds of men in USA since 2011. The first clinical trials started some time around 2002 or 2003 in India where effective men's birth control is so important to regulate their over-population. I imagine within another 10 years it will have become a more common procedure in favour over getting a permanent vasectomy.
> 
> It's commonly called RISUG which is is an acronym for Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance. It's a safe, temporary (10 years) procedure which can be repeated. A plug of a certain type of gel (you'll have to look up the name of it at the link below) is injected into the vas deferens and it blocks the passage of sperm.
> 
> ...


it seems to me that "fixing" all the males would be redundant and at quite an expense even if it can be done. Males rarely get pregnant. Makes more sense to me to fix the females thus solving the problem with the least effort and expense.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Just an observation but it isn't just women that are/have been prostitutes. Many women pay for the same service as some men do. 


So I have heard anyway.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> it seems to me that "fixing" all the males would be redundant and at quite an expense even if it can be done. Males rarely get pregnant. Makes more sense to me to fix the females thus solving the problem with the least effort and expense.


Nice try, but no, no. :nono: It is a much easier procedure, effortless, safer, healthier and less expensive for men to be sterilized than it is for women. So if it came to an _either / or_ situation it's actually better and more practical for all men to be temporarily sterilized instead of women, until such time as they each can be permitted to have their alloted family, and then they can all be permanently sterilized afterwards. 

Naturally men will feel threatened and frightened and will object to the idea more than women will. Men will come up with all sorts of excuses for why men should be exempt from mandatory controls. But they will just have to suck it up and take personal responsibility for birth control.

It has to be everyone. What's sauce for the geese is sauce for the ganders.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fennick said:


> Nice try, but no, no. :nono: It is a much easier procedure, effortless, safer, healthier and less expensive for men to be sterilized than it is for women. So if it came to an either / or situation it's actually better and more practical for all men to be temporarily sterile instead of women, until they can be permitted have their alloted family, and then they can all be permanently sterilized afterwards.
> 
> Naturally men will feel threatened and frightened and will object to the idea more than women will. Men will come up with all sorts of excuses for why men should be exempt from mandatory controls. But they will just have to suck it up and take personal responsibility for birth control.
> 
> It has to be everyone. What's sauce for the geese is sauce for the ganders.


And what are the odds of fixing every man on the planet and keeping them fixed? Along with that period of time you say the procedure would be reversed? Nope, sterilizing the males only would never accomplish the intended goals.... When men start getting pregnant then we might need to discuss that option.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> .... When men start getting pregnant then we might need to discuss that option.


I guess until such time as that then there are "certain people" who will need to just mind their own business and stay out of women's business about their sex lives and what they do with their bodies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fennick said:


> I guess until such time as that then there are "certain people" who will need to just mind their own business and stay out of women's business about their sex lives and what they do with their bodies.


That works for me.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Fennick said:


> Sure it is, the procedure has been getting done under trial with hundreds of men in USA since 2011. The first clinical trials started some time around 2002 or 2003 in India where effective men's birth control is so important to regulate their over-population. I imagine within another 10 years it will have become a more common procedure in favour over getting a permanent vasectomy.
> 
> It's commonly called RISUG which is an acronym for Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance. It's a safe, temporary (10 years) procedure which can be repeated. A plug of a certain type of gel (you'll have to look up the name of it at the link below) is injected into the vas deferens and it blocks the passage of sperm.
> 
> ...


In other words, it's under clinical trials and may or may not be approved by the FDA for use in the United States.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Fennick said:


> That's easy. Mandatory reversible sterilization of all boys at birth. To be reversed only at such time as the grown man has reached age 30 and has demonstrated that he is ready and WANTS to marry and fully afford to support a home and a family. Family will be limited to 1 wife and 2 children only. Upon the birth of his 2nd child the man must become permanently sterilized.
> 
> How do you like them little green apples? :happy2:


May I ask your view on mandatory circumcision? Heck, why don't we just abort everything with 'male parts'.......

fwiw, there is a FDA approved, long term, safe, reversible birth control alternative for all females, it's called Norplant.
But that takes away a woman's 'right to choose'.......

Pot, meet kettle..........


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I wonder how many go along w/Czar John Holgren's views about putting birth control in the water supply...


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Fennick said:


> Nice try, but no, no. :nono: It is a much easier procedure, effortless, safer, healthier and less expensive for men to be sterilized than it is for women. So if it came to an _either / or_ situation it's actually better and more practical for all men to be temporarily sterilized instead of women, until such time as they each can be permitted to have their alloted family, and then they can all be permanently sterilized afterwards.
> 
> Naturally men will feel threatened and frightened and will object to the idea more than women will. Men will come up with all sorts of excuses for why men should be exempt from mandatory controls. But they will just have to suck it up and take personal responsibility for birth control.



So this 'gel' implant is more reliable than Norplant?, Cheaper, healthier and less expensive? Has a long (20+ years) track record of working?

Insurance (including Obamacare) covers Norplant, so it is basically *free* for women.

But that interferes with her choice.....

Got it.

fwiw, some people would say you were a sexist bigot


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol the commodity that the ladies that are the topic of discussion sell ... Or is it rent ?


I wanted to be sure what you said.

I have heard some prostitutes make the case that all women sell themselves in one manner or another. They contend even the most pious of women have sold themselves to their mate for the companionship and security of that relationship. Some prostitutes contend that all women are prostitutes. My guess is it is simply a rationalization of their situation.

I ain't trying to ---- anyone off, and I don't buy into it myself. It is simply another wacky view by wacky people.

I am a very easy person to talk to. I travel a lot and have a very easy time meeting people and getting them to open up. You meet some strange birds out there in the world, but they sure make life interesting.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fennick said:


> Nice try, but no, no. :nono: It is a much easier procedure, effortless, safer, healthier and less expensive for men to be sterilized than it is for women. So if it came to an _either / or_ situation it's actually better and more practical for all men to be temporarily sterilized instead of women, until such time as they each can be permitted to have their alloted family, and then they can all be permanently sterilized afterwards.
> 
> Naturally men will feel threatened and frightened and will object to the idea more than women will. Men will come up with all sorts of excuses for why men should be exempt from mandatory controls. But they will just have to suck it up and take personal responsibility for birth control.
> 
> It has to be everyone. What's sauce for the geese is sauce for the ganders.


It's totally different when it's talk of a _man_ being forced to have something done to _his_ body, huh?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's totally different when it's talk of a _man_ being forced to have something done to _his_ body, huh?


Exactly. You're a pretty sharp cookie. You picked up on my point immediately. 

The whole point in me making such an outrageous and, I might add, _facetious_ suggestion was to demonstrate how quickly men will come up with all sorts of excuses for why they think men need to be inviolate and untouchable but women don't deserve the same consideration and must be condemned and controlled.

"certain people" (that's my new buzz phrase for certain people from now on) don't comprehend facetiousness and they take themselves far too seriously.

LOL.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

fennick said:


> exactly. You nailed it. The whole point in me making such an outrageous and, i might add, _facetious_ suggestion was to demonstrate how quickly men will come up with all sorts of excuses for why they think men need to be inviolate and untouchable but women don't deserve the same consideration and must be condemned and controlled.
> 
> "certain people" (that's my new buzz phrase for certain people from now on) don't comprehend facetiousness and they take themselves far too seriously.
> 
> Lol.


real life award


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HD I've pointed out for years that there are lots of jobs where a man (or people) sell their bodies but it's only when they sell certain parts that a certain segment becomes riled. 
The broken down old laborer just doesn't evoke the sympathy a old whore does.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Oh, they don't just sell parts of their bodies, they sell parts of their souls.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Oh, they don't just sell parts of their bodies, they sell parts of their souls.


Ok, let's define a couple things first, are we discussing call girls, or wives? Call girls don't "sell" anything, they rent it. Wives are the ones in the sales game.

More importantly, how does one sell a soul? Or for that matter do souls even exist?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, let's define a couple things first, are we discussing call girls, or wives? Call girls don't "sell" anything, they rent it. Wives are the ones in the sales game.
> 
> More importantly, how does one sell a soul? Or for that matter do souls even exist?


1. I haven't written anything about wives, but I have written about call girls and street walkers. Hopefully, you aren't confusing sex within marriage and sex that is bought and paid for.

2. It's pretty easy to sell your soul. A lot of people do, one piece at a time.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

How about our two resident liberal gals - painterswife and the Irish Pixie? I believe both are married and both generally have a more "progressive" view about women and their bodies than some others...Do y'all know any women who sold themselves for a ring?

Is this common among females?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I would think prostitution is like any other job, where the employee either hates it, loves it, or something in between.

Some are forced into it, or desperate to survive, to feed their families.

Others love the money, the attention and the control.

Still some look at it as a way to pay for college, or save for a vacation.

It's funny that sex for fun is perfectly fine, but when money changes hand, now it becomes perverted and evil.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Jolly said:


> How about our two resident liberal gals - painterswife and the Irish Pixie? I believe both are married and both generally have a more "progressive" view about women and their bodies than some others...Do y'all know any women who sold themselves for a ring?
> 
> Is this common among females?


I am not either of them, as you can see, but I know three women in my own very small town who sold themselves for rings and they don't seem very happy even in their older age. If you think no woman has EVER sold herself for a ring or money, or had her family sell her off for a ring or money or title or even land or heck for that matter a couple of acorn fattened hogs, Mr Jolly you are sadly sadly mistaken!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> 1. I haven't written anything about wives, but I have written about call girls and street walkers. Hopefully, you aren't confusing sex within marriage and sex that is bought and paid for.
> 
> 2. It's pretty easy to sell your soul. A lot of people do, one piece at a time.


Ok one more time. If you buy an automobile you expect to take it home with you use it at your leisure from now on. If you rent a vehicle you don't get to keep it, you get to use it for a specific period of time then you return it. Call girls are renting their bodies, wives sell them. Surely you are not saying wives are not selling the same service call girls rent?

Now back to this soul thing, what is it, how do you know it exists?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> How about our two resident liberal gals - painterswife and the Irish Pixie? I believe both are married and both generally have a more "progressive" view about women and their bodies than some others...Do y'all know any women who sold themselves for a ring?
> 
> Is this common among females?


It's very common among females, far more married women than singles.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok one more time. If you buy an automobile you expect to take it home with you use it at your leisure from now on. If you rent a vehicle you don't get to keep it, you get to use it for a specific period of time then you return it. Call girls are renting their bodies, wives sell them. Surely you are not saying wives are not selling the same service call girls rent?
> 
> Now back to this soul thing, what is it, how do you know it exists?


I think the soul exists. Prove to me it does not.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

RichNC said:


> I am not either of them, as you can see, but I know three women in my own very small town who sold themselves for rings and they don't seem very happy even in their older age. If you think no woman has EVER sold herself for a ring or money, or had her family sell her off for a ring or money or title or even land or heck for that matter a couple of acorn fattened hogs, Mr Jolly you are sadly sadly mistaken!


Why should these women be unhappy?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> How about our two resident liberal gals - painterswife and the Irish Pixie? I believe both are married and both generally have a more "progressive" view about women and their bodies than some others...Do y'all know any women who sold themselves for a ring?
> 
> Is this common among females?


I'm not liberal, I know that you don't care and will continue to call me one tho. 

Yup. I know quite a few. Some regret it, some are OK with it, a few are happy with their decision. I don't judge them. 

When I was younger I was good friends with a woman that did porn. She didn't have a drug or alcohol problem, and it was just a lucrative job to her. She did it for a limited amount of time, 5 years I think, invested the money very well, and retired. I lost track of her years ago right after she left the business. I never judged her either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> I think the soul exists. Prove to me it does not.


Im sure you are aware of the impossibility of being able prove a negative. You are the one claiming souls exist and can even be bought or sold. Please present any evidence you have to support that line of thinking.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I would think prostitution is like any other job, where the employee either hates it, loves it, or something in between.
> 
> Some are forced into it, or desperate to survive, to feed their families.
> 
> ...


A lot of people (some here, it seems) disapprove of sex for fun also.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

RichNC said:


> I am not either of them, as you can see, but I know three women in my own very small town who sold themselves for rings and they don't seem very happy even in their older age. If you think no woman has EVER sold herself for a ring or money, or had her family sell her off for a ring or money or title or even land or heck for that matter a couple of acorn fattened hogs, Mr Jolly you are sadly sadly mistaken!





Jolly said:


> Why should these women be unhappy?


Did you miss this part, "or had her family sell her off for a ring or money or title or even land or heck for that matter a couple of acorn fattened hogs"?

If you think any woman wants to have someone else have control over her body, without her permission, you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm also not liberal but do know a couple women who sold out for a ring and a nice car and neither are particularly happy. 

They both seem to feel there is no way to leave an unhappy marriage without losing social status. Both are treated poorly by their spouse and continue to accept the idea that verbal abuse is the price they pay to live in luxury. 

One may move on but I don't see that happening unless she finds someone wealthier to support her. 

I have a lot more respect for a woman making a cash transaction that one who sells out for status.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok one more time. If you buy an automobile you expect to take it home with you use it at your leisure from now on. If you rent a vehicle you don't get to keep it, you get to use it for a specific period of time then you return it. Call girls are renting their bodies, wives sell them. Surely you are not saying wives are not selling the same service call girls rent?


Are you really this person or have you created an online character like a Stephen Colbert caricature? I find it hard to believe that a Yvonne sold her body to you to be used by you at your leisure.

My wife certainly didn't sell her body to me and I am not free to use it whenever I want as I am the car I own. The car is an object. My wife is a human being.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kuriakos said:


> Are you really this person or have you created an online character like a Stephen Colbert caricature? I find it hard to believe that a Yvonne sold her body to you to be used by you at your leisure.
> 
> My wife certainly didn't sell her body to me and I am not free to use it whenever I want as I am the car I own. The car is an object. My wife is a human being.


This is what I love about the U.S.A. Everyone gets to beleive what they want.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is what I love about the U.S.A. Everyone gets to beleive what they want.


Is that a yes to my question? You really believe this stuff?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Not into the Socratic Method? It's actually a classic and very good way of lurching into the Truth.
> 
> "Her body, her choice" is simply a prosaism of an earlier day of feminism, which does not take into account how the deleterious acts of the individual negatively impacts the whole of society.


This is not the Socratic method. This would be baiting 101.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I wonder where parents got that old expression from that some of them tell their daughters - y'all know the one I mean that goes something along the lines of holding out and not giving the milk away for free if the customer isn't willing to pay for the milk? Or not willing to pay for the whole cow? How does that saying go exactly? 

I think everyone who wants sex pays for it one way or the other, if it means getting married or not.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> How about our two resident liberal gals - painterswife and the Irish Pixie? I believe both are married and both generally have a more "progressive" view about women and their bodies than some others...Do y'all know any women who sold themselves for a ring?
> 
> Is this common among females?


Look up Patriarchy.....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

To go back to the OP I have no problem with legalising prostitution. I think it is better for everyone involved if it is legal. 

The person who wrote the article linked obviously picked the wrong career field.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I wonder where parents got that old expression from that some of them tell their daughters - y'all know the one I mean that goes something along the lines of holding out and not giving the milk away for free if the customer isn't willing to pay for the milk? Or not willing to pay for the whole cow? *How does that saying go exactly? *
> 
> I think everyone who wants sex pays for it one way or the other, if it means getting married or not.


It's something like:
"No one will buy the cow when they can get the milk for free"


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Why should these women be unhappy?


Because they married for money or status, and not for love or even like as far as I can see. Are you really that dense??


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> This is not the Socratic method. This would be baiting 101.


Some might say they are they same thing..
"a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas."


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> This is not the Socratic method. This would be baiting 101.


You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

Pardon me if I disagree.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kuriakos said:


> Is that a yes to my question? You really believe this stuff?


I wouldn't post it if I wasn't sure it's true.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

RichNC said:


> Because they married for money or status, and not for love or even like as far as I can see. Are you really that dense??


Perhaps not as dense as you think I am.

The original link brings up an article where a former prostitute talks about how most of her sister sex workers were psychologically not whole.

But some here think that most, if not all sex involves a monetary transaction...in other words, there is no difference between a wife and a prostitute, except for A) the money spent and B)the amount of time one gains access to another's sex organs.

Yes, Virginia, I do believe that some women marry for money. I'd like to be dense enough to believe that many, if not the majority in our society, take a lot more factors than money into account before marriage.

I'd also like to be dense enough to think that most of those who married solely for money, possible regret their decision. And possible, just possible, those that marry solely for money may also have some psychological problems that lead them to do so.

Or am I just so dense I have discounted the absolute predatory nature of the female mind?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fennick said:


> I wonder where parents got that old expression from that some of them tell their daughters - y'all know the one I mean that goes something along the lines of holding out and not giving the milk away for free if the customer isn't willing to pay for the milk? Or not willing to pay for the whole cow? How does that saying go exactly?
> 
> *I think everyone who wants sex pays for it one way or the other,* if it means getting married or not.


that is true in many cases, just not in mine, I have always been a generous type, have never once asked a woman so much as a dime for my services in the bedroom. Or the living room, barn loft, or anyplace else that tickled their fancy.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is what I love about the U.S.A. Everyone gets to beleive what they want.


But you didn't answer the question.

You proudly proclaim yourself to be Yvonne's hubby and I assume you have deep feelings for your wife.

Did you buy her? Is that what she would say?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you think any woman wants to have someone else have control over her body, without her permission, you are sadly mistaken.



lol I'm gonna call ya. On that one. 
I think most women want to lose control of their bodies. 
Think. Sex and pregnancy. 
But for even clearer examples veiw the fale submissive and slave profiles on any BDSM site.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> that is true in many cases, just not in mine, I have always been a generous type, have never once asked a woman so much as a dime for my services in the bedroom. Or the living room, barn loft, or anyplace else that tickled their fancy.


This brings to mind a funny story about the WW1 Marine officer the the french brothel Madam, thanks for the chuckle.

Fir the curious I don't think it fits the parameters of HT but google is your friend...:tmi:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> lol I'm gonna call ya. On that one.
> I think most women want to lose control of their bodies.
> Think. Sex and pregnancy.
> But for even clearer examples veiw the fale submissive and slave profiles on any BDSM site.


I know, which is why I added "without her permission" I was specifically thinking of sex when I wrote it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> But you didn't answer the question.
> 
> You proudly proclaim yourself to be Yvonne's hubby and I assume you have deep feelings for your wife.
> 
> Did you buy her? Is that what she would say?


in a word... No. But ours is not the "average" relationship. We are both self reliant individuals, neither being dependent upon the other for anything. Anything I do for her is because I love her and vice versa.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, which is why I added "without her permission" I was specifically thinking of sex when I wrote it.



Again let me direct you to the same place.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Again let me direct you to the same place.


I don't understand. There are many women that like "different" sex, but they are giving their permission by indulging in that type of sex. If they choose to indulge they are not being forced, so they are giving permission.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> in a word... No. But ours is not the "average" relationship. We are both self reliant individuals, neither being dependent upon the other for anything. Anything I do for her is because I love her and vice versa.


My marriage is pretty much the same, and has been for almost 33 years.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I wouldn't post it if I wasn't sure it's true.


Amazing. I had no idea there were real people like that these days in America. Haven't you mentioned ex-wives, too? How do they fit into your analogy of wives being like cars you've bought? Did you sell those wives or can you still use them at your leisure?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> in a word... No. But ours is not the "average" relationship. We are both self reliant individuals, neither being dependent upon the other for anything. Anything I do for her is because I love her and vice versa.


Happy to see this. It sounds much better than your earlier terrible analogy comparing prostitutes to rental cars and wives to purchased cars.

I think your marriage you describe is a lot more average than you realize, though.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand. There are many women that like "different" sex, but they are giving their permission by indulging in that type of sex. If they choose to indulge they are not being forced, so they are giving permission.



There are women that make it quite clear they do not want to consent or be involved in any way. 
What makes you think all want a choice ? 
All is usually a pretty tough word to back up.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kuriakos said:


> Amazing. I had no idea there were real people like that these days in America. Haven't you mentioned ex-wives, too? How do they fit into your analogy of wives being like cars you've bought? Did you sell those wives or can you still use them at your leisure?


both of my exes were given away years ago. kinda like some of my ex vehicles.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> both of my exes were given away years ago. kinda like some of my ex vehicles.


That's good news. Yvonne probably wouldn't like you using their services anymore.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kuriakos said:


> Happy to see this. It sounds much better than your earlier terrible analogy comparing prostitutes to rental cars and wives to purchased cars.
> 
> I think your marriage you describe is a lot more average than you realize, though.


You obviously travel in different circles than I do. Of the couples I have known the wives are nearly all dependent upon their hubby's to provide their livings. In most cases where a couple has been married ten years or more there will have been incidents of witholding sex to get what they want.... Quite often it's a monetary issue. Call it what you want but that sounds like money for sex... Prostitution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kuriakos said:


> That's good news. Yvonne probably wouldn't like you using their services anymore.


I'd say you are right about that, she was not happy having my second living close by, she is much better now that my second has passed on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> I wonder how many go along w/Czar John Holgren's views about putting birth control in the water supply...


It didn't work very well when they put it in the government cheese back in the eighties.... Might have improved by now.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> in a word... No. But ours is not the "average" relationship. We are both self reliant individuals, neither being dependent upon the other for anything. Anything I do for her is because I love her and vice versa.


That's wonderful and congratulations on your relationship.

Now, do you think it is the only one like it that exists?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> There are women that make it quite clear they do not want to consent or be involved in any way.
> What makes you think all want a choice ?
> All is usually a pretty tough word to back up.


It they don't consent it's sexual assault. That's an entirely different matter.

I'm not submissive, but I have read about it. The consensus is that the submissive holds the "power" in a relationship: 

DO NOT CLICK THE LINKS UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO READ ABOUT DOMINANT/SUBMISSIVE RELATIONSHIPS, BDSM, AND SEE ADS FOR SEX TOYS. 

http://www.submissiveguide.com/2010/12/who-has-the-power-really/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ive-the-paradox-power-in-sexual-relationships


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It they don't consent it's sexual assault. That's an entirely different matter.


According to some, they've been bought and paid for...if you're buying something, can't you use it anyway you wish?

In the original link, that was pointed out, especially in the more expensive transactions.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Oh, they don't just sell parts of their bodies, they sell parts of their souls.


Seems rent is a better word. If they SOLD 'em, they wouldn't have 'em any more, would they.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Double post.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> According to some, they've been bought and paid for...if you're buying something, can't you use it anyway you wish?
> 
> In the original link, that was pointed out, especially in the more expensive transactions.


The original link was one woman's account. Hardly definitive. 

You aren't suggesting that a sex worker can't be sexually assaulted are you? They don't have the right to say no?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> It they don't consent it's sexual assault. That's an entirely different matter.
> 
> I'm not submissive, but I have read about it. The consensus is that the submissive holds the "power" in a relationship:
> 
> ...



Lol some might say that. 
Keep going it's clearer in the slave profiles. 
Outside Bdsm there are many that want to play the victim. obviously they do not want to be in charge of their lives


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> The original link was one woman's account. Hardly definitive.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't suggesting that a sex worker can't be sexually assaulted are you? They don't have the right to say no?



Is rape of a sexworker assault or theft ?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> in a word... No. But ours is not the "average" relationship. We are both self reliant individuals, neither being dependent upon the other for anything. Anything I do for her is because I love her and vice versa.


So...those who married like this have not 'sold out for a ring'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol some might say that.
> Keep going it's clearer in the slave profiles.
> Outside Bdsm there are many that want to play the victim. obviously they do not want to be in charge of their lives


People that "play the victim" want all the attention (and sympathy) on them, they want to be in control. 

I don't understand the "lol"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Is rape of a sexworker assault or theft ?


Don't be obnoxious. If a woman, any woman, says no to sex it's assault.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

About this whole sold out for a ring thing.

Marriages are a partnership. Each partner brings different things to the marriage. If the marriage is based on love then there is no selling out. You want your spouse to be happy so you do things to achieve that. If it is not about love then it is a business transaction.

There are both kinds of marriages.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> The original link was one woman's account. Hardly definitive.
> 
> You aren't suggesting that a sex worker can't be sexually assaulted are you? They don't have the right to say no?


It's not the first account I've read and all of them seem to have a common thread - giving up one's dignity or control of one's body for money. And that has some pretty hard psychological consequences on most people.

But on to the second part...supposedly, anybody has the right to say no. But rights and abilities sometimes conflict. I think behind closed doors, especially with a certain type of monied client, saying no doesn't happen very often. If the sexual act is then forced, just what is the prostitute going to do about it?

It's a classic he said/she said. That's hard enough to prove the truth in a regular relationship, much less a rental event.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> It's not the first account I've read and all of them seem to have a common thread - giving up one's dignity or control of one's body for money. And that has some pretty hard psychological consequences on most people.
> 
> But on to the second part...supposedly, anybody has the right to say no. But rights and abilities sometimes conflict. I think behind closed doors, especially with a certain type of monied client, saying no doesn't happen very often. If the sexual act is then forced, just what is the prostitute going to do about it?
> 
> It's a classic he said/she said. That's hard enough to prove the truth in a regular relationship, much less a rental event.


A sex worker can go to the police regarding a sexual assault. It can be proven in the same way any other rape is proven.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> A sex worker can go to the police regarding a sexual assault. It can be proven in the same way any other rape is proven.


Do you think that happens very often?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Is rape of a sexworker assault or theft ?


It is theft. It's no different than a guy on the street selling peanuts out of a cart. He's there solely to do business. If someone grabs some peanuts and runs away, he has robbed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yes, sex workers report sexual assault every day. Many times the police don't take it seriously, but that doesn't make it any less of an assault, does it? Many times police don't take a non sex worker's claim of sexual assault seriously either. Both times the police are wrong. Sexual assault is never justified for any reason.

Read this, it may help you understand: http://www.consented.ca/myths/sex-workers-and-sexual-assault/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> It is theft. It's no different than a guy on the street selling peanuts out of a cart. He's there solely to do business. If someone grabs some peanuts and runs away, he has robbed.


Are you saying it's OK to sexually assault a sex worker because it's just "theft"?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying it's OK to sexually assault a sex worker because it's just "theft"?


No, not at all. He is saying stealing peanuts is wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> No, not at all. He is saying stealing peanuts is wrong.


In response to AmericanStand's post of: "Is rape of a sexworker assault or theft ?"


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> It's not the first account I've read and all of them seem to have a common thread - giving up one's dignity or control of one's body for money. And that has some pretty hard psychological consequences on most people.
> 
> But on to the second part...supposedly, anybody has the right to say no. But rights and abilities sometimes conflict. I think behind closed doors, especially with a certain type of monied client, saying no doesn't happen very often. If the sexual act is then forced, just what is the prostitute going to do about it?
> 
> It's a classic he said/she said. That's hard enough to prove the truth in a regular relationship, much less a rental event.


While I'm not in law enforcement, I have a friend who is and another who's an ER doctor and they tell me that rape is isn't all that difficult to medically prove. 

Having said that, I suspect that with prostitution being illegal, only the most violent assaults are reported because there is that chance that a prostitute may be charged. Perhaps if it were legalized, there would be less reluctance to report assault and men and women working in sex trades would be able to work in safer environments.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> That's wonderful and congratulations on your relationship.
> 
> Now, do you think it is the only one like it that exists?


Nope, I am quite sure there are other couples who are similar.... Are you trying to suggest all marriages are like ours?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> According to some, they've been bought and paid for...if you're buying something, can't you use it anyway you wish?
> 
> In the original link, that was pointed out, especially in the more expensive transactions.


It's not bought and paid for when you rent something, and most rentals come with an agreement about how things can be used.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's not bought and paid for when you rent something, and most rentals come with an agreement about how things can be used.


I guess I just rented the ex-wife for 5yrs. She must have been cheap ! It only cost me $175 for court costs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> I guess I just rented the ex-wife for 5yrs. She must have been cheap ! It only cost me $175 for court costs.


That's pretty cheap. My first cost me nine years of work and about 15K worth of debt. Second cost me 15 years worth of work but only about 10K of debt.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You obviously travel in different circles than I do. Of the couples I have known the wives are nearly all dependent upon their hubby's to provide their livings. In most cases where a couple has been married ten years or more there will have been incidents of witholding sex to get what they want.... Quite often it's a monetary issue. Call it what you want but that sounds like money for sex... Prostitution.


Yes, I've heard of that type of marriage. It sounds unfulfilling and sad. But if there are incidents of withholding sex to get what they want, then it sounds like just as much of a rental as the prostitute. That is, if sex is the only goal of marriage, but even in most such dysfunctional marriages, there is much more than trading sex for something else. Sure, there's a lot of transactional back and forth in any marriage, but that's far different than paying a prostitute to do something you want but she is only doing for the money.

Believe it or not, my wife actually wants to have sex with me (or does a darn good job faking it) with nothing in it for her other than the sex itself. I can't be the only husband who has experienced this. ETA: She also makes more money than I do. Perhaps I'm the "car" and she "bought" me.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

painterswife said:


> About this whole sold out for a ring thing.
> 
> Marriages are a partnership. Each partner brings different things to the marriage. If the marriage is based on love then there is no selling out. You want your spouse to be happy so you do things to achieve that. If it is not about love then it is a business transaction.
> 
> There are both kinds of marriages.


Well said. I agree there are both kinds of marriages, and many marriages that probably could fit in both categories. Those based strictly on business with no love between the partners are probably much more rare than is being assumed by some people.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

As long as she hurt no innocence, we have no right to make her choice illegal. If she wants to sell herself, it is hers to sell.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> As long as she hurt no innocence, we have no right to make her choice illegal. If she wants to sell herself, it is hers to sell.


Prezacalootly!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> About this whole sold out for a ring thing.
> 
> Marriages are a partnership. Each partner brings different things to the marriage.* If the marriage is based on love then there is no selling out. *You want your spouse to be happy so you do things to achieve that. If it is not about love then it is a business transaction.
> 
> There are both kinds of marriages.


yeppers I am quite certain Donald trumps ex wife loves money.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> As long as she hurt no innocence, we have no right to make her choice illegal. If she wants to sell herself, it is hers to sell.


And that's a nice libertarian view...as long as it hurts nobody but the individual, right? And here's where I have problems with some of the libertarian views...There are very, very few actions that a person does in life that does not effect other people. Even some of those that only effect the individual can cause the individual life-long, irreparable harm.

No, I think society has to agree what is good and what is not, and try to shape law to for societal morality.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> People that "play the victim" want all the attention (and sympathy) on them, they want to be in control.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the "lol"?



It indicate that I find the statement funny. Submissives are usually paired with a Dom or a sadist. 
Doms should be leaders that are complete and confident in themselves. They don't need a sub. 
Also it's common to have many subs. 
Both negate any power the sub claims. 
Sadists are a incorrect pairing but it's common because of that the power is with the sadist.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't be obnoxious. If a woman, any woman, says no to sex it's assault.



Let's see she happily engages in sex it's not till the customer fails to pay that she's unhappy. 
How can it become assault AFTER the fact !


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wr said:


> While I'm not in law enforcement, I have a friend who is and another who's an ER doctor and they tell me that rape is isn't all that difficult to medically prove.
> 
> Having said that, I suspect that with prostitution being illegal, only the most violent assaults are reported because there is that chance that a prostitute may be charged. Perhaps if it were legalized, there would be less reluctance to report assault and men and women working in sex trades would be able to work in safer environments.


Yes and no.

You look for vaginal tearing and bleeding, rectal tearing and bleeding, bruising around the breasts or genital area, and you sample for seminal fluid.

Sometimes that's hard to do, because the first thing many rape victims do, is take a shower or bath.

If you can prove the first, then you have to prove the sex was not consensual rough sex.

If a call girl shows up at a nice hotel, the camera footage will show her willingly entering the room. The footage will also show her leaving the room, most likely by herself and not under duress. We've already had allusions in this thread to bondage scenes and rough sex, and ain't nobody talking forcible rape in that statement.

Should a call girl turn a john in, she better have some pretty good injuries and her screams better be heard three rooms down. If not, I suspect the case won't even be taken up by the DA.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Let's see she happily engages in sex it's not till the *customer fails to pay that she's unhappy. *
> How can it become assault AFTER the fact !


I've heard that is a good way to make a hormone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> And that's a nice libertarian view...as long as it hurts nobody but the individual, right? And here's where I have problems with some of the libertarian views...There are very, very few actions that a person does in life that does not effect other people. Even some of those that only effect the individual can cause the individual life-long, irreparable harm.
> 
> *No, I think society has to agree what is good and what is not, and try to shape law to fot societal morality.*


I can go along with this somewhat..... But we must be careful with the laws we write lest we create laws that interfer with people's God given rights, which does not include forcing anyone's religious beliefs on the next feller.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Where does the control end? The conservatives want control of all female reproductive rights, now at least one feels the need to control female sex workers for the sake of society. Absolutely ridiculous. Where does it end?

As long as someone is able to care for themselves, some can't, the government, conservatives, whatever needs to stay the hell out of the lives and liberty of others.

And now we have someone going beyond internet windbag and trying to play internet detective.  Sexual assault is wrong no matter who is involved. And it's not overwhelmingly hard to figure out if woman has been raped, and it's not just physical.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where does the control end? The conservatives want control of all female reproductive rights, now at least one feels the need to control female sex workers for the sake of society. Absolutely ridiculous. Where does it end?
> 
> As long as someone is able to care for themselves, some can't, the government, conservatives, whatever needs to stay the hell out of the lives and liberty of others.
> 
> And now we have someone going beyond internet windbag and trying to play internet detective.  Sexual assault is wrong no matter who is involved. And it's not overwhelmingly hard to figure out if woman has been raped, and it's not just physical.


Pardon madam, but this internet windbag was the keeper of the rape kit and has been the recipient, tester and expert witness on rape material from more than one case. But I suppose you must have read something, somewhere, that suddenly makes you an expert. Just keep in mind that I was always told an "ex" is a has-been and a "spert" is a drip under pressure.

But let's examine what you just said...On one hand, you're howling about sexual assault and wanting the government to prosecute and punish whoever is responsible and in almost the next sentence you're asserting the right of the free individual in a libertine state.

Madam, you simply can't have both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. You either have laws which society enforces to protect the weak, or you let everyone look out for themselves and the Devil take the hindmost.

Now, what do you want?

An orderly society or anarchy?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> And that's a nice libertarian view...as long as it hurts nobody but the individual, right? And here's where I have problems with some of the libertarian views...There are very, very few actions that a person does in life that does not effect other people. Even some of those that only effect the individual can cause the individual life-long, irreparable harm.
> 
> No, I think society has to agree what is good and what is not, and try to shape law to for societal morality.


I don't believe that all of society can be saved and I truly don't believe that if someone believes that all hookers are emotionally damaged, outlawing the industry will make them well. 

I've read articles that indicate people get into the sex industries because they're emotionally damaged from events that occurred earlier in their lives.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Prostitution is the oldest business in the world.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Jolly said:


> And that's a nice libertarian view...as long as it hurts nobody but the individual, right? And here's where I have problems with some of the libertarian views...There are very, very few actions that a person does in life that does not effect other people. Even some of those that only effect the individual can cause the individual life-long, irreparable harm.
> 
> No, I think society has to agree what is good and what is not, and try to shape law to for societal morality.


Who are you to say what affects every individual and how, and that it should be regulated according to your opinions? Sex is natural, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it between 2 consenting adults, despite money changing hands or not. Some people may go into it for various reasons and then handle any consequences in different ways. Use your do good energy to help them, not force your ideas about morality on me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where does the control end? The conservatives want control of all female reproductive rights, now at least one feels the need to control female sex workers for the sake of society. Absolutely ridiculous. Where does it end?
> 
> As long as someone is able to care for themselves, some can't, the government, conservatives, whatever needs to stay the hell out of the lives and liberty of others.
> 
> And now we have someone going beyond internet windbag and trying to play internet detective.  Sexual assault is wrong no matter who is involved. And it's not overwhelmingly hard to figure out if woman has been raped, and it's not just physical.


Where does it end? It doesn't. Meddlers are driven to meddle. It's what they do. Give them what they want today and tomorrow they will find some other aspect of people's lives to meddle in.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Pardon madam, but this internet windbag was the keeper of the rape kit and has been the recipient, tester and expert witness on rape material from more than one case. But I suppose you must have read something, somewhere, that suddenly makes you an expert. Just keep in mind that I was always told an "ex" is a has-been and a "spert" is a drip under pressure.
> 
> But let's examine what you just said...On one hand, you're howling about sexual assault and wanting the government to prosecute and punish whoever is responsible and in almost the next sentence you're asserting the right of the free individual in a libertine state.
> 
> ...


how about prosecuting and punishing criminals whose crimes cause harm to others or their property and leave everyone else alone to live their own lives as they see fit? Would that work in your world?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Pardon madam, but this internet windbag was the keeper of the rape kit and has been the recipient, tester and expert witness on rape material from more than one case. But I suppose you must have read something, somewhere, that suddenly makes you an expert. Just keep in mind that I was always told an "ex" is a has-been and a "spert" is a drip under pressure.
> 
> But let's examine what you just said...On one hand, you're howling about sexual assault and wanting the government to prosecute and punish whoever is responsible and in almost the next sentence you're asserting the right of the free individual in a libertine state.
> 
> ...


I want people that sexual assault punished for their _crime_. You seem to want control of nearly everything to do with women, and see it as your due being a conservative white male. It doesn't work that way, we get to vote now, we work, we own property, and we have control over our own bodies. 

I seems like everyone either is, or was, something important on the internet. I may have been an underwear model.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I've read articles that indicate people get into the sex industries because they're emotionally damaged from events that occurred earlier in their lives.



I've read arrivals about three headed Martians. 
It doesn't make it true. 

Honestly so what ? We are all damaged. I've seen articles about bad interpersonal relationships in truck drivers. And failures to communicate in pilots. A lack of empathy among slaughter house workers. 

Should we outlaw those jobs and institutionalize the workers. ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I seems like everyone either is, or was, something important on the internet. I may have been an underwear model.



I think everyone IS someone important.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I've read arrivals about three headed Martians.
> It doesn't make it true.
> 
> Honestly so what ? We are all damaged. I've seen articles about bad interpersonal relationships in truck drivers. And failures to communicate in pilots. A lack of empathy among slaughter house workers.
> ...



No, I don't. My only point was that on biography on the subject is a viewpoint and not a reason create more laws. 

Sex workers will always be there and because some disagree with their occupation doesn't mean they get to lock them up.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jolly said:


> And that's a nice libertarian view...as long as it hurts nobody but the individual, right? And here's where I have problems with some of the libertarian views...There are very, very few actions that a person does in life that does not effect other people. Even some of those that only effect the individual can cause the individual life-long, irreparable harm.
> 
> No, I think society has to agree what is good and what is not, and try to shape law to for societal morality.


They tried that with alcohol, with disastrous results. They are trying it with drugs, with disastrous results.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> how about prosecuting and punishing criminals whose crimes cause harm to others or their property and leave everyone else alone to live their own lives as they see fit? Would that work in your world?


Ok, what's more damaging to society, the theft of your lawnmower or the forcible rape of a woman?

What's more damaging to society, some computer hacker stealing your money from your bank or a redlight district in your town?

I could go on forever, but I think you see my point - we are a government formed by the people for the people. The people, through their representatives, will make laws on all governmental levels, to try to make society the best it can be.

At one time the United States had legal prostitution in many areas. The people decided that is not what they wanted. Unlike us, who are only dealing in an abstract idea, those folks were dealing with reality. The KNEW what legal prostitution brought to their cities and towns. Prostitution brought pornography, gambling, alcohol and drugs.

Now, I'm not saying every town or city can be Mayberry, but if I'm living there or I'm trying to raise my children there, I would much rather have Mayberry than Sin City. 

You call it meddling, I call it keeping the peace and maintaining a good place to live.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Ok, what's more damaging to society, the theft of your lawnmower or the forcible rape of a woman?
> 
> What's more damaging to society, some computer hacker stealing your money from your bank or a redlight district in your town?
> 
> ...


I can understand your reasoning but the implications are concerning. 

Could it also be said that if we can force a prostitute into an institution, we could also control what future careers she may have? If she's assumed to be insane or just a bit crazy because she's working her way through college, perhaps she's a bit too crazy to earn that degree. Can we take that away as well and maybe her children?

Once we're done with that, who's life do we get to sort out next?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Prostitution brought pornography, gambling, alcohol and drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> You call it meddling, I call it keeping the peace and maintaining a good place to live.



You make it sound like those are bad things. 
They are just things. 
A bottle of everclear can save lives or power your car. 
Gambling supports churches and schools. 
Drugs relive pain. 
Point is why should You get to decide to take MY FReEDOM away?

Keep your own peace and maintain your on place.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wr said:


> I can understand your reasoning but the implications are concerning.
> 
> Could it also be said that if we can force a prostitute into an institution, we could also control what future careers she may have? If she's assumed to be insane or just a bit crazy because she's working her way through college, perhaps she's a bit too crazy to earn that degree. Can we take that away as well and maybe her children?
> 
> Once we're done with that, who's life do we get to sort out next?


What if she's dealing drugs to put herself through school? What if she is hacking computer accounts to pay for her children's food?

The solution is very simple - if it is against the law, don't do it or suffer the consequences.

People make cost/benefit decisions all the time. In the case of the prostitute, she's decided the money outweighs the penalties, same as the corner drug dealer.

This stuff is not rocket surgery...people decide what is legal and illegal and make laws to represent their decisions. It's not sorting out lives, it's maintaining the best environment for a safe and flourishing society.

I think you are Canadian...Why does Canada restrict firearms ownership? Why should they infringe upon the right of a sane citizen to purchase and own a personal weapon?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Ok, what's more damaging to society, the theft of your lawnmower or the forcible rape of a woman?
> 
> What's more damaging to society, some computer hacker stealing your money from your bank or a redlight district in your town?
> 
> ...


Prostitution is still legal in some places in the U.S. Haven't heard of any problems being any worse than other cities and towns.
Theft of my lawn mower has a victim.... Me
Forcible rape has a victim. The person raped
Hackers that steal have victims. The people being robbed.
Prostitutes... No victim
Pornography.. No victim
Gambling... No victim
Alcohol.... No victim
Drugs... No victim
Meddling has victims... The people who would like to enjoy life as they see fit.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> What if she's dealing drugs to put herself through school? What if she is hacking computer accounts to pay for her children's food?
> 
> The solution is very simple - if it is against the law, don't do it or suffer the consequences.
> 
> ...


Your information may be somewhat inaccurate because we don't deny a sane citizen the right to own a personal weapon and on more than one occasion I have publicly stated that I'm not in agreement with our firearm laws although I do believe they have improved.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wr said:


> Your information may be somewhat inaccurate because we don't deny a sane citizen the right to own a personal weapon and on more than one occasion I have publicly stated that I'm not in agreement with our firearm laws although I do believe they have improved.


Perhaps I'm a bit inaccurate, but Canadian laws are much more strict than U.S. laws in regard to firearms ownership.

The question is why?

Could it be the Canadian people have decided that they want more restrictions than their southern neighbors? Is this wrong? Is it right? Or does it reflect what Canadians feel is the proper restriction of firearms in their society?

If that latter, how is that any different from regulating or criminalizing any act society may deem damaging or needing restriction?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Prostitution is still legal in some places in the U.S. Haven't heard of any problems being any worse than other cities and towns.
> Theft of my lawn mower has a victim.... Me
> Forcible rape has a victim. The person raped
> Hackers that steal have victims. The people being robbed.
> ...


Prostitution is only legal in 8 Nevada counties, all sparsely populated. Clark County (Las Vegas) does not have legal prostitution.

The idea that alcohol or drugs have no victim but the individual drinking or taking drugs is incomprehensible.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Prostitution is only legal in 8 Nevada counties, all sparsely populated. Clark County (Las Vegas) does not have legal prostitution.
> 
> The idea that alcohol or drugs have no victim but the individual drinking or taking drugs is incomprehensible.


What is so incomprehensible about someone having a drink? Or smoking a joint if they want to? Where's the victim? Oh, I see the victim, it's got the meddler all in a fizz coz they didn't get to control someone else's life. 

I think Las Vegas has gambling, and alcohol though. How did that happen without prostitution to lead the way?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Perhaps I'm a bit inaccurate, but Canadian laws are much more strict than U.S. laws in regard to firearms ownership.
> 
> The question is why?
> 
> ...



I'm not convinced that Canadians do fully agree with firearm laws or we wouldn't have found the long gun registry scrapped a while back. 

I actually understand the point you're trying to make but my concern is where it may end and who makes these decisions? 

I personally feel that alcohol has harmed more families than a bag of pot and you may feel differently. In either case, the reality is that laws intended for the greater good of mankind are not always intended for the greater good or mankind.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I'm not convinced that Canadians do fully agree with firearm laws or we wouldn't have found the long gun registry scrapped a while back.
> 
> I actually understand the point you're trying to make but *my concern is where it may end and who makes these decisions? *
> 
> I personally feel that alcohol has harmed more families than a bag of pot and you may feel differently. In either case, the reality is that laws intended for the greater good of mankind are not always intended for the greater good or mankind.


That's the problem,,,, it never ends. As soon as they get what they insist is good for society they come up with some other nonsense that's going to destroy the fabric of society and start a new campaign to demonize that. They are meddlers and that's what meddlers do. They meddle.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's the problem,,,, it never ends. As soon as they get what they insist is good for society they come up with some other nonsense that's going to destroy the fabric of society and start a new campaign to demonize that. They are meddlers and that's what meddlers do. They meddle.


I raised 3 fine kids as a single parent to be terrific adults some may say that statistics indicate that it can't be done so in the name of the greater good, perhaps they could have been raised in an institutional environment of handed off to someone else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I've known several single moms that managed to raise their kids alone. My hat is off to them!


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> I personally feel that alcohol has harmed more families than a bag of pot and you may feel differently. In either case, the reality is that laws intended for the greater good of mankind are not always intended for the greater good or mankind.


According to some in this thread, that simply cannot be the case. The dad who spends most of his money on drink and neglects his family, is only hurting himself, according to some. The crack-head who delivers an addicted baby is only hurting herself. A prostitute's child who sees a stream of different men pass through his mother's bedroom sure will suffer no psychological problems, correct?

"Meddlers!" cry some. People who want to tell me how to live! I'll live the way I want to!

I'm sorry, but that's just not so. Not in any society, anywhere. There are always limits. Always bounds that one cannot transgress. Some say here that making law never ends...I dunno, maybe it doesn't. It is the nature of people to sometimes make something more complicated than it has to be.

But consider the alternative. Y'all are fixated on the addition of laws while silmultaneously not giving the law any credit at all. What would happen if there were no law? Where the strong preyed on the weak and a man was only as good as the gun on his hip?

Is that the type society you'd like to have?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

My concern is always definition when it comes to incorporating laws and for the sake of argument, I'll cite Canadian gun laws. 

We do have an portion of our law that says that our firearms have to be securely stored when not in use, which by definition can be interpreted as within a locked residence, a simple trigger lock or a gun safe bolted to a wall. 

When Alberta suffered severe flooding, many towns were evacuated but access in and out of the towns, strictly controlled by the RCMP so nobody was allowed into the town. The RCMP concluded that evacuating homeowners might have left 'unsecured firearms during the evacuation, they used the registry to systematically search each home and confiscate numerous firearms for the greater good of society. Interestingly enough, they had to break into houses to find some of these 'unsecured' firearms and in some cases went so far as to rifle through closets and break into locked gun rooms. 

It has taken several years for it to be proven that the RCMP grossly overstepped and it's that brand of greater good that scares me as much as mandatory sterilization for Down's people or residential schools for First Nation's kids.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jolly said:


> According to some in this thread, that simply cannot be the case. The dad who spends most of his money on drink and neglects his family, is only hurting himself, according to some. The crack-head who delivers an addicted baby is only hurting herself. A prostitute's child who sees a stream of different men pass through his mother's bedroom sure will suffer no psychological problems, correct?
> 
> "Meddlers!" cry some. People who want to tell me how to live! I'll live the way I want to!
> 
> ...


 Simple, if there is no direct victim, there should be no law outlawing the action. 

Sure, indirectly, some may be hurt. That is true of just about anything. The man who make stupid business decisions can have as profound an effect on his family as the man who smokes up his paycheck. Are we going to legislate to insure that the stupid are not hurt by their own stupidity?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> According to some in this thread, that simply cannot be the case. The dad who spends most of his money on drink and neglects his family, is only hurting himself, according to some. The crack-head who delivers an addicted baby is only hurting herself. A prostitute's child who sees a stream of different men pass through his mother's bedroom sure will suffer no psychological problems, correct?
> 
> "Meddlers!" cry some. People who want to tell me how to live! I'll live the way I want to!
> 
> ...


i have never advocated a lawless society. We need laws to keep people from harming others. What we don't need are laws to keep people from harming themselves if they so choose. As I have countless times on this board, laws that protect me from thee are good laws, laws that protect me from me... Thems meddling laws and have no place in a society based on freedom.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Prostitution is only legal in 8 Nevada counties, all sparsely populated. Clark County (Las Vegas) does not have legal prostitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that alcohol or drugs have no victim but the individual drinking or taking drugs is incomprehensible.



Whys that I comprehend it clearly. 
Remember the bad things that happen if someone over indulges are his fault NOT the substances.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Alcohol.... No victim


My youngest went on a road trip to Bristol and after touring every football stadium from Alberta down, he decided to check out Mr. Daniel's hometown. 

Between learning Alberta boys are not made for southern heat and the being denied the opportunity to sample some of Mr. Daniel's finest beverage darned near caused his head to explode :rotfl:


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I want people that sexual assault punished for their _crime_. You seem to want control of nearly everything to do with women, and see it as your due being a conservative white male. It doesn't work that way, we get to vote now, we work, we own property, and we have control over our own bodies.


To be fair to conservative white males, plenty of liberal women of all colors are also against prostitution being legalized. It's one issue that doesn't split so cleanly down the left-right lines.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> My youngest went on a road trip to Bristol and after touring every football stadium from Alberta down, he decided to check out Mr. Daniel's hometown.
> 
> Between learning Alberta boys are not made for southern heat and the being denied the opportunity to sample some of Mr. Daniel's finest beverage darned near caused his head to explode :rotfl:


Victims of alcohol ......0
Victims of no alcohol ..1


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i have never advocated a lawless society. We need laws to keep people from harming others. What we don't need are laws to keep people from harming themselves if they so choose. As I have countless times on this board, laws that protect me from thee are good laws, laws that protect me from me... Thems meddling laws and have no place in a society based on freedom.


The only difference between protecting me from thee and thee from me, is simply where you are standing at the moment. Usually, with any "bad" behavior, somebody is going to be hurt besides the individual doing something bad to himself. You cannot explain that away.

Total freedom sounds nice, but in reality, it's a lot like communism - simply unworkable in a modern society.

What modern, first or second world society enjoying total freedom exists? I know of none, do you?

Do you know of one ever existing?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> The only difference between protecting me from thee and thee from me, is simply where you are standing at the moment. Usually, with any "bad" behavior, somebody is going to be hurt besides the individual doing something bad to himself. You cannot explain that away.
> 
> Total freedom sounds nice, but in reality, it's a lot like communism - simply unworkable in a modern society.
> 
> ...


Read again, here I will type it slower this time.
Laws that protect *me from thee* are totally different than 
Laws that protect *me from me*

Who gets hurt if an adult drinks a cold beer on a creek bank while fishing with his grandson on a nice summer day?
Who gets hurt if two consenting adults have sex in the privacy of a rented room? 
Who gets hurt if the lady pays the guy? (Yeah, some of us are that good)
Who gets hurt if someone takes an aspirin to alleviate a headache?
Who gets hurt if you stick a pencil up your nose?
Who gets hurt if you try to take my cold beer from me when I'm fishing?
See the difference now?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Read again, here I will type it slower this time.
> Laws that protect *me from thee* are totally different than
> Laws that protect *me from me*
> 
> ...


You can type as slowly as you wish, but you're not assessing the collateral damage of *your* actions very well.

Nobody lives in a vacuum. NOBODY. Now, there may not be an equal and opposite reaction to every action. OTOH, there probably is no butterfly effect, either.

But be assured, nothing done by the individual, effects only the individual.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> You can type as slowly as you wish, but you're not assessing the collateral damage of *your* actions very well.
> 
> Nobody lives in a vacuum. NOBODY. Now, there may not be an equal and opposite reaction to every action. OTOH, there probably is no butterfly effect, either.
> 
> But be assured, nothing done by the individual, effects only the individual.


interesting that you failed to answer any of the what ifs I presented. Does that mean you agree there is no harm done in any of them? Why must everybody comply with your rules? Pick one from the list above and explain this collateral damage you speak of.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> Who gets hurt if two consenting adults have sex in the privacy of a rented room?


Why don't we ask the lady's husband?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Why don't we ask the lady's husband?


ok ask him, he's the one she was having sex with. I will let you do the talking, he looks to be rather large and well muscled, and some guys don't like being spied on while having private moments with their wives.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Prostitution is illegal in most states. Illegal as in a crime, not a mental illness. If caught the prostitute should be punished, not with forced psych treatment _unless_ they are a danger to themselves or others. Or better yet, legalize prostitution.

Drinking is not illegal, drinking AND driving is. No one should be punished for drinking unless they are also driving (or doing something else illegal). Are you advocating forced psych treatment for people that drink too?

Drugs can be legal (prescribed and taken as a MD directed) or illegal. It's not illegal to take drugs that were prescribed for you and taken in authorized doses, it can be illegal to drive impaired. Illegal drugs are illegal, still not a basis for mandatory psych treatment. Etc. 

Stay out of other people's lives, especially if it doesn't directly impact your own.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Why don't we ask the lady's husband?


What of the husband who spends the grocery money on lottery tickets? Should we arrest the clerk that sold them? Or the bartender who took the rent money? The ticket clerk at the local racetrack who sold him a pit pass rather than sending him to the store for new shoes for his kids?

Every action one takes affects others. How far do you wish to legislate how the government controls those effects. The wife has legal options. Adding more won't help her. Making prostitution illegal has never eliminated prostitution or , as far as I can tell, even lessened it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Why don't we ask the lady's husband?


 If he feels that he has been damaged, he is free to file suit in civil court.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> What of the husband who spends the grocery money on lottery tickets? Should we arrest the clerk that sold them? Or the bartender who took the rent money? The ticket clerk at the local racetrack who sold him a pit pass rather than sending him to the store for new shoes for his kids?
> 
> Every action one takes affects others. How far do you wish to legislate how the government controls those effects. The wife has legal options. Adding more won't help her. Making prostitution illegal has never eliminated prostitution or , as far as I can tell, even lessened it.


Thank you for proving my point.

If you read back through the thread, you see that I have a consistent position...Society codifies morality into laws. Laws which society believes best serves its needs, such as stability, peace and prosperity.

If we don't arrest the husband that blew all his money on lottery tickets, it is because we - as a society - have decided that it is not important enough to do so or that we do not wish to do so. Of course, if he blew all his money on lottery tickets, he and his family are in for a world of hurt, mostly backed by civil law, not criminal. Again, laws on which society, or its representatives have agreed upon.

You and I can agree that every action one takes impacts others. Again, read through this thread and you will find people do not agree with that point. Some believe there are "victimless" crimes, which should no longer be crimes. But if everything one does, impacts others, is there such a thing as a victimless crime? Especially if the impact is extremely negative?

Many of you are extremely worried how far the government will go, yet you call for a lot of legal intervention in those causes you support. That's not unusual, people advocate for those things they deem important. The breaking point is when you can push your idea into acceptance of a majority of society and achieve the impetus to have society make your ideas into law.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If he feels that he has been damaged, he is free to file suit in civil court.


True, but let us hope he does not refer his problem to a _petit jury_ of six, all in approximately .357 caliber.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> If you read back through the thread, you see that I have a consistent position...Society codifies morality into laws. Laws which society believes best serves its needs, such as stability, peace and prosperity.
> 
> ...


But I didn't ask about arresting the husband. I asked why not arrest those who took money for goods or services that he probably should have spent elsewhere. Why arrest the prostitute if you're not going to make the same moral judgement against all others who sell something that negatively affects his family? If everything one does affects others isn't everything a potential crime?

I'd like as little government intervention in people's personal lives as possible. I don't believe I taken a stance otherwise.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> True, but let us hope he does not refer his problem to a _petit jury_ of six, all in approximately .357 caliber.


That would be a crime, complete with a victim.... One of those laws that protect me from thee. To the best of my knowledge there is no law saying two consenting adults cannot share a bed regardless of their marital status, mainly because there is no harm done to either party. Bringing a .357 into the equation is another matter entirely. That brings victims into the game.

As to your other assertions about blowing a paycheck leaving hungry kids at home, that happens and there are laws to protect kids from such irresponsible behavior. Why punish everyone else who wants to bet on a horse? Why punish every one who drinks responsibly?

Again.... Protect me from thee, but leave me free to be me. It's none of your business how much I drink, smoke, what kind of plants I grow, or who I sleep with. Quit meddling.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> If you read back through the thread, you see that I have a consistent position...Society codifies morality into laws. Laws which society believes best serves its needs, such as stability, peace and prosperity.


If there is one thing I have learned in my sixty four years it is this... In spite of every attempt that has been made by meddlers over the years, it is impossible to legislate morality. Those attempts end in dismal failure and usually create more problems than they solve. Cases in point, prohibition of alcohol. The current war on drugs, the current antiprostitution laws. How are those working for the meddlers?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If there is one thing I have learned in my sixty four years it is this... In spite of every attempt that has been made by meddlers over the years, it is impossible to legislate morality. Those attempts end in dismal failure and usually create more problems than they solve. Cases in point, prohibition of alcohol. The current war on drugs, the current antiprostitution laws. How are those working for the meddlers?


Better than if you allowed those things to be legal.

You call it meddling. I call it quality of life. I don't want my kids walking down a public street, dodging pimps and prostitutes and stepping over stoned drug addicts.

You can call it what you want, but if you demand to live in a garbage heap, pretty soon you're gonna smell like garbage, whether you actually are, or not.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Better than if you allowed those things to be legal.
> 
> You call it meddling. I call it quality of life. I don't want my kids walking down a public street, dodging pimps and prostitutes and stepping over stoned drug addicts.
> 
> You can call it what you want, but if you demand to live in a garbage heap, pretty soon you're gonna smell like garbage, whether you actually are, or not.


How many people drink? It is legal and MOST people do it, at least a little. We are not met with piles of drunks littering the street. Now, during Prohibition, it was a different story, crime was ramped, not because of the booze, but, because of the prohibition of booze. The same can be said of the current prohibition of drugs and prostitution. 

A regulated, legal trade of those items would reduce the horror we see today.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> I don't want my kids walking down a public street, dodging pimps and prostitutes and stepping over stoned drug addicts..



Then don't live there. 

Choose your neighbors carefully. 

Better yet don't have any.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Better than if you allowed those things to be legal.
> 
> You call it meddling. I call it quality of life. I don't want my kids walking down a public street, dodging pimps and prostitutes and stepping over stoned drug addicts.
> 
> You can call it what you want, but if you demand to live in a garbage heap, pretty soon you're gonna smell like garbage, whether you actually are, or not.


And controlling people that do things you don't like is going to deter that? History has proven that it doesn't work. Over and over again. When does it end? Eugenics? Locking up the "undesirables" even if they haven't committed a crime? 

The world doesn't revolve around you and what you think is right.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Better than if you allowed those things to be legal.
> 
> You call it meddling. I call it quality of life. I don't want my kids walking down a public street, dodging pimps and prostitutes and stepping over stoned drug addicts.
> 
> You can call it what you want, but if you demand to live in a garbage heap, pretty soon you're gonna smell like garbage, whether you actually are, or not.


Then there are certain areas of every large and many small cities you should avoid taking them. Laws are in place and these places and people still exist. I'll only smell like garbage if I choose to roll in it. What, or who, others choose to roll with and what smells they aquire is up to them.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Then there are certain areas of every large and many small cities you should avoid taking them. Laws are in place and these places and people still exist. I'll only smell like garbage if I choose to roll in it. What, or who, others choose to roll with and what smells they aquire is up to them.


* Laws are in place and these places and people still exist.*

Exactly!

And if you think it's bad now, just walk away let it grow as it will. That's not the type of life I want for me, my children or my grandchildren. It's an environment many of us have worked very, very hard to escape.

Tolerance is a wonderful thing - to a point. At some point, tolerance becomes oppression in its own right. When you tolerate vice to the point it is commonplace within all parts of a community, _i.e._ the wino passed out on the sidewalk, you have done nothing but coarsen the quality of life for all.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> * Laws are in place and these places and people still exist.*
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> ...


Let's go back and look at prohibition as an example of how a law enforcing morality worked. People didn't stop drinking. The economy suffered and people lost jobs. Crime and political corruption increased. Today alcohol sales and public drinking establishments are legal. There are problems associated with them but they are regulated and taxed and almost no one complains about their corner bar. 

Go to Amsterdam. Prostitution is legal, regulated and taxed. I hear of no huge problems. Those areas of Nevada where it's legal seem content with those businesses being there. Show me the example where making these things illegal has enhanced the quality of life for the masses.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Better than if you allowed those things to be legal.
> 
> You call it meddling. I call it quality of life. I don't want my kids walking down a public street, dodging pimps and prostitutes and stepping over stoned drug addicts.
> 
> You can call it what you want, but if you demand to live in a garbage heap, pretty soon you're gonna smell like garbage, whether you actually are, or not.


Not everyone wants or likes your vision of utopia. Don't want to step over stoned addicts? Walk around. When you deny one group their freedoms, it won't be long before you will feel the chains around your own neck as well.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Let's talk collateral damage. 

Let's take two cases in one case man opens a beer while driving home. 
In the other Amanda rolls a joint proceeds to smoke it while driving. 

In the world were these are legal both men have a pleasant drive home nobody is hurt nobody is damaged. The economy games a little ground. 

In a world where these are not legal what happens ? Police resources are used to ferret thing out of the traffic stream. 
The menus up the resources of the court system. 
Require us to hire some jailers further removing productivity from the economy. 
They are of course felons removing their valuable services from many lines endeavor.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not everyone wants or likes your vision of utopia. Don't want to step over stoned addicts? Walk around. When you deny one group their freedoms, it won't be long before you will feel the chains around your own neck as well.


How about today's mass killing?

Got anybody's freedoms you'd like to deny?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> How about today's mass killing?
> 
> 
> 
> Got anybody's freedoms you'd like to deny?



Well yes I fact I do. 
I feel that people advocating more laws cause those kinds of mass killings. 
Let's deny the freedom of speech to those that advocate more law. 
You know , for the children.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> How about today's mass killing?
> 
> Got anybody's freedoms you'd like to deny?


I'd like to know more about it before I formed any opinions but the obvious rush will be to greater gun control and I don't know if it's effective as one may hope. 

Obviously, Canada has stricter regulations than the US but that didn't stop a young man from killing 5 university students. He just found another method.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> How about today's mass killing?
> 
> Got anybody's freedoms you'd like to deny?


yep, and his freedoms were "neutralized" today.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> yep, and his freedoms were "neutralized" today.


Not before he killed a lot of innocent people.

You know, most studies show that about half of human behavior has a genetic tie-in, and about half of behavior comes from an individual's environment. I think we can agree that many of the recent mass killers have mental problems and much of that is probably genetic.

But what about environment? Back to my garbage heap theory...If we allow ourselves as a culture to immerse ourselves in garbage, what about those who are effected by it, that they behave in ways deleterious to society?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Not before he killed a lot of innocent people.
> 
> You know, most studies show that about half of human behavior has a genetic tie-in, and about half of behavior comes from an individual's environment. I think we can agree that many of the recent mass killers have mental problems and much of that is probably genetic.
> 
> But what about environment? Back to my garbage heap theory...If we allow ourselves as a culture to immerse ourselves in garbage, what about those who are effected by it, that they behave in ways deleterious to society?


I think there may be a need to find out what this nuts motives were before drawing any conclusions. As to your "garbage heap" theory.... I would say that's exactly where it belongs... In the garbage. One mans trash is often another mans treasure.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think there may be a need to find out what this nuts motives were before drawing any conclusions. As to your "garbage heap" theory.... I would say that's exactly where it belongs... In the garbage.



Got a better theory?

Mass shootings did not happen in the U.S. in previous years. Yes, there was the Texas Bell Tower incident in 1966, but it was years before anything like that happened again, and nothing like it had happened previously.

Now, it seems as if we get one incident every 90 days.

Why?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Got a better theory?
> 
> Mass shootings did not happen in the U.S. in previous years. Yes, there was the Texas Bell Tower incident in 1966, but it was years before anything like that happened again, and nothing like it had happened previously.
> 
> ...


Perhaps it's no more complicated than media making these people household names.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Got a better theory?
> 
> Mass shootings did not happen in the U.S. in previous years. Yes, there was the Texas Bell Tower incident in 1966, but it was years before anything like that happened again, and nothing like it had happened previously.
> 
> ...


why? Good question indeed, we have all sorts of laws forbidding "bad moral behavior" and yet we still have a growing number of idiots committing horrendous crimes. Like I asked earlier.... How's that working for you? Seems like you said much better, but now you say it's getting worse. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Perhaps it's no more complicated than media making these people household names.


That may well be part of it. I would also consider when things took a turn for the worse. Mid sixties brought many changes to our society. The sexual revolution, our official war on drugs, blue ribbons awarded for showing up, Spocks wonderful books had become widely accepted as the "proper" way to raise our children.... The list goes on.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Got a better theory?
> 
> Mass shootings did not happen in the U.S. in previous years. Yes, there was the Texas Bell Tower incident in 1966, but it was years before anything like that happened again, and nothing like it had happened previously.
> 
> ...



I'd say it was the comming of all the rules on personal freedom that have created a lack of release 
With out access to drugs or protitution with the use of alcohol severely restricted the frustrations build up and Are released as mass killings. 
So those people that are in favor of restricting freedom are the responce sable parties for the mass killings. 

Look inward.


----------

