Moral Judgement On Prostitutes

[vailpass]

So last night/this morning I had some people over. A friend brought a friend who, it turns out, is a high end prostitute. I don't roll like that, I pay for pussy in the traditional drinks and entertainment sort of way. This lady is beautiful, intelligent, and worldly. Great conversation but all I can think is "yeah but you're still a whore". Sharing this because bye week...

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Drugging by passing = hey, you want some of this?

Could be weed, booze, whatever. It's you knowing what's in there and they don't.

And taking advantage of that is rape IMO

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

And taking advantage of that is rape IMO

So we're clear: I stated this was infinitely more dishonest than telling a woman what you want, making it clear, and paying her money for it.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Rausch

So we're clear: I stated this was infinitely more dishonest than telling a woman what you want, making it clear, and paying her money for it.

I understood from the beginning

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

I understood from the beginning

So buying a woman a drink you know is stronger than she can likely handle is dishonest.

It is, we know it, odds are most of us have done it.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by vailpass

The reason for my post was I found her to be all of those things. The whore thing was what made me think. She's good friends with a girl I'm seeing, is been very interesting and a little enlightening. End of the day though, when they leave, I'll chalk it up to another fun experience but move on. Thanks for your experienced input.

Sounds like an interesting chick, and someone that doesn't take herself so seriously that she can't talk about what it is she does.

Hopefully everyone had a blast and you stay in touch with each other.

[Rain Man]

I've never thought about this before, but how did prostitution ever become illegal? It appears that it's been of public interest for millennia, and there have long been laws and rules about it. But why?

For most of time, men ruled society. Why would men voluntarily limit the number of sexual partners they can have? That makes no sense at all.

When I think about the possible reasons, they could be:

1. It spread disease rapidly and the ruling men decided that it was such a threat that they voluntarily limited their access.

2. In the days before birth control and abortion, you ended up with a lot of little beggars running around because prostitutes tended to get pregnant a lot, so they voluntarily limited their access.

3. When religion had more power, religion didn't like it and limited access.

4. Conceivably, men were influenced by their wives, and the rulers' wives didn't like it.

When you think about voluntarily limiting one's own access to sexual partners, I guess there are a few different explanations as well.

1. Those in power recognized one of the issues above and decided that there was no other option.

2. Those in power kept their concubines and hookers, so this was a prohibition that applied only to the poor for the reasons listed above.

3. Those in power were religious people who weren't supposed to have sex anyway, so they didn't care about limiting sexual partners.


The bottom line, though, is that anti-prostitution laws seem improbable if the laws applied to those who were in power. So I have to think that they were applied to the masses and not to those in power.

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The bottom line, though, is that anti-prostitution laws seem improbable if the laws applied to those who were in power. So I have to think that they were applied to the masses and not to those in power.

I don't think our society is overly worried about the perfumed, articulate, educated women who are calling that particular rose a different name. We're worried about the crack heads taking trains behind Subway for a dime bag.

So yah. It's about the ugly, drug addled, poverty stricken side. Not the silk sheets and Michelin dinners.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I don't think our society is overly worried about the perfumed, articulate, educated women who are calling that particular rose a different name. We're worried about the crack heads taking trains behind Subway for a dime bag.

So yah. It's about the ugly, drug addled, poverty stricken side. Not the silk sheets and Michelin dinners.

I think it's a two-step experiment. First, legalize it. Second, keep it legal long enough for the shock to wear off.

Let's see what that does to reduce the number working behind the subway. Perhaps it'll do nothing.

I suspect one of the larger issues on the table is what its open acceptance would do to our modern culture? Would it give women more, or less, power over men? I don't know, it could be argued either way. But what if a man didn't have to "get married for life" (in a purely biblical religious view) in order to get laid. Would we go extinct because men wouldn't get married and have kids? Would marriage become extinct? Would the world die-off due to disease? Would divorce lawyers go extinct because A) it's legal and men have a perfectly legal 2nd option that won't get them "slammed" in court (to some extent the laws would need to consider it), or B) men won't get married because they like variety. Would marriage vows be updated to reflect this evolution of man? Would men and women find the difference/balance between making love, ****ing, a nooner, and variety being the spice of life? Would men be OK with turnabout being fair-play? Again, I don't know, there are so many dooms-day scenarios that are probably wrong, but I think it would be interesting to find out.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Final evaluation is this person is a business owner with skills that allow her to attain a standard of living she desires. As many have stated there really is no morality judgment to be made yet at the same time...She's a whore. She told me I was too the circumstances are just different. All in all a pretty interesting weekend.

Though I acknowledge this probably isn't at all typical, there was a woman on a podcast I listen to (can't remember which one - Freakonomics maybe?) who was a high-end prostitute for 3-4 years. Brought in something like $300k+ per year working 15-20 hours a week. Loved it and didn't regret any of it.

Now she's like 30 and essentially can do whatever she wants in life. I think she went into marketing for a corporation, though she's now got a ginormous bank account to fall back on if she ever needs it.

I've got no issues with someone doing that if they enjoy it at all. My only issue is that many (most?) don't do it because they love it and instead do it because they're desperate for cash. That kind of mentality is obviously problematic.

[Katipan]

I think it's hinging on the idea that just because a woman is a prostitute, that she'll want you, or her neighbors, or her family and friends to know that she is one. Certainly I'm sure she's eager to sit down with her accountant and talk about expenses at tax time. While I admit there are plenty that would be eager to do so.

Which cums first?

Legalize it to make it less dirty.
Or make it less dirty, then legalize it.

The utopia of Tifani being cheerfully accepted by her suburbanite neighbors, as she cruises down the street in her convertible to go suck cock, is so far beyond us right now.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Though I acknowledge this probably isn't at all typical, there was a woman on a podcast I listen to (can't remember which one - Freakonomics maybe?) who was a high-end prostitute for 3-4 years. Brought in something like $300k+ per year working 15-20 hours a week. Loved it and didn't regret any of it.

Now she's like 30 and essentially can do whatever she wants in life. I think she went into marketing for a corporation, though she's now got a ginormous bank account to fall back on if she ever needs it.

I've got no issues with someone doing that if they enjoy it at all. My only issue is that many (most?) don't do it because they love it and instead do it because they're desperate for cash. That kind of mentality is obviously problematic.

Again, a great post. But I'd put the bar somewhere lower. Like many careers, not everybody have to love what they do to justify working in the career. I know plenty of doctors who are in it for the money. I've known girls who DID pay their way through college dancing. I know guys in the military who are there out of their own form of desperation. So not everybody is in their dream job, but that doesn't mean we should be over judgmental about certain careers that are more opportunistic and less-appreciated by the religious community than others.

As for calling people whores, it may fit a certain dictionary version of the word, but short of the street-walker I'm sure I can think of other careers the religious crowd think are OK that I think are MY textbook definition of whores.

I'll say this, not that a stripper is a prostitute, but I think they're better people than anybody who's in telemarketing. And that's just one example. And I don't think there are many people suffering through a telemarketing career who like it - to say the least it's a career made up of desperate people. But there's always that one person who says they like it because they're a "people person."

[Rausch]

Keeping it illegal is all a control/power issue.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Sounds like an interesting chick, and someone that doesn't take herself so seriously that she can't talk about what it is she does.

Hopefully everyone had a blast and you stay in touch with each other.

Thanks. It was an interesting weekend. I'll likely continue to socialize with her as she's cool as hell. But nothing more than casual...

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Katipan

I don't think our society is overly worried about the perfumed, articulate, educated women who are calling that particular rose a different name. We're worried about the crack heads taking trains behind Subway for a dime bag.

So yah. It's about the ugly, drug addled, poverty stricken side. Not the silk sheets and Michelin dinners.

I think you're right, and I suspect that's how it was considered when the laws were made.

The interesting and sad part is that whatever happens behind the Subway is really a culmination of a lot of other things that led up to it. It seems like preventing those should be a higher priority than preventing what happens in the end (no pun intended).

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think you're right, and I suspect that's how it was considered when the laws were made.

The interesting and sad part is that whatever happens behind the Subway is really a culmination of a lot of other things that led up to it. It seems like preventing those should be a higher priority than preventing what happens in the end (no pun intended).

Yep. Nevada has that figured out. In fairness I need to point out the person to whom I was referring isn't the behind the Subway type...