ForumGarden

lady cop wrote: another thread got into prostitution and it's affect on society. here is what i posted. this could be an interesting discussion. ----



i arrest prostitutes, and johns, because it's illegal. the whore usually has crack rocks on her when i search her. she is hooking for crack in 98% of cases. so someone is supporting the crack dealer. if you mean let's legalize it,and keep it clean of drugs and AIDS, OK, but the way it stands now it's all interwoven and connected with dope. (oh, and PS, 98% of the hookers have AIDS too, and are passing it around to the dumbass johns.)

__________________






Sorry LC, not a attack on you just the facts.......



You arrest prostitutes? I thought you were told you could not be a deputy anymore? Correct me if I am wrong........



Then this sentence....

"(oh, and PS, 98% of the hookers have AIDS too, and are passing it around to the dumbass johns.)"



98%.... Got any facts?

98%....... WOA

BTS , after this i will never again dignify anything you say with a reply. you tried to harangue a 15 year old child to 'get a PI and sue' me for 'harassing' her, which was completely FALSE and none of your business. i am still a certified law enforcement officer and have complete arrest powers. do me a favor and ignore me, as i will you.

Geez BTS...aren't you tired of being the bad guy in every thread? What are you trying to debate here?

You don't believe that a lot of hookers have AIDS?

Why would that be hard to believe?

And is that true that you tried to sic a private investigator on LC?

I misjudged you, I thought you were an upstanding guy. I liked your post defending the Iraq commander.

Unfortunately..that was the last nice post I saw you make and that was two months ago.

What happened to that BTS? Can we have him back?:(

Jives wrote: Geez BTS...aren't you tired of being the bad guy in every thread? What are you trying to debate here?



You don't believe that a lot of hookers have AIDS?

Why would that be hard to believe?



And is that true that you tried to sic a private investigator on LC?



I misjudged you, I thought you were an upstanding guy. I liked your post defending the Iraq commander.



Unfortunately..that was the last nice post I saw you make and that was two months ago.



What happened to that BTS? Can we have him back?:(


What is this?

sic a PI on LC...... got a source for that jab? For I will dispel that myth as soon as it arises... SHEESH... I guese it has arisen so I ask show me the facts son!!!!!



All I ask for in my post is fact and truth..... not spin

If that is the bad guy then so be it Jives.... I be bad then.



You know and I know LC is no longer a officer (as she implies) and further more 98% are infected......

Come on I just ask for some facts to the statement that is ALL....



I would not have reacted if she said a realistic # like say 45-60%..... but 98%

Jives you are smarter than that



And yes I do believe a lot of hookers do have aids, but 98%



SHEESH 98% of the gay guys are not HIV+ let alone 98% of hookers...

Correct me if I am wrong

lady cop wrote: BTS , after this i will never again dignify anything you say with a reply. you tried to harangue a 15 year old child to 'get a PI and sue' me for 'harassing' her, which was completely FALSE and none of your business. i am still a certified law enforcement officer and have complete arrest powers. do me a favor and ignore me, as i will you.


I have no idea what you are babblin about...

flopstock wrote: I agree. I thought when I clicked here before I'd see some intelligent BTS argument for or against prostitution...he's very entertaining when he does that...



I just clicked back off the thread when I saw what he was up to.



It's gets kinda sad and pathetic after a while. In addition to being pointless.


So u think 98% of the hustlers have aids?

TISK TISK

The problem with having a place where "hookers" could have medical

checks and be "clean"... is it just isn't good enough. You can have the

aids virus for months and not know it, so there's a window where you

have it and potentially infect many, many others. Get every "john" to

use condoms? Sure. Uh-huh. Condoms can break or come off.



This isn't back in the day when they could be checked for gonorrhea

or even syphilis. And get it cleared up if you had it.

Val, EVERY hooker in our county jail is on an AIDS cocktail. further, the knowing transmission of the virus is attempted murder under the law.

BTS wrote: So u think 98% of the hustlers have aids?

TISK TISK


What percentage do ?

Nomad wrote: What percentage do ?


I dunno no but it sure ain't 98%... (or we would ALL be infected:wah: )

I just ask her to back up her talk...........nothing more



How about you, got a figure Nomd?



I would say 45-60%..... Just As I said before. (IMO)



If I can't speak my mind about what I feel then too bad. Look back at my first post, I was on subject and calling a person out on their statement. I do not care who it is I will call them out if I disagree. It just happened to be LC. It might be anybody I do not care.

I wish you all would attack me on my statements that you think are untrue and not on PM's and lies.

I never have or would try to get a PI to investigate anyone unless my family or I was threatened.

I would love to see the facts to that one.

Just as I am still waiting on the fact that 98% of hookers have aids.

At the end of the day if prostitues wanna degrade themselves then leave them to it.......... as for the punters nobody forces them to go and pay for sex........... but when it's thought about shouldn't the pimps be the ones to blame by sending the girls out to do it

I also notice that nobody mentions the rent boys that also do this to pay for drugs

Ive been to Amsterdam and walked through the red light distrist (everyone duz) and although its sleezy its also very clinical the toms (women) sit behind glass windows all lit up red and you walk along and the guy can choose which girl takes his fancy .When i went, there were dozons of young guys just standing out side and watching and cheering each other on.You could also see quite clearly what was in the rooms it looked like just a bed and small wash area. For i think 50 euros a guy would get 10 mins and a quick bunkup it did seem to me quite clinical .Ive also had dealing with toms through work and the street sluts are a completely different ballgame dirty ,druged up really skanky .Pissing and p**ing in peoples gardens and the curbies would drive from miles around to pick a hooker up so as much as i hate to admit it ,it would better to put all the hookers in one place clean them up give them a licence and make it safer all round .

valerie wrote: The problem with having a place where "hookers" could have medical

checks and be "clean"... is it just isn't good enough. You can have the

aids virus for months and not know it, so there's a window where you

have it and potentially infect many, many others. Get every "john" to

use condoms? Sure. Uh-huh. Condoms can break or come off.



This isn't back in the day when they could be checked for gonorrhea

or even syphilis. And get it cleared up if you had it.




Buyer beware, imo. The Professional Intercourse Marketing Panel can lobby for more aggressive research to find better techniques.

BTS wrote: What is this?

sic a PI on LC...... got a source for that jab? For I will dispel that myth as soon as it arises... SHEESH... I guese it has arisen so I ask show me the facts son!!!!!


Sure...my source is LC's post immediately above yours. She states outright that you tried to get a private investigator to harrass her. Are you calling her a liar? I have to tell you that your credibility is below hers. She is in law enforcement.



All I ask for in my post is fact and truth..... not spin


And again I state tha the truth is before you. Why do you find it hard to belive that 98% of the hookers have AIDS? That seems very reasonable to me, since AIDS is passed through sex and hookers, by definition, are in that business.

Is it the statistic you question? Then you are missing the point. LC's point is that prostitution is bad and that prostitues spread the AIDS virus. Who cares if the actual statistic is really 90% or even 80%? It's still very high and I know you won't deny that.

So what is your point? Are you coming to the defense of prostitutes? You believe it is a much maligned profession? How do you come by that opinion? Are you experienced in this area?

If that is the bad guy then so be it Jives.... I be bad then.


Is this an admission?



You know and I know LC is no longer a officer (as she implies)


Since she is on disabled leave, she has lost her credibility? Not likely. She has lost her sense and engages in hyperbole for fun's sake? Not likely either. She is being very clear. She is against prostitution. She has intimate experience that I, if not you, do not have. I believe her implicitly.

I would not have reacted if she said a realistic # like say 45-60%..... but 98%. Jives you are smarter than that


Now you backpedal and try to mitigate your attack.



And yes I do believe a lot of hookers do have aids, but 98%?


Why does the percentage even matter? The crux of this argument is that prostitution is a dangerous criminal enterprise and should be kept a illegal. Others have stated that it should be controlled, but that road leads to anarchy. The actual percentage of hookers with AIDS doesn't even matter, since we all agree it is much, much higher than the norm, and this profession makes the statistics worse, not better.



SHEESH 98% of the gay guys are not HIV+ let alone 98% of hookers...


Your ignorance shows here. You assume that gays should have a higher percentage than hookers, since homosexuality is where AIDS comes from according to your implication. Yet, it is unprotected sex with multiple partners that is the real danger, so hookers should have a higher rate and they do.

Correct me if I am wrong


Thank you, I just did.

Can any of you answer me this question. As young adults, what attracted you to your prospective spouses? If you can honestly say that sexual attraction was not a part of the overall attraction, then what attracted you?

If prostitution is wrong, then all marriages with sexual attraction as a part of the basis of the marriage is also wrong. Marriage is a form of prostitution except that the man shows he is willing to take responsibility for his actions. He will aid the woman to raise children. This is the aspect of prostitution that I abhor, that conception is wilfully prevented. But, then, this occurs within marriage also. Married partners who perform sex with no intention of having children are essentially prostituting themselves. Or does the exchange of money mark an act of prostitution?

In marriage, money is exchanged between the married partners constantly. So, this cannot be a basis for defining prostitution.

If prostitution is the selling of one's body, then I prostitute myself everyday that I go to work and offer the skills of my hands and my brains to my clients. Obviously, prostitution refers to the selling of sexual services.

Yet, the human sexual drive is the most powerful drive of all. When Pope Augustine II banished the enjoyment of sex and ruled that sex should only be performed for procreation without pleasure, his subjects had to have themselves repeatedly flogged. Thus, S & M was born. And those that love S & M can be grateful to this pope for this sexual deviation.

Morality. Who am I, or any of us, to dictate morality to another. Morality is a personal matter. I can discuss aspects of morality, and I can share my personal feelings and thoughts on the subject. But to impose my ideas of morality on another is in itself an immoral act.

The law is there to protect society to the extent that we can have a civilization. It should be simple and draw a clear line between permissible and illegal acts. It should also allow individuals and groups to determine their own morality.

'Dirty' prostitution is harmful. On the other hand, where it is legally permitted under strict conditions, there is no fear of harm on either side. This has been documented, but I do not have the documents to hand. Neither do I have the inclination to seek them.

Never have I had the need to use a prostitute. But I once was solicited by a prostitute in Luton. I asked her to share a meal with me in a burger cafe. She agreed and we had an interesting discussion.

She wasn't young, nor particularly very attractive, but she was interesting and made good conversation as she answered my various questions. Her trade was just that. Sometimes she got pleasure from it. She freelanced and didn't answer to anyone and she provided her own protection. She had family, the closesst of which knew of her whereabouts at all times.

This was many years ago. Back in the mid 80s. We enjoyed the meal and she declined an offer of money from me to cover her time. She said that she enjoyed the meal and my company and that's why she wouldn't take my money. An ordinary woman providing a service. She had a glitter in her eye and love in her heart and was doing no one any harm.

What makes the service she offered immoral is religious dogma. As this woman asked me, why can't their wives do this for their husbands? Not, she said that she complained, otherwise she wouldn't be able to make the living she did in full-time employment.

Drug-addicted prostitutes are another breed altogether. Far removed from their religious counterparts from millennia ago who provided the service to bring men and women to a godly experience, drug addicts provide sex so as to fund their own and their pimp's drug addiction. They don't care whether they are diseased or not. Their lives are worthless. These individuals have no love in their hearts.

I wonder why we condemn them so readily before we give them the benefit of our hearts first. Of course, we have to protect ourselves, but these people need nurturing. They don't need moralisation. Opened up, their loveless hearts will probably reveal a loveless upbringing. And, what has the law done to put an end to this? See the adult, depict the child they once were. But for the grace of God go I. If my grandparents hadn't adopted me, my life would have been much less than it has been.

In their lives, their is no such thing as love. Show them love, and they will scorn you. When they prostitute themselves, this is the closest that they will ever come to love. Will laws help them? After all these years, I doubt it. If anything, the law has made things worse. It alienates them and it gives them something of a cause to regale against. To put love in a person's heart takes someone with love to spare and the ability to withstand the emotional pain that would result from the exercise. Someone like Jesus.

Those that are drawn to pay for their services must also have problems. Or else they are brainless.

We have laws and laws and laws being thrown at us everyday. Most of them won't even touch us or concern us. At the end of the day, the only force that is going to win through is compassion and love, not laws. Anything less than this is not enough. Condemnation does nothing but alienate people and causes hatred and warfare.

Didn't make it past the 4th sentence. Marriage isn't a business deal where I come from.

OpenMind, your post was to long to quote, but I did like some of it. The marriage part being equivalent to prostituion threw me, but I read on. What you say about compassion for those prostitues who lack love does make sense to me. I would like to have been a fly on the wall when you had your dinner with a prostitute.

Jives, since I have BTS on ignore, I cannot see what he's posted, unless someone has quoted him, like you did.

I can answer your questions pretty easily about that @sshole. He's about nitpicking a post apart, just because he thinks it makes him look clever. He can only deal in cold hard fact, not nuances of humor or give anyone the benefit of the doubt and arguing the teeniest semantics is a must in his feeble little brain. He grasps at the smallest little quirks, especially if it's someone who has showed him up before and tries to make them look foolish by attacking one miniscule little point. You and I have flexible enough minds to realize that probably not 98% of hookers have AIDS and that LC was not really claiming that as stone-cold fact. Poor lil' BTS does not have that flexibility of mind. In fact what small mind he has is reserved for nit-picking stupid little posts like the one you quoted, like some crabby old toothless lady sitting on her rocker under an afghan yelling at the neighborhood kids to stay off her lawn.

It's pitiful, really.

OpenMind wrote: Can any of you answer me this question. As young adults, what attracted you to your prospective spouses? If you can honestly say that sexual attraction was not a part of the overall attraction, then what attracted you?


Sure, attraction is a natural thing...as long as it's not for money or a business deal as ACC so aptly put it. Then it's a degrading crime.

If prostitution is wrong, then all marriages with sexual attraction as a part of the basis of the marriage is also wrong.


Flawed logic. Marriage is a natural union for the purpose of the creation of life, the propagation of the species, and for the comfort and mutual benefit of the partners.

It's chief trademark,foundation, and basis is LOVE!

This differs from prostitution where there is no love at all, and is nothing more than a business transaction.

Marriage is a form of prostitution


Obviously, you're not married...because if you had a wife and she read this she would slap you, and justly so.

except that the man shows he is willing to take responsibility for his actions. He will aid the woman to raise children.


Because he loves the woman. Why do you keep avoiding the key to marriage? Is it because you have never loved?

This is the aspect of prostitution that I abhor, that conception is wilfully prevented.


This nonsensical statement implies that you think it would be a good idea to let all prostitues get pregnant every time they had sex. Aside from the horrible cost in neglected children and human life that would result, the prositutes would never go for it, since they would be unable to ply their trade for many months of the year.

But, then, this occurs within marriage also. Married partners who perform sex with no intention of having children are essentially prostituting themselves.


By being responsible? Surely you can see that timing, stability, financial resources and many other factors enter into the decision to have children. Or do you advocate that every time a couple has sex it should produce offspring?

How terribly irresponsible and immature of you.

Or does the exchange of money mark an act of prostitution?


Yes, it does. It also demeans the act and makes it criminal simultaneously.

In marriage, money is exchanged between the married partners constantly.


No money is shared and managed in the partnership, with the goal being a long term relationship that is full of love.

So, this cannot be a basis for defining prostitution.


Yes it can. Your logic is twisted, warped and flawed. Basically you are making your statements fit whatever emotion comes to your mind, then pretending that it is logical.

If prostitution is the selling of one's body, then I prostitute myself everyday that I go to work and offer the skills of my hands and my brains to my clients.


Caught you. You do not "sell" your body for other's use. if that were true your boss could do whatever he liked with your hands, including cut them off, he could also brainwash you, perform a lobotomy and any number of things.

What you do is engage your talents and skills at your command for the benefit of your employer. Your body remains your own and you can refuse to work it at any time you wish.

This is the opposite of prostitution.

Obviously, prostitution refers to the selling of sexual services.

Yet, the human sexual drive is the most powerful drive of all.


If that were true, we'd all be out in the streets procreating. Love, companionship, and acceptance are all more poserful than sexual gratification.

As is thirst and hunger. Let's have an experiment... see which you can go longer without, water or sex. Then come back and tell me which drive was the strongest.

When Pope Augustine II banished the enjoyment of sex and ruled that sex should only be performed for procreation without pleasure, his subjects had to have themselves repeatedly flogged. Thus, S & M was born. And those that love S & M can be grateful to this pope for this sexual deviation.


This ridiculous mishmash is where you pretend to be intelligent and put forth a event in history, then pretend that you, personally, have discovered a profound truth.

The real truth is that masochism and sadism are both abnormal psychologies whose beginnings are lost in the mists of time. There have been people who enjoy pain and people who enjoy inflicting pain since the dawn of time.

Making you a rather pathetic excuse for an "intellectual."



Morality. Who am I, or any of us, to dictate morality to another.


It's funny that you mentioned "us." Because that's exactly who does dictate morality. A society of individuals. Collectively. We all dictate morality. Need an example?

It is immoral in our society to rape a baby.

It is immoral in our society to steal.

It is immoral in our society to murder.

When we dictate morailty, we call the resulting rules of morailty "law."

Your solution is called "anarchy." This is where everyone does what they want, and if I'm stronger than you, or more intelligent than you, I take everything you have. Judging by this post, you should rethink your position while you still retain any possessions.

Morality is a personal matter. I can discuss aspects of morality, and I can share my personal feelings and thoughts on the subject. But to impose my ideas of morality on another is in itself an immoral act.


Then you contradict yourself in the very next sentence. LOL!

The law is there to protect society to the extent that we can have a civilization. It should be simple and draw a clear line between permissible and illegal acts.


What's this?!!! You say that society can dictate morailty? That there should be a line between permissible (moral) and illegal (immoral) acts?

I could have sworn you just said the opposite. You are very confused.

It should also allow individuals and groups to determine their own morality.


Really? That's great because my group believes it's OK to steal from your group. So please send me all the money in your bank account right away. Too bad your group doesn't have the same morals.

WHAT RUBBISH! A society MUST have the same laws for everyone, only equality and justice for all will work. If one group is free to disregard the laws of another, again you have war and anarchy.

'Dirty' prostitution is harmful. On the other hand, where it is legally permitted under strict conditions, there is no fear of harm on either side.


Are you forgetting the psychological harm? Or the harm to the moral values? When a woman is treated as a piece of meat, respect for that gender disappears. You would have us believe this is a good thing.

Never have I had the need to use a prostitute.


Then why do you defend them so fervently? Methinks thou doth protest too much!

But I once was solicited by a prostitute in Luton. I asked her to share a meal with me in a burger cafe. She agreed and we had an interesting discussion.

She wasn't young, nor particularly very attractive, but she was interesting and made good conversation as she answered my various questions. Her trade was just that. Sometimes she got pleasure from it. She freelanced and didn't answer to anyone and she provided her own protection. She had family, the closesst of which knew of her whereabouts at all times.


Here is where you cement my argument that prostitution does not involve love and is therefore not comparable to marriage. Thank you for providing the last nail in your coffin.

What makes the service she offered immoral is religious dogma.


No what makes her service immoral is the lack of love and society's value of that special quality.

As this woman asked me, why can't their wives do this for their husbands? Not, she said that she complained, otherwise she wouldn't be able to make the living she did in full-time employment.


By this logic, bank robbers have a mandate to rob banks, because if they didn't want anyone to rob them they should be impenetrable.

Or that it should be legal to sell crack to children, because if they didn't buy it, there would be no crack dealers.

In their lives, their is no such thing as love. Show them love, and they will scorn you. When they prostitute themselves, this is the closest that they will ever come to love.


ROFL!! First you ignore love in a marriage, then you cry for love later in the same post!

We have laws and laws and laws being thrown at us everyday. Most of them won't even touch us or concern us. At the end of the day, the only force that is going to win through is compassion and love, not laws.


The love of a sanctioned marriage, not a loveless coupling of a prostitute.

What you have just done is negate everything you've said. You just said that love is the ingredient that is needed, yet prostitution is by definition loveless.

Therefore prostitution is bad, Thank you for agreeing with me.

BabyRider wrote: Jives, since I have BTS on ignore, I cannot see what he's posted, unless someone has quoted him, like you did.

I can answer your questions pretty easily about that @sshole. He's about nitpicking a post apart, just because he thinks it makes him look clever. He can only deal in cold hard fact, not nuances of humor or give anyone the benefit of the doubt and arguing the teeniest semantics is a must in his feeble little brain. He grasps at the smallest little quirks, especially if it's someone who has showed him up before and tries to make them look foolish by attacking one miniscule little point. You and I have flexible enough minds to realize that probably not 98% of hookers have AIDS and that LC was not really claiming that as stone-cold fact. Poor lil' BTS does not have that flexibility of mind. In fact what small mind he has is reserved for nit-picking stupid little posts like the one you quoted, like some crabby old toothless lady sitting on her rocker under an afghan yelling at the neighborhood kids to stay off her lawn.

It's pitiful, really.


I agree, but if you think he was inflammatory, see my remarks to Openmind who just equated all wives with whores. Say...you're a wife, aren't you BR? I'll bet you find it even more insulting than I did.

AS for BTS, I think he's getting the picture.

Yup, I was right to have stopped reading.

Jives wrote: I agree, but if you think he was inflammatory, see my remarks to Openmind who just equated all wives with whores. Say...you're a wife, aren't you BR? I'll bet you find it even more insulting than I did.
I did see that one Jives, and I am still too p!ssed to write what I think of that yet. Language like that isn't allowed here.

I do find OM's views insulting and frankly, archaic. But you spoke quite eloquently and I'll let your post stand alone, since it doesn't need any help from me. Just applause. :yh_clap

Well to be a little voice in the corner, l can see all views here and they all have merits..

I see that words have been used to make a statement and they have been viewed in another way entirely and l can see people have nit picked just for the sake of it, or through genuine misundersatnding?

None of us should judge another until we have walked in their shoes (and yes before someone says it there are who's shoes need never be walked in they are just sick)

I think that prostitutes have been around for hundreds of years and will be around for hundreds more.

If it were better policed and they were clean, licensed etc, then maybe we could get out some of the poor men, women and children who have been forced into it by others and for the adults not a personal choice.

It is going to happen no matter how religiously, morally or legally wrong we think it is..

Oh and no l do not condone the selling or taking of drugs, in case someone asks would l legalise that, l have seen to many get lost and die becaus eof them..

Maybe along with legalising prostitution we could offer then assistance, maybe they would get clean!, decide it wasnt for them and move on, who knows?

Oh well thats only my opinion and l hope you respect it as l respect yours..

Hello Venus!

I'm sorry but I'll have to take Ladycop's side over yours. To "clean it up" is to condone it. I really can't see our society ever condoning this kind of behavior.

But of course I respect you and It's good seeing you again!:o

Thats the thing l don't condone it l just recognise that it is there and the chances of us getting rid of it are as slim as me winning miss world!!!

Some once asked me if l did'nt spit fire and brimstone and said l couldnt hate the people who live that life, did that mean l would do it myself..

Well l sweetly replied f*** no!. I could never imagine ever doing that, but if its anothers choice it is not my right to take away that choice, and yes l do see the way that can be taken by some.. Well its a murderers choice etc, but l see prostitution as one of societies lesser evils and we could use the police time and prison space to lock up the real sickos!!

And LC you'll always be a kick butt cop to me!:D

And LC you'll always be a kick butt cop to me!:D.................to all my friends here :yh_flower :yh_love :yh_star

venus wrote: the chances of us getting rid of it are as slim as me winning miss world!!!


You underrate yourself!! You're beautiful and you've got a great chance at that!

l see prostitution as one of societies lesser evils and we could use the police time and prison space to lock up the real sickos!!


Ok, I can't argue with that point! Way to shut me up! (Besides, I'd never argue with Venus! Getting the Greek Gods mad at you is always a bad idea.)

And LC you'll always be a kick butt cop to me!:D


And I, also!:wah:

Well at least you didnt say l was armless!!!!;)

Jives. Flawed logic. Marriage is a natural union for the purpose of the creation of life, the propagation of the species, and for the comfort and mutual benefit of the partners.

It's chief trademark,foundation, and basis is LOVE!

This differs from prostitution where there is no love at all, and is nothing more than a business transaction.




Marriage was originally only for the powerful and the rich. These were not based on the idea of love as we know it to be today. The likes of you and I did not see marriage until the Jews were born as a race. I am not sure that these were entirely based on love. As I read Genesis, it seemed more a case of a man seeing a woman he 'loved' (to wit - fancied sexually), and then set about proving his worth as a man.

As for prostitution, can you be entirely sure that there is no love? Love enters all aspects of life. It is certainly not a concept that can be pinned down in words and rules.





Obviously, you're not married...because if you had a wife and she read this she would slap you, and justly so.


No, I've never been married. I have yet to find a woman who is prepared to let me have an opinion of my own that differs from hers. But that's nothing compared to what Jesus had to put up with. Strangely, he apparently never married either; unless you subscribe to Dan Brown's theory. This remark was a little bit low for an educated person like yourself, Jives. How about an intelligent response to the statement instead of a personal reaction.



Because he loves the woman. Why do you keep avoiding the key to marriage? Is it because you have never loved?


You are presuming over all marriages. Perhaps based upon your own marriage (to which I applaud you). There have been enough folk songs to document this. Again, the original form of marriage was not based upon love. This was a concept that came with Christianity. Before then, even with the Jews, it was a practical arrangement. When I was 16 years old, one-third of marriages ended in divorce. As for the rest, who knows how many kept it going for the children. The grandparents who adopted me loved each other to the end. I know love when I see it. I would say that if the truth were to be known, then only a small percentage of marriages are held in love.

I have loved. And my love has no conditions.





This nonsensical statement implies that you think it would be a good idea to let all prostitues get pregnant every time they had sex.




No it doesn't. Read it in context.





Surely you can see that timing, stability, financial resources and many other factors enter into the decision to have children. Or do you advocate that every time a couple has sex it should produce offspring?




My grandparents were not particularly religious. But they taught me that somehow, life provides for every new child brought into the world. What is more important, affluence, or populating the world. Where is your faith?





How terribly irresponsible and immature of you.




Why, because I have faith? Because I love babies? I've learnt that lesson the hard way.





It also demeans the act and makes it criminal simultaneously.

Only because we have made it criminal. Likewise, anything that is naturally provided by nature shouldn't have to be paid for. We live a prostitution of nature.





No money is shared and managed in the partnership, with the goal being a long term relationship that is full of love.

My grandparents taught me that it was all about give and take. Trust me, they loved each other to the end. You may have mis-posted this statement.



Caught you. You do not "sell" your body for other's use. if that were true your boss could do whatever he liked with your hands, including cut them off, he could also brainwash you, perform a lobotomy and any number of things.


If a prostitute is contracted for a particular service, that is all she expects to do for her services for money. There was a case in England in the 90s where two prostitutes were buggered against there wishes. They took their kidnappers to court and won the case.



What you do is engage your talents and skills at your command for the benefit of your employer. Your body remains your own and you can refuse to work it at any time you wish.


Are you saying that a prostitute does not have this choice?





If that were true, we'd all be out in the streets procreating. Love, companionship, and acceptance are all more poserful than sexual gratification.

Love, companionship, and acceptance are not drives. They are emotions with which we can control our drives according to how far developed we are. Do not assume that everyone is fully developed emotionally.





As is thirst and hunger. Let's have an experiment... see which you can go longer without, water or sex. Then come back and tell me which drive was the strongest.

I could not give an answer to that without possibly offending the forum. But I will concede to you to one extent. I should have said that sex is the strongest social drive. It would be outweighed by any drive for personal survival.





: When Pope Augustine II banished the enjoyment of sex and ruled that sex should only be performed for procreation without pleasure, his subjects had to have themselves repeatedly flogged. Thus, S & M was born. And those that love S & M can be grateful to this pope for this sexual deviation.

This ridiculous mishmash is where you pretend to be intelligent and put forth a event in history, then pretend that you, personally, have discovered a profound truth.

The real truth is that masochism and sadism are both abnormal psychologies whose beginnings are lost in the mists of time. There have been people who enjoy pain and people who enjoy inflicting pain since the dawn of time.

Making you a rather pathetic excuse for an "intellectual."




It is actually documented. As is your need to insult me. Fortunately, I love you Jives, otherwise I would insult you back.



When we dictate morailty, we call the resulting rules of morailty "law."

Your solution is called "anarchy." This is where everyone does what they want, and if I'm stronger than you, or more intelligent than you, I take everything you have. Judging by this post, you should rethink your position while you still retain any possessions.
Stop taking the urine. I consider this to be a serious thread. The morality of a group does not determine laws. Take your own country's laws as an example. A law is imposed upon me by the state. The state being elected legally, laws are determined by individuals who act on my behalf. On the other hand, if I did not vote them in, then they are not acting on my behalf as far as I am concerned. Anarchy is taking a positive action to act regardless of the law. Show me where I have acted unlawfully here, or where I have suggested anarchy. I would only break the law if my life were threatened by it.

Otherwise, it is true that we determine morality between us. this is done by discussion. The social construction of reality. We exchange ideas. But this does not make them law. It only determines what is acceptable within a particular group.





What's this?!!! You say that society can dictate morailty? That there should be a line between permissible (moral) and illegal (immoral) acts?

I could have sworn you just said the opposite. You are very confused.

You are clearly having a chuckle, Jives. Please quote me where I stated the opposite - just so I can have a laugh at my own frailty.





Really? That's great because my group believes it's OK to steal from your group. So please send me all the money in your bank account right away. Too bad your group doesn't have the same morals.

WHAT RUBBISH! A society MUST have the same laws for everyone, only equality and justice for all will work. If one group is free to disregard the laws of another, again you have war and anarchy.


I, and my peers, have the right to defend ourselves from the likes of those such as yourself. Be warned. We are prepared through experience. But that doesn't mean that we wouldn't accept those of your group that we deemed worthy.





Are you forgetting the psychological harm? Or the harm to the moral values? When a woman is treated as a piece of meat, respect for that gender disappears. You would have us believe this is a good thing.


If a woman puts herself up for sale as a prostitute, she knows what to expect in the same way that I know what is expected when my skills are hired by a client. I don't expect my client to give me unconditional love, and neither would the prostitute. So, it is down to the woman. If she does not want to be treated as a piece of meat, then she can decline the client. On the other hand, if she is happy to be treated as a piece of meat, that is up to her. But what if she is treated as a piece of meat against her wishes or her contract? What say you on that preposition, Jives?





Then why do you defend them so fervently? Methinks thou doth protest too much!

Wherein did I defend them?





Here is where you cement my argument that prostitution does not involve love and is therefore not comparable to marriage. Thank you for providing the last nail in your coffin.

By trade, I presume then that you believe that there is no love for one's trade.



By this logic, bank robbers have a mandate to rob banks, because if they didn't want anyone to rob them they should be impenetrable.
To make the simile work with what I said, the request would have to be made by a person in control of the bank requiring the service from the robber. Think about it, Jives.





Or that it should be legal to sell crack to children, because if they didn't buy it, there would be no crack dealers.

If this wasn't such a serious preposition, I would ignore it as it is not at all contrived from anything I stated. Your passion is dementing you. I abhor the use of children as much as I abhor slavery, murder, rape, and anything done against the will of another. But children in particular can be easily seduced to do anything.

But there is nothing in my post that relates to children, Jives. But if you want to go that route, we can argue about the various ways we can protect children from a sector of society that does not care in another thread.

Otherwise, I would say that you have a particular mandate to demean me as a person.

Usually, Jives, you come out with intelligent statements. However, this is just a load of hogwash.



The love of a sanctioned marriage, not a loveless coupling of a prostitute.

What you have just done is negate everything you've said. You just said that love is the ingredient that is needed, yet prostitution is by definition loveless.

Therefore prostitution is bad, Thank you for agreeing with me


You have not read my post properly. This would indicate the lack of university training. Your arguments have been completely emotional rather than rational.

Jives wrote: I agree, but if you think he was inflammatory, see my remarks to Openmind who just equated all wives with whores. Say...you're a wife, aren't you BR? I'll bet you find it even more insulting than I did.




By God but this takes me back to my young school days. Well, Jives, like I said to the kids then that spread bad vibes about me, you pay double for me to do your homework for ya.

Tish, as if I am going to let a cyclops use my own words against me.

Just see if you can build that computer to take charge of yourself.

There's a malicious streak in you that at first I thought was Nomad's domain.

Nomad has, however, proved himself to be a true heart. You, however, have been entranced by a prize, perhaps.

Boy, if I wanted to insult, I really could. At the moment, I am refraining my self. But if you want to start insulting me, go ahead, Jives. Just see where it gets you.

appropos of nothing. but the real world. i am driving a cruiser. i see a female 9 months preggers in the bank parking lot sucking some guy's dick. she is in labor. she is doing it for a $5. crack rock. i arrest her and the moron. she is 23 years old and this is her 5th baby. i take this baby away from her. like all the others. so we make prostitution legal. what happens to the babies??

lady cop wrote: what happens to the babies??
And that's the kicker right there. No matter how it's "legislated" no matter the rules and laws and warning labels that would have to come along with it, regardless of all the new education that would be provided by our "oh-so-wise" government, legalized prostitution would still be a major cause for the spread of AIDS and unwanted children. Plain and simple. Two things that, in my not so humble opinion, we have more than our share of as it is now.

lady cop wrote: appropos of nothing. but the real world. i am driving a cruiser. i see a female 9 months preggers in the bank parking lot sucking some guy's dick. she is in labor. she is doing it for a $5. crack rock. i arrest her and the moron. she is 23 years old and this is her 5th baby. i take this baby away from her. like all the others. so we make prostitution legal. what happens to the babies??


That's what would happen if it was made legal and left unregulated. Regulation would have to applied to ensure the women are disease free and use protection. Regulation would also ensure the safety of the women. Anyone without a licence would be breaking the law.

Far Rider wrote: What attracted me to my wife? The day I saw my wife I saw a very well dressed beautiful girl, she had a bright smile and an outgoing personality. It was immediate attraction. It was not sexual, as at that point in my life I knew very little about sex. When I learned she was a Godly young lady and attended our same church I was even more attracted to her. As I got to know her I was attracted to her personality, she was tough, fair and could speak intelligently and had a quick wit. In a very short time I knew she was the one for me.



Two people that decide to marry, decide to start a lifelong committment, with each other, for each other, for better or for worse.. each mutually benifits from each other as well as suffers the consequences of the others decisions. Marriage is sharing together so closely that the two become one. The act of sex in marriage is mutual pleasure, a demonstration of intense love, and is a picture of the union of that promise to each other to remain faithful. Youre Pope comment really through me... If you read the song of solomon you will note romance and the enjoyment between a man and a woman in marriage. And I have to say it must be for PLEASURE as well as procreation.... In fact I find it absolutely amazing that God would make the act of sexual intercourse the basis of starting a family... everybodies pretty darn close huh, there aint no hiding is there! I think thats awesome.



Prostitution is an act devoid of committment, its a contract... Sex for $$.



I have never prostituted myself to my wife nor has she ever prostiuted herself to me... I find that notion very insulting.



From there I just get lost in your post, Ive read it now 5 times and cannot make heads or tails of it. I really tried.



Personally I think you have a warped sense of marriage.



The human sex drive is not he most powerful of all, I think may be its one of the most powerful drives, but surely air, water and food will take presedence over sex, also I believe the desire to be loved and accepted also takes precedence over sex.



I'll tell you the odd thing about the sex drive.... it CAN become very powerful if you feed it inordinately. It can become very controlling. I can prove it. It's why were having this discussion about prostitutes in the first place, because some folks cant control an ordinary amount of sex inside a marriage relationship.



Now before Floppy gets all wild on me I like it too flop and I enjoy it with my wife... Im just not bent on needing it from anyone else, especially a prostitute.




This is a very elegant post, Far. I am proud of you. Unwittingly, you have also highlighted the obvious flaw in one of my statements above.

Of course, marriage should never ever be based on sex. This is the wrong premise. Love is its basis and its strength. If more people realised this, perhaps there would be fewer divorces. And perhaps more children would be raised in a loving environment which is so important to their growth and development, and their appreciation of the finer things in life.

In a later post, I amended the statement that the sex drive is the most powerful drive accepting that survival drives will always override the sexual drive. Furthermore, I would add here that all of our drives are controllable to a greater degree.

However, prostitution has been with us in various forms since the beginning of civilization. I can't see it going away however many laws we pass. Regulation is more appropriate in my mind.

For instance, contraception could be enforced to prevent unwanted children. And should children be born to a prostitute, it would be better to have it raised by one of many couple who, for one reason or another, cannot have children, but who would provide a loving environment for the child.

I have to admit, however, that our institutions are already overloaded with unwanted children. This is a problem in itself and unrelated to prostitution which is only one source of unwanted babies.

However, this is one of those subjects that is inflammatory. I am against prostitution myself. But we need to consider other ways to control it and hopefully reduce it.



In the meantime, Far. I wish for you and your wife many years together in happiness. I raise my hat to you both as a paragon of virtue and an example for us all.:-4

lady cop wrote: appropos of nothing. but the real world. i am driving a cruiser. i see a female 9 months preggers in the bank parking lot sucking some guy's dick. she is in labor. she is doing it for a $5. crack rock. i arrest her and the moron. she is 23 years old and this is her 5th baby. i take this baby away from her. like all the others. so we make prostitution legal. what happens to the babies?? So we keep it illegal. What happens to the babies??

OpenMind wrote: This is a very elegant post, Far. I am proud of you. Unwittingly, you have also highlighted the obvious flaw in one of my statements above.
I'm sure you don't want to sound pompous, but do you see how insulting this looks? Far is no student regurgitating academic theory. Don't treat him as such. He has real-world experience on this subject you've already admitted your ignorance in.

OpenMind wrote: Anyone without a licence would be breaking the law.
Oooh. And that's always been a major deterrent to keep someone from doing something illegal. :yh_eyeroll

Accountable wrote: I'm sure you don't want to sound pompous, but do you see how insulting this looks? Far is no student regurgitating academic theory. Don't treat him as such. He has real-world experience on this subject you've already admitted your ignorance in.


Sorry, Acc, I can't see it.

Accountable wrote: So we keep it illegal. What happens to the babies??they are hurt and adrift and often crack-addicted, nomatter what. at least if we take them, they aren't in a car at 0100 with a 4 day old diaper on while mommy is plying her trade. would making it legal protect the babies? i might reconsider my position if it did. but i am sworn to uphold laws as they stand, not pick and choose what laws i approve of. what i DON'T comprehend is why these females never heard of birth control, you would think it would be a tool of the trade.