The Morality of Prostitution

**Rubber Nursey** · 10-08-02 16:22

Just wanted to share something with you, seeing as this is the "Morality of Prostitution" section. Really I'm just letting off steam, but lets just pretend I'm doing this for a more worthy purpose. *grin* This letter was published in a local newspaper, in response to a letter from a sex worker activist...

"I am responding to the letter to the editor in a recent edition about the poor 'stigmatised' prostitutes who have allegedly been given a raw deal by the reporting in your newspaper.

Have we really gotten so politically correct that we cannot bear to hear the truth about such matters? It is a well known fact that prostitution, drugs and corruption are linked. We all know that the main reason women sell themselves for sex is to feed a drug addiction - why else would they degrade themselves to such an extent?

The only other explanation is just utter and complete lack of morality and decency - I prefer to be charitable and acknowledge the desperation that an addicted person feels.

As for the corruption - there is no other illegal 'industry' that is so tolerated and condoned as that of the 'sex industry'. This includes police turning the other cheek and allowing brothels to operate (including in such sacred places as next to churches and schools), as well as the tax department allowing prostitutes to lie, steal and avoid paying tax (most of whom also probably receive Centrelink benefits too - more corruption!).

I would like to congratulate your newspaper for having the guts to tell it like it is - legitimate business owners have a right to speak out about the criminals and moral degenerates who open so called 'massage' parlours that encourage low class individuals to harass and frighten useful members of the community. Keep it up!"

Can you imagine the FURORE that would have ensued if this letter was talking about black people or disabled people or homosexuals or any other minority group? Or...heaven forbid...if it was directed at Christians??? Am I just paranoid, or are sex workers (and drug users) the ONLY people that are still allowed to be blatantly slandered in mainstream media?! I have written a letter in response...let's see if *I* am allowed to voice my opinion as well, shall we? I sincerely doubt it...

Right now, I am one extremely pissed off low class and useless individual.

**Joe Zop** · 10-07-02 04:17

Probably -- I've already mis-attributed twice recently in this thread, so I'm making no claims to a memory that actually works as it should LOL.

**Dickhead** · 10-07-02 01:51

You mean a mick? I never said that before??

Dick the Mick

**Joe Zop** · 10-07-02 00:46

I was guessing it was Eleanor of Aquitaine, French mother of Richard the Lionheart and John -- though I think she actually left whatever Louis it was and married was it Henry? a few years later than that.

Hmm, so now we know a bit more about just what kind of Dickhead we're dealing with

**Dickhead** · 10-07-02 00:42

The Irish queen, Droghheda, kidnapped by Scots (Scotland being part of present day Britain). I was born in the US but I spent my formative years in Ireland, the land of my forebears.

**Manofkosice** · 10-06-02 23:57

DH,

Britain didn't exist in 1122, and England at least was ruled by French Kings. Which country's queen are you talking about anyway?

**Joe Zop** · 10-06-02 17:27

So what's the practical application, VT? I'm all for long-term utopian ideals, and I think it's critical to keep them as the carrot on the stick so you know the nourishment you want to run toward, but in the meantime I want the day-to-day to improve incrementally as well so I can see some benefit. I'm not just in this for my great-great-grandchildren, who I don't trust not to muck things up again in any event, given they're getting at least some of my genes.

And that means either changing/overthrowing or dealing with the government(s) at hand on some level or simply opting out and defining youself as a hopeless victim.

RN, thanks for looking, and no hurry at all, given that it's just intellectual curiosity and personal understanding as opposed to any kind of direct political action -- and I've definitely already got enough of the others tomes you mention!

**Dickhead** · 10-06-02 03:18

[QUOTE]Originally posted by the virgin terr[i]" modern governments have absolutely no respect for individual rights and freedoms."

Whereas ancient governments such as the slave holding Greeks and Romans did? Imperialistic mercantilists such as the Habsburg Empire did? The seagoing slavetrading monarchies of Portugal did? The British who stole our queen in 1122 did? The Ottoman Empire did? Napoleon did? The Inca empire did?

I think not. I'm as much of an anarchist as the next guy, but come on, VT. DH

"i have some other news for you. i'm not advocating a world of "sex on demand" as you put it. guys may be indiscriminate sexually compared to women,"

Thank god for low standards. DH

"but even we aren't hot to fuck every woman who might want us."

Speak for yourself. Dickhead's motto: If it moves, screw it. If it doesn't, screw it anyway and see if it starts moving. DH

**The Virgin Terr** · 10-06-02 01:52

rn, the point you and everyone else seem to miss about the modern world in which we live is that the biggest bullies, the biggest power trippers, the biggest coercers and [CodeWord127], are the governments that we all must live under and submit to. it is these governments which set the tone by which individuals operate, and whose examples most individuals follow. modern governments have absolutely no respect for individual rights and freedoms. call me a dreamer, but i think if people were raised from the start of their lives with the knowledge that the world they have entered is one which encourages and nurtures their inherent instincts, the incidence of maladjusted, angry, alienated people would be almost nil. it is the fact that we all learn or at least many of us learn from an early age that the world we have entered is hostile to our needs which is the primary reason for violent and coercive behavior among individuals.

i have some other news for you. i'm not advocating a world of "sex on demand" as you put it. guys may be indiscriminate sexually compared to women, but even we aren't hot to fuck every woman who might want us. i should know; i have a very difficult time seducing women, but even i have been the rejecter rather than the rejectee on occasion. my point is, with sexual freedom, most everyone i think could find consensual partners to satisfy their basic sexual needs. under present circumstances however, since most potential partners are off limits to us for various reasons, and especially because we lack the freedom necessary to seduce (i.e., by offering money) a person we desire, there's a whole lot of us having to deal with alot of frustration.

**Rubber Nursey** · 10-05-02 19:57

travelling tarts? portable pussy? high-velocity harlots? heh heh

joe, i have searched and searched and i can't find those stats. all i've found are a million papers suggesting that the existence of prostitution increases violence towards women, and just as many that say prostitution itself is [CodeWord123]! i may have a copy of it at work though, so i'll have a look around on monday.

**Dickhead** · 10-05-02 19:18

Mobile working girls? Perambulating prostitutes? Itinerant hookers? SW squared (Street Walking Sex Workers)? Moving muff?

**Joe Zop** · 10-05-02 19:04

Ah, the semantics of the sex trade! Always confusing

**Dickhead** · 10-05-02 19:02

Well, sort of, but not really. If I were referring to free lancers I'd include escorts and girls working out of apartments. I'm not. Maybe my definition is "prostitutes working in public places" or something like that.

Also, I think I meant to say re parlors "many" times you can't get full service, not "most." Really, I haven't been to many parlors and it's been a long time since I've been to any. They keep getting busted here and we are having a local crackdown the past few months. We also have John TV here and I don't think I want to be on that for my students to see ...

So you da man when it comes to the parlors.

**Joe Zop** · 10-05-02 18:45

So, really, you're saying freelancers as opposed to streetwalkers. Ok, I can see that. I do think Vegas, though, is a bit of a special case scenario.

>And, I personally don't count massage parlors unless you can get full service. Most times you can't.

I don't count those either -- but my experience is a bit different, in that I find it rare that full service isn't available. Probably less than 20% of the places I've been, overall, though I do avoid obvious whack shops.

**Dickhead** · 10-05-02 18:25

Originally posted by joe_zop
>"BUT street based workers make up only around 2% or the sex industry here. I have read that it's about 10% in America,"

>Far higher than that in my humble and dickheaded but well experienced opinion. DH

Really? More than 10% of sex workers in the US are streetwalkers? What percentage would you give? I don't think that's true even in the NYC area. Almost anywhere I go has massively more massage parlors, escort services, brothels, and the like than streetwalkers.

Well, counting gals who work out of bars independently or with a pimp in the background, I would say more like 20%. For one thing, there are a hell of a lot of "lot lizards." But it could be highly regional, and I do have a lot of experience in Vegas, where there are a lot of maybe not street walkers but "bar walkers" for sure (and most don't have pimps in my experience).

And, I personally don't count massage parlors unless you can get full service. Most times you can't. You and RN may disagree. Dickhead ain't paying for no hand job. Maybe if I get arthritis or something.

I HATE PIMPS!!!!!!!!!!!

Thread: The Morality of Prostitution

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Posting Limitations