View Full Version : The Morality of Prostitution
Pages :
1
[
2]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
So who are the allies on the other side? Is this legislation an actual fight or just a straw man set up to be knocked down?
Rubber Nursey
09-19-02, 16:51
There ARE no allies on the other side that I can see. That's what's so damn confusing. It's just the Police Minister's office against every other inhabitant of the state. It's bizarre!
If that's truly the case then it's all for show, and it's not a fight they plan to win.
Rubber Nursey
09-19-02, 17:05
The thing is...the previous Government had minimal support for THEIR legislation as well, but that one went through even though they were under heavy fire.
In talks with us, the Minister has made it quite clear that they intend to do this and that regardless of what we say, it will happen. I'd like to think that this is some sort of deliberate political stunt that will just "disappear", but something tells me there is something else going on that we don't know about. I feel pretty sure that they have full intentions of trying to pass this legislation...
Well, if the previous legislation went through then there actually had to be support for it, even if there was loud opposition. I've dealt with lots of amazed folks in my field who have lost policy and lawmaking battles and simply can't understand why, and it's generally because they're counting their support and overestimating its true strength in the big scheme, as opposed to looking at the strength of the opposition and how that opposition might be stronger. If they expect to pass legislation and it's done by vote and not by fiat, it means they expect to get support from somewhere. The trick is to find out where, and work on/attack there.
Count the snakes and bugs, and also know what areas of the legislation are most important to various parts of the opposition and why. Figure out what you can give them so that they get what they want out of what you want. You're going to have to give some things up -- that's the nature of the political scene and why there's stuff in the draft that will be given away -- so prioritize. Complete and utter idiocy is pretty common in writing laws, but passing them requires understanding the dynamics of self-interest.
Rubber Nursey
09-20-02, 03:43
The last legislation that got through, for all intents and purposes, was a political stunt. It was branded a "band-aid" measure from the word go. The Government at the time had massive demands being placed on it from highly organised residents groups...groups which included politicians who lived in that particular area. Even though the opposition Government opposed it, they eventually caved to shut the residents up. They had a few things wiped out of the draft...things that were quite obviously expendable anyway...and then forced the Government to institute a two year "Sunset Clause". This forced the policy makers to admit that the legislation was bad but it would have to do, and they would have to completely dispose of the law in two years time and create new stuff. This year, Michelle Roberts...the very woman who demanded the inclusion of a Sunset Clause whilst in opposition...requested and received an EXTENSION of that Sunset Clause. The laws were supposed to become void in August, but now we have them for another year. That same law is expected to become part of the new legislation that Michelle Roberts is responsible for. You see why we are so confused??? LOL
This year's reform efforts have no obvious support though. The residents groups that caused such a stink last time, are opposed to these changes. The Church is opposed (and they are the BIGGEST factor in this State), the Family Associations are opposed (but then again, they are opposed to everything), health and welfare services are opposed, and obviously the sex industry is opposed. The opposition Government has openly criticised the current Government in the media. I think they are basically relying on the apathy of the public...and that after the media furore dies down, people will forget about it and they will be able to do what they want with it. The thing is, the woman responsible for this draft has many avenues for deceit. The buck stops with her at lots of points in the process. For example, she is offering the draft for community consultation (which didn't happen last time), and yet we have been told that ultimately, community input can be ignored if they so choose. There is no mechanism in place that guarantees that any submissions received will even be acknowledged. There is no accountability to the public. (You gotta love the Westminster system). The best we can hope for is support within actual Parliament when the time comes for it to be debated. We are gaining ground in that respect, and already have some really valuable allies on the "inside".
We also have a contingency plan in the case of failure. If the draft WAS to be approved, then we still have a few tricks up our sleeve that will hopefully tie the Government up in so much red tape, that the laws will never actually be put into practice. Hopefully it won't get to that stage though! Our focus at the moment...before the draft is released....is community education. We need to arm the community with the facts, so that they understand exactly what they are commenting on and what effects their decisions could have on THEIR lives, not just that of sex industry workers.
Well, the extension of sunset clauses is a pretty common tactic, as it's a political way of saying we either haven't really figured things out yet or we acknowledge that we're not ready to deal with this right now. It sounds as though Ms. Roberts is on the whole a fairly shrewd politician (I originally misspelled this as plotician, which also seems appropriate) and one not to be underestimated. Parliment does sound like the best avenue, overall.
While I'm mulling the Westminster system as a process, I can only say this: it never ceases to amaze me the process we go through at times simply to fuck.
Ok, RN, since you did your math bit in the "Safe Sex" section, I'm really curious about your personal reaction to the number you posted. How do you think about that? How does that relate to who you understand yourself to be? I ask this here because I do think it's very pertinent to the topic.
I know when I think about the number of women I've been with I consider it in several ways. First, I draw a line between those experiences where there was just sex involved and where there was something more. The latter number is, naturally, astronomically smaller and each of them is soaked with significant information about who I am/was, whereas the "just sex" ones are not so much. The "just sex" ones do clearly say things about me, but the things they say are absolutely less about my partners and more about me. Obviously, in total they also say something about my relationships as a whole. (And let me be clear, I'm not implying that what any of this says is negative.)
But still, given that the numbers I've been able to find say that a man in the US will have an average number of sexual partners numbering six, and a woman two, I'm left with several things. First, more reinforcement for the fact that try as I might, I'm just continually getting further and further away from being normative (in more ways than this!) Second, that I very clearly have different avenues (or levels, I suppose) of sexual expression than most people. Third, that the basic societal structures set up for sex are clearly ones that don't exactly take me into the equation.
I wonder in all this whether I've managed to learn anything "non-normative" about women, or even myself. And I'm curious about your sense of the same things, and how you approach the issue for yourself. Which means I guess (at its core, to be on topic) that the question is whether prostitution actually teaches anything to those who engage in it, on either side of the equation.
Rubber Nursey
09-20-02, 08:32
Hmmmm that is a really difficult question Joe, and I'm not all that sure how to answer it. Well I can kinda answer it...but it's gonna make me sound like a bit of a psycho. *grin*
It's just that I never saw my work as part of my sexlife. Yes, it most certainly influenced my perception of what sex "is", and it definitely showed me things about my sexuality that I either didn't know existed or had tried to deny, but I have difficulty associating the sex I had at work with the sex I had in my private life. It's as if "she" (my work persona) had sex with all those men, and then related the information back to me second-hand. Does that make any sense at all?? If you ask a married hooker whether she has ever played up on her husband, she will say no. Then she'll add "Oh, except work of course...but that doesn't count". Any ordinary person would say that over 4000 extramarital partners DOES count...and yet in the average sex worker's mind, it doesn't.
As far as actual numbers go...yes, it makes me gulp to think about it. Not because I am ashamed or feel bad about it...to tell the truth, it means nothing to me at all....but because I know by the "standards" that you mentioned, I am a S*UT in the eyes of many! (It also means the chances of running into some of them on the streets in this city are VERY high!! LOL) But something you might find interesting, is how my opinion differs when it comes to my PRIVATE life. I hadn't thought about it too much until now, but in all honesty, I get embarrassed about how many men I have slept with outside of work. Not guilty, mind you...just uncomfortable. It's as if work is a perfectly good excuse...because having sex with men was my job...and yet having sex just for the sake of it, is bad.
There was a "roving reporter" article in a recent woman's mag, in which they went around the streets asking men how many previous partners they felt was "acceptable" for a prospective girlfriend to have had. The majority said 2, and the point at which it became unacceptable was 5. For a couple of others, the absolute MOST they would accept was 20, but they would apparently be concerned about her "morals" if it got that high. (So much for the sexual liberation of women, huh?!) I passed that number before I even left my teens.
With regards to prostitution, clients don't seem to mind that the hooker they are sleeping with has slept with thousands before him, BUT if you ask men whether they would MARRY a hooker...they often say no. Her past sexual history is usually the sole reason given. I think that men...in the same way that hookers themselves do...seem to separate sex work from sex. (And in the case of men, they seem to separate hookers from "normal" women). What's ok for a prostitute is not ok for a "good" woman...which is exactly the way I feel about the number of sex partners I've had. Weird, huh?
I'm sure I've probably learnt something much more interesting about myself from the whole experience, but I can't think of anything right now. The only issue that springs to mind immediately, in the discussion about actual numbers, is the double standards in society and that I'm still made to feel bad about enjoying sex.
some of the prostitutes in the rld in holland have this same mindset. in fact some of them are married and still work in the windows with their family's and husband's knowledge of it. the dutch are not over-morality conscience, unlike the americans. this over-morality conscience society of america is very hypocritical. american men want virgins or women with less than 2 past partners yet they have had sex with over a hundred. this is bullshit! i don't care how many partners the woman i am with had. in fact all women probably had many past partners and hide the bones in their closets and say they had only 2 because they are scared of admitting it to this prudish american, prudish british influenced, society. i admit i have had maybe over 20 sexual partners in the past who are not prostitutes. most of them are women i met in my travels. who am i to say that a woman i meet can't also have more than 20 also?
i hate hypocrisy in all forms. most of the politicians that ban sex in america are hypocrites. look at former mayor guliani of new york. he bans 99% of the strip clubs and porn shops in the city hoping to bring crime down but the opposite happens. [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) skyrocketed in this city by 60%. he bans the sex fun for the citizens of new york but rudy cheated on his wife and had an affair. see the hypocrisy of the prudes!
everybody cheats and it's because no man is complete. i have some qualities that i can offer a woman like being handy, having stamina in bed and sexually experienced, being able to listen and help, technical knowledge. but there are things i also can't offer a woman that another guy could like wealth. i am for open relationships but i must know the other guy. as far as marrying a prostitute, i would. i would take a prostitute over a conservative prude anytime.
. I never worry about how many lovers my ladies have had. I worry about how many of them were better lovers than I!
If a woman has had only two guys, but they were both better than I and she remembers that - well that's a problem. But if she's had 5,000 men and I'm number #1, that simply feeds my fragile male ego and I feel great. So ladies, always tell your guy he's the best and that solves the numbers problem. You can tell him that you HAD to have that many men in order to find your one true love . . .
Actually I would be honored to be THE NUMBER ONE if she chose me out of 5,000 guys. To top off the benefits, she would be a much better and more experienced lovwer than a prude that never had any or much less give you any.
So, RN, to some extent the approach you (and most in the game) use is in many ways akin to the classic statement made by guys -- it was just sex, it didn't really mean anything. I'm not at all saying that to make any kind of judgement, quite obviously, but it's a kind of interesting firewall between the act and how we define what we do and who we are. I find it intriguing because of the way that so many of us, men in particular, so aggressively do identify strongly with what we do being who we are, but here the disconnect is as important as the connection can be in other situations. As you've described it, it's very much the way an actor or actress also approaches things, becoming the role, looking at it as something that is from a part of something within themselves, but not being the overall balance of who they are. Except, in this case, rather than integrating the how the act involved manages to redefine them (which it seems like actors always are talking about) and having that experience be cause for further journey, here's the barrier is important to the health of the psyche. I'd say that makes a great deal of sense particularly in an equation where sex workers are deingrated as "sperm receptables" etc. -- how does one process that in terms of personal identity?
I guess I'm just musing on this more than anything else, in terms of how we do or don't intergrate acts we engage in, particularly socially unacceptable ones, into who we are. I find that particularly affecting in your statement about being uncomfortable about the number of sexual partners you've had outside of work -- if that is something where you find yourself questioning yourself in terms of choices, values, identity, etc., just imagine how it would be if you truly had to incorporate the greater number into the equation, as opposed to basically dismissing it as not counting against who you are but instead being a byproduct of the work you did.
Since you've defined yourself as being uncomfortable with the number of partners you've had outside of work, how then do you end up viewing the men in the pay-for-play equation, who are certainly not engaged in this on a work basis? Is it "just sex" or does is say something else about who they are, in the same way your number of "non-work" sexual partners does?
Rubber Nursey
09-21-02, 18:39
Ok, I re-read my last post, and I think I should add something. I shouldn't have said that I am embarrassed about the numbers of men I have slept with. That's not actually true. I am embarrassed to TELL people how many men (and women for that matter) I have slept with...not embarrassed within myself about the numbers. I think that clarification probably makes quite a bit of difference to what I said before. (You only have to miss one word out in a text-based conversation, and the whole essence of the message changes!)
Why would I be embarrassed about admitting numbers, if I am not ashamed of what I did? The exact same reasons as why I don't admit to all and sundry that I worked in the industry. It all comes down to what perception OTHERS will have of me. I know that's pathetic, and it really shouldn't bother me...but it does! I know it's only my panic that others will judge me (rather than guilt), because I have no difficulty in sharing numbers or experiences with people that I KNOW will not think less of me. The subject of how many partners we'd had came up one night at a drunken party with a few girlfriends. None of them were working girls, but they knew what job I was doing. I quite openly said "I'm afraid to actually add it up, but it must be well over three thousand". Their jaws dropped, and everyone went quiet for a second, and then they burst out laughing. Then my best friend in the world said "Fuck...we'd better find a pub with more men in it then, if we hope to beat HER record by the end of tonight!!!!" LOL
As far as what work taught me, I think one thing would be that it confirmed that my views on sex were pretty "normal"...regardless of what society says. I do not equate love with sex. At all. My married clients...who always cared very deeply about their wives and yet paid me for sex...proved that love and sex can exist separately. The girls I worked with...who had partners at home but they still had sex all day for a living...proved it as well. That COULD be the "prostitute mentality" showing though...where sex with (or as) a prostitute doesn't count as real sex. But in real life I have had loving relationships where I rarely had sex, and on the other hand I've had MANY partners that I had sex with, but felt nothing for. To me, love is emotional and sex is physical. It's nice when you have both at the same time, but they can certainly exist independently of each other.
To me, when a clients pays for sex, it's "just sex". They don't love me, care about me or even trust me...they just want sex. In reality, I often treated them the same way. I wasn't even necessarily attracted to them, but (most times) I would enjoy the sex for what it was. If you really want to get technical about it, a huge majority of my clients should really be included in my "R/L" tally, and not just in a work tally. Ok...so all of them should be. I slept with them, so they count. What does that say about who I am? Well to others, it will say that I am a filthy "sperm recepticle" who should be brutally f*cked up the ass and then kicked to the curb...that's all my "type" is worth. (Yep, I remember the Thailand section all too well). To me...it says that I enjoy sex and I'm not gonna deny myself the right to that enjoyment, just because society says it's wrong. It says that I, in my own mind, make a clear distinction between love and sex and whether that's wrong or right, it works for me. And it says that I am normal, working girls are normal, my clients are normal...and that the rest of society really needs to get laid more! :)
Ah, that one word does indeed make a world of difference! There's a massive distinction between worrying about how people perceive you, which is normal and understandable (if something to be consistently resisted) and a self-evaluation. And I think your best friend's quip proves precisely why she's got that distinction. And everyone's laughter sounds perfect as well; let's face it -- that's a number that's simply bogglling on the face of it, compared to the normal level of sexual experience. It's like thinking about being a billionaire...
You well know where I stand on the whole Thailand discussion front -- obviously that question was very much related to the whole external perception issue, about which you've frequently written eloquently.
Now, so basically you agree that at times it's just sex and that there's a difference between that and love -- but don't I recall you writing at one point that if any SO of yours headed to a prostitute you'd hand him his dangly bits? :D :D
Rubber Nursey
09-22-02, 05:08
"...but don't I recall you writing at one point that if any SO of yours headed to a prostitute you'd hand him his dangly bits?"
Yup...I admit that in that area, I am a total hypocrite! LOL I get really quite jealous. I'm not sure that my anger would come from the actual sex act though. It would be a matter of trust, honesty and, in all fairness, mainly my ego. If he just wanted to have sex...why didn't he just do it with me? Was she better than me, or more beautiful or funnier or smarter...? And if I wasn't turning him on any more...why not just tell me and end it, or try to work something else out? If (for example) I was in a relationship with a bisexual man, and we agreed between the two of us that I could sleep with other women and he could sleep with other men, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I was in a straight relationship and we had an "open marriage" I could be ok with extramarital affairs as well (although that's not the kind of relationship that I'd probably ever agree to...not my thing). But if we have what I presume to be a monogomous relationship, and we've promised that we will "forsake all others"...I expect fidelity. Anything less is a breach of trust. (As a side note: If I was dating another hooker, I would have absolutely no problem with them continuing to work).
If it came to forgiving and forgetting after a transgression, I would certainly be quicker to overlook sex with a hooker than I would be an affair. At least with a sex worker, the "emotional" infidelity isn't likely to be present. But that said, the trust would still be gone, and I probably wouldn't be likely to forgive in either circumstance. Regardless of who he went behind my back with...he still went behind my back. Life's too short to spend it worrying about whether your partner is going to be unfaithful again. :)
Hmm, so, "I am normal, working girls are normal, my clients are normal" but if my SO tries being normal he's gonna get his nuts returned in a pail... at least you're consistently inconsistent here, LOL.
Truly, then, you do make a distinction between someone who has sex as part of a job as opposed to someone who is the client and who therefore doesn't "have to" -- as it's not infidelity for you but it would be for him. There's choice (in deciding to do the job) and there's choice (in deciding to hire the worker.)
Or is this more about the idea that you're not involved or informed about the process and are thereby disempowered? Would it be better if he were to say, hey, I'm just horny tonight, and I'm just not in the mood to be with you because of X,Y or Z, and it doesn't really mean a thing other than I'm in a strange mood, so I'm gonna hire someone for an hour? Or is the fact that he'd have the idea in the first place equal grounds for Bobbitizing?
Or is this simply "I truly do philosophically and emotionally feel this one way unless it involves me personally in this one particular way" and thereby yet another example of why we men are simply and positively just plain doomed in our attempts to actually understand just what the hell women are saying to us? :)
Rubber Nursey
09-22-02, 08:23
Well I think...in my case anyway...women are just saying "Don't lie to us!" I think it's very simple. If a man either tells me that he will be faithful to me or gives me reason to assume that he will be faithful to me, and then he goes and has sex with someone else...he has broken my trust. The sex act is irrelevant, his right to have sex for sex's sake is irrelevant, my feelings about the separation between love and sex are irrelevant...he made a promise and he broke it. End of story.
In the scenario you suggested, YES it would be better if he came straight out and told me that he wanted to sleep with someone else. That certainly doesn't mean he'd get it...in fact he wouldn't! LOL...but at least it's been done out in the open where both parties have had a chance to have their say. I certainly wouldn't think suggesting it in the first place is cause for castration, but it would definitely point out an area where our needs in the relationship differ. If that difference couldn't be ironed out with a compromise, then the relationship would be better off being over.
I guess you're right in that it doesn't seem to make sense...that if love and sex are separate entities, then having sex with someone other than your significant other should, by rights, be ok. My problem with that is...how do we define a relationship? I've had people who were strictly friends, people who were strictly casual sex partners, and people who were good friends that I also had casual sex with. So what's the difference between a close friend that you sleep with, and a significant other? I suppose in my mind, fidelity is the difference. I know that isn't the case for everyone, and I'm certainly not saying it SHOULD be either, but that's how it feels to me.
You're right...you guys may as well just give up right now! :)
But this really isn't about how you define a relationship, per se, it's more how you're defining the terms of a relationship. The sex worker is having sex as part of the job, and it's clear and upfront that's the case. Doesn't matter if there's enjoyment there, sweaty and ecstatic orgasms, physical and emotional release, whatever. It's the job. The guy in the relationship with the sex worker, on the other hand, is expected to practice fidelity, unless the relationship has previously defined that in some other way. His visit to another sex worker is by definition a betrayal. So, because it's a job you get a pass, rehardless of the fact that you might do it a couple of thousand times, and he might do it once -- despite the fact that it's just sex and nothing else in both instances.
Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you on the fidelity side of things, btw, but I also don't agree with the concept that once someone does something they're simply bound to do it again because it's somehow in their nature. I know plenty of folks who have strayed once and that's it -- and that's on both sides of the gender line, and on both kinds of straying -- an affair or simply boffing.
And by and large I'm just probing the issues of attitudes regarding prostitution and how we think of the sex act and what surrounds it. I'm decidedly not attempting to understand the textures of the female psyche, as I'm not fool enough to do anything other than enjoy as opposed to anticipate in that regard. :)
"So what's the difference between a close friend that you sleep with, and a significant other?" To me, fidelity has little to do with it in and of itself. You can have fidelity toward a sex partner and not have them be a significant other. I think it's more the quality of the emotional and intellectual bond, (and perhaps the more important degree of fidelity that's present there) the agreed upon pooling of a future, and the sense of two against the world as opposed to doing it on your own. Not at all to denigrate the physical side of things, and the fidelity or lack of that involved, but if that's the major thing a relationship is based on, then the first signs of rough seas can easily capsize the boat. And (to torture that metaphor as mercilessly as possible) if the baseline decision is that a bit of water in the boat is cause for abandoning ship, then you two ought not to be travelling together -- to my mind, relationships are more about how you weather storms together than your collective ability to avoid them.
Originally posted by RN
Well I think...in my case anyway...women are just saying "Don't lie to us!" I think it's very simple. If a man either tells me that he will be faithful to me or gives me reason to assume that he will be faithful to me, and then he goes and has sex with someone else...he has broken my trust. The sex act is irrelevant, his right to have sex for sex's sake is irrelevant, my feelings about the separation between love and sex are irrelevant...he made a promise and he broke it. End of story.
So ... he lied? SO?
Heck ... people lie all the time -- especially about sex. As immature as she is, even Monica knows this. What else is knew? And why do we lie. Well I guess you pretty much answered that question when you went on to point out:
Originally posted by RN
" YES it would be better if he came straight out and told me that he wanted to sleep with someone else. That certainly doesn't mean he'd get it...in fact he wouldn't!
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If any man ever dared to tell the truth about sleeping or even wanting to sleep with other women, he wouldn't see any part of pussy for 2 deacades -- not from that gal anyway. That's precisely why men lie about it , all the time.
What is interesting is that to you, as to most women, that means -- as you put it -- "end of story"? This is why it so happens that legions of women would you rather throw away 5, 10 and even 20 or MORE years of a relationship right out with the proverbial bath water, rather than sticking it out and try to figure out what can be done to put things on a more solid basis.
When are women going to learn that there just isn't such a thing as a "faithful" man. Men aren't Saints. You want a Saint? Go out and get one. They're like money, I'm sure. They grow on trees. Just hope he ain't an ex-priest, because they're even worse than us ordinary men.
I can assure you that that at the end of the day no matter how hard you look you're not going to find that in the flesh of anything approaching a real man. Those men that even come close to hesitating to cop "some on the side" do so almost invariably of paralyzing fear that you instill in them and not because they don't want to.
Oh ... of course, we can play the numbers game. Surely there is ONE exception to this. Somewhere. On Jupiter, maybe. I suppose that a woman probably could move to Antartica and find one there too. But don't expect that you'll have a heck of a lot to choose from. And don't be suprised if ONE day he gets really upset with you and starts looking a the seals with a glint in his eye!
Am I missing something here?
Rubber Nursey
09-24-02, 11:22
Windstar,
Let's get one thing straight. I am 28 years old, have had 4 long-term relationships, 5 years of hooking where I had no SO...and yet I have just recently admitted that I have slept with so many men that I'm embarrassed by the numbers. You fill in the blanks. ;) I have screwed around on every partner I ever had, except one. No I am not proud of it, and no I don't make any excuses for it. I like sex and I couldn't stop myself (and didn't want to anyway). I'm certainly not claiming to be better than anyone else when it comes to relationship mores.
I just don't buy this crap that men can't control their hormones, simply because they have a penis. That is bullshit, and it's a copout. Maybe you screw around 'coz you're a sex addict, maybe it's because you just like sex, maybe it's out of spite or boredom or just for the hell of it. But it sure as hell is NOT just because you are a man. Every man I have ever been with has DEMANDED fidelity from me. One even told me what clothes I could and couldn't wear, just in case I attracted male attention. Women who are unfaithful to their husbands are called sl*ts and wh*res and abandoned immediately. Are you telling me that women should conform to this shit whilst allowing their man to sleep with anything that moves...just because HE'S a man and as such has no control over his dick? I'm sorry, but either both of us are screwing around, or neither of us are.
And why shouldn't it be end of story if he wants to sleep with someone else, and I don't want him to? If we stay together (and don't go behind each other's backs), one of us would have to make a compromise that we are not willing to live with...either I have to let him sleep around, or he has to swear off all other women for life. Are we gonna be happy living like that? Better to split up and find someone else who shares our ideas, than stay together and suffer. Of course, I may be willing to compromise if I felt the relationship was worth saving. The thing is, when I am truly in love, I don't WANT to sleep with anyone else. It's probably a little to do with having a satisfying sexual relationship already, but it's probably more to do with not wanting to hurt HIM. As I said...all of my partners have demanded fidelity of ME. The one man I didn't sleep around on was my one true love...my soul mate, still to this day. Where fidelity was usually something I felt I COULD NOT do, with this guy it came naturally.
I don't know why everyone has such a hard time seeing where I'm coming from on this...I am talking about HONESTY not SEX. I don't care whether he's lying about screwing the next-door neighbour or about leaving the toilet seat up. It's just not good enough to say "Everybody lies". It hurts to be lied to. It's a sign of disrespect. I will not stay with someone who says he loves me, then lies straight to my face. And I will not tolerate him going behind my back...if he feels he HAS to go behind my back, then he obviously knows I wouldn't approve, and if he KNOWS I wouldn't approve...then it's just blatant disrespect if he goes ahead and does it anyway.
Well, I agree that this has nothing to do with the gender of those involved, and, RN, I think you're right that this is generally about honesty. But it is also about an honest approach to relationships in terms of realism as well.
However, one can turn that honesty card a couple of different ways -- are you going to be honest with your partner and say, "Well, I absolutely demand fidelity from you, lack of it is grounds for us breaking up, but, to be perfectly honest, I've only managed fidelity in 25% of my serious relationships, so while I'll try to be faithful, as you can see I really like sex, so you can see for yourself what the odds are. So, wanna get married?" Just how well is that going to play? "I couldn't stop myself" is exactly the same excuse you're saying is absolutely unacceptable for guys.
What other areas are there where the approach is as absolute and unforgiving? I've watched with amazement as women allow men to steal their money, beat them senseless, completely treat them like crap, and they stay with them because "he really loves me and doesn't sleep around" while in other cases people who have been married for years and who I damn well know are still in love with each other break up largely because the guy (and sometimes the woman, but usually less so) gets bored or feels neglected, sleeps with someone, is remorseful and confesses, and, boom, there goes a dozen years. Estimates I've read say that about 60% of men and 40% of women in marriages will have an affair, which means that in about 80% of marriages someone involved will stray. (This goes from Kinsey on forward in research, with numbers varying, and with women's numbers continuing to rise over time.)
Seems to me that with an absolutist approach you're basically setting yourself up for relationship failure, as you're saying someone can't fuck up and can't recover from making the mistake if they do. If honestly is an essential part of a relationship, so, too, is the ability to forgive, and that, to be completely frank, is more the reason I see relationships fail -- an inability to accept one's own culpability in an equation, to accept that people have areas where they're exceptional and areas where they're not, and to forgive mistakes a partner makes.
And it may sound somewhat sexist to say this, and I'm decidedly not at all making a blanket statement about this, but in most of the cases I've seen, a woman who has an affair ends up being far more involved in betrayal, as there is a larger emotional component than with a man who is doing the "just sex" thing. Let me caution again that here I'm speaking only of longer-term relationships I know about, and that's it.
We're all human -- we screw up, in a horrific variety of ways and in areas certainly not restricted to sex. The question is what happens then, and the message that mistakes are unacceptable sets the bar in a relationship as a level where it is dead solid certain to be knocked down at some point or another. To me, as I said earlier, this is less about sex than the terms of a relationship as a whole.
And, for what it's worth, I don't agree with you that women who sleep around are simply called names and abandoned any more than men are. Sure, it happens, but that statement flies in the face of the truth of who files for divorce (since I've still got all those stats in my head from the American women thread :) ) which is most often women.
And, to get back in the general direction of the topic -- I think this precisely argues for why prostitution is a good thing, as it provides a basically meaningless outlet that may help keep people from breaking up or straying emotionally strictly over sexual issues.
So to put it in overly simplistic, Dickheaded terms that everyone can understand:
NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING.
Rubber Nursey
09-24-02, 16:44
LOL Dickhead! Although the one that works better for me is...
Never MARRY anything in the first place!!
Joe,
I am totally crap at relationships. I am selfish, pigheaded, highly-strung, and my ability to be trusted is inversely proportional to the amount of alcohol I consume. ;) I have no intention of making any man put up with that at any time in the near future. I do miss having someone say "I love you"...haven't heard that since 1994. But otherwise, I am content with being alone right now. It's what works for me after so many destructive relationships. My work and my kids are more important at this point in my life.
I totally agree with your comment about women's affairs often being more emotional...my guess would be that most men sleep around for variety, relief, "just sex" type reasons, whereas women usually stray when they are feeling abandoned, unloved and "taken for granted" by their husbands. That's got no stats to back it up of course...just my guess.
re: I don't agree with you that women who sleep around are simply called names and abandoned any more than men are.
I wasn't suggesting that it happened MORE to women...I was just saying that it DOES happen, in response to WindStar suggesting that women are too quick to throw relationships away. I honestly don't know too many men who would "forgive" after their wife fooled around. In addition to the betrayal, I think it dents their male ego. Not only are men quick to use the "Men need more sex than women" line...they tend to believe it. When their wife actually goes out and gets laid, they are pretty shocked! LOL I'd be interested to know about the divorce stats though...Americans need to give reasons for divorce, don't they? (Sorry if that's not correct). If there are so many women filing for divorce, are there records of why?
And I should just add...both your's and WindStar's posts seem to suggest that *I* am the one "laying down the law" at the beginning of a relationship. I don't do anything of the sort. What I said was that if a man either leads me to believe or TELLS me that he expects ME to be faithful, then I expect the same from him. I can't recall ever having a discussion where actual ground rules were set. They just happen, and it's usually his behaviour that guides it. If he is jealous or possessive or seems to want to "hide" me from other men in public, etc (and I don't necessarily mean in a psycho way!), then I would assume that he expects me to remain faithful. If that rule is good enough for me...then it's good enough for him too. The only thing I ever mention if we ever have one of "those" talks, is that I don't like to be lied to. If he pops down to a brothel then comes home and says to my face that he was working late, he's lied to me.
Of course, speaking of brothels...I totally agree that access to commercial sex probably "saves" millions of marriages all around the world. Especially if there is an agreement made between the husband and wife. She (or he) can at least be sure that their partner is going strictly for sex, and that the likelihood of any emotional attachment occuring is slim to none.
The Virgin Terr
09-24-02, 17:14
this thread regarding "fidelity" is a bit off track, as many of the threads are, but it is interesting and i want to add to it. RN, i think your position on this is really weird and incongrous given your enthusiastic embrace of sexuality. i associate your type of possessiveness with mostly sexual prudes, and my theory is that people who restrict sex within their own minds make it harder to get for themselves, and thus of greater value, and thus something to be hoarded as if it's a rare commodity. in my mind sexual prudishness and sexually possessive relationships go hand in hand, along with sexually restrictive societies, of which monogamy is generally viewed with something akin to sacramental reverence, and prostitution, which goes against everything monogamy represents, is viewed as utterly undesirable and destructive to the fabric of society.
i have to agree with the general views of windstar and jz on this. speaking for myself, all other things being equal, i'm more attracted on a purely sexual basis to someone new, which doesn't and shouldn't mean that an already established love is going to be forgotten or abandoned. there is the possibility of it being compromised though, i will admit, because of the possibility that a loving bond forms with the new person. the question then is, are you willing to share someone you love with another? you have stated consistently and emphatically, no! i think that in so doing you're severely limiting yourself, and this may well be why you're presently without a SO.
the virgin terry
Rubber Nursey
09-24-02, 18:04
Ok..I'm starting to think I may have wandered into the Twilight Zone or something...
In NORMAL company, if I was to say that I've slept with well over 4000 men, I would be beaten around the head with a big stick and told that women should be in a monogamous relationship. In current company, nobody flinches at the 4000...but I get beaten with a big stick for wanting to keep a man all to myself!!! You guys are nuts!!!! LOL
And please remember that I am ONLY talking about a permanent, long-term relationship here...I am still all for casual sex!! (group sex, girl on girl sex, no names no guilt sex...any sex really!! LOL)
RN, this was not a diatribe at you, of course. I hardly think you're alone in the lowering of inibitions/barriers of sense when alcohol is involved -- the two times my wife's strayed alcohol has been a factor (loneliness -- she was away for 3 months, and a short-term infatuation were the other main reasons.) I obviously do fall into that category of one who forgives, as these were basically ten years apart in occurrence, and she falls into the category of one who tells, although in one case not immediately. We're still together after a couple of decades plus, and I frankly can't imagine that will not be the case until one of us kicks off.
Having affairs and sexual desire is an interesting dynamic. I can look at myself -- despite my estimate of the number of people I've slept with, the truth is that I was completely and absolutely faithful for many, many years, though immense stress and difficulty on the sexual side of the relationship until it became clear that my wife's attempts to overcome her sexual issues were more painful for her than it was worth pursuing, and we came to an understanding that works for both of us. It's far from my ideal equation of how things would be, even though I get to sleep around, but so it goes. And the truth is that only once have I ever come close to having a classic "affair" with all the emotions involved, and in that case I simply backed off, never actually sleeping with this woman. (In spite of my feeling that she may well have been the most sexually compatable person I've ever met, I don't think the rest of the package was worth the trouble, let alone better than what I had.) I think VT's comments in this regard are dead on.
By and large, Americans don't need reasons for divorce, as most states have no-fault divorce options, but here's what the reasons stated generally are: In order of importance, women say (1) incompatibility and unhappiness, (2) husband's alcohol, physical and verbal abuse, (3) husband's infidelity, (4) disagreements about religion and children, (5) their own alcohol abuse, (6) their own infidelity, and (7) their needs for independence. Men say (1) drug abuse (wife's or his) and mental illness, (2) many differences (religion, communication, in-laws), (3) his alcohol and physical abuse, (4) wife's independence and infidelity, (5) incompatibility and unhappiness, (6) wife's alcohol abuse, and (7) his infidelity (Cleek and Pearson, 1985). In general, "emotional problems" are the most common cause of divorce; men cite "sexual problems" three times more often than women and women cite an "affair" twice as often as men (Janus & Janus, 1993). Quite often, people say they do not really know why their spouse filed for divorce. It's that latter statement that I find astonishing, and clearly indicative of lack of communication.
If, as you describe it, he pops into a brothel and you ask him where he's been, then under your equation he's got three basic options: 1) tell you the truth and have everything end right away as he's crossed a line that means it's all over and you'll not forgive that, or 2) say he's working late and lie to you, which not only sets the table for him to do it more but for a breakup if/when you discover this to be the case, 3) tell you to shut up, quit badgering him, for gods sake can't a man not get the third degree just because he doesn't report in, etc., etc., which will alienate and [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) you off and lead you to think he's lied to you in any event. So, kaboom.
I might suggest that if you're picking guys who are intensely jealous, it's more about a level of reinforcement of your own desireability than it is about gravitating toward a compatable partner. If you're selfish and high-strung, and you're picking people who are pretty much the same, then it's small wonder things fall apart. Relationships are always about compromise, one way or another, and having two people who find that an impossible equation isn't the best recipe for either survival or, more importantly, for building the trust you so strongly and understandably seek. Realistic expectations help rather than hurt, I think, and I personally think that having a good relationship that has a few flaws here and there is far better than going it alone.
Gotta admit, though, that I don't see how you get the casual sex thing aligned with the relationship thing -- is it just a switch you can turn on or off depending on your situation?
And, of course, you're right -- this is the Twilight Zone. Or even later at night, all night. :)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN
[i]Ok..I'm starting to think I may have wandered into the Twilight Zone or something...
In NORMAL company, if I was to say that I've slept with well over 4000 men, I would be beaten around the head with a big stick and told that women should be in a monogamous relationship. In current company, nobody flinches at the 4000...but I get beaten with a big stick for wanting to keep a man all to myself!!! You guys are nuts!!!! LOL[end quote]
Again applying the basic Dickhead philosophy of oversimplification, the truth lies somewhere in between. There is a fine line between monogamy and monotony.
DH
In "Normal" company or American society, they condemn women having lots of partners because they are a bunch of stuufy old prudes. This forum thinks differently because we praise sex and celebrate it. We in fact like women who are open in their sex lives instead of being a finger pointing nun.
Originally posted by RN
Windstar,
Let's get one thing straight. I am 28 years old, have had 4 long-term relationships, 5 years of hooking where I had no SO...and yet I have just recently admitted that I have slept with so many men that I'm embarrassed by the numbers. You fill in the blanks. ;) I have screwed around on every partner I ever had, except one. No I am not proud of it, and no I don't make any excuses for it. I like sex and I couldn't stop myself (and didn't want to anyway). I'm certainly not claiming to be better than anyone else when it comes to relationship mores.
Damn!
You're MY kinda of girl!
I always knew there was a reason I liked you so much. You're JUST like me!
Tell ya, what? Marry me!
I just don't buy this crap that men can't control their hormones, simply because they have a penis. That is bullshit, and it's a copout. Maybe you screw around 'coz you're a sex addict, maybe it's because you just like sex, maybe it's out of spite or boredom or just for the hell of it. But it sure as hell is NOT just because you are a man. Every man I have ever been with has DEMANDED fidelity from me. One even told me what clothes I could and couldn't wear, just in case I attracted male attention. Women who are unfaithful to their husbands are called sl*ts and wh*res and abandoned immediately. Are you telling me that women should conform to this shit whilst allowing their man to sleep with anything that moves...just because HE'S a man and as such has no control over his dick? I'm sorry, but either both of us are screwing around, or neither of us are.
You're so cute when you're mad! :)))
Mea Culpa. I probably misread the string. I coudn't agree more with you.
And I would go further and tell you very bluntly that I have no idea where men get the notion that just because they are men they have a right to "control" women. That's absurd. Where is it written that women are sluts and *****s because they have lots of men in their lives? Somebody's Bible, I guess. Well not mine.
I do not claim to speak for all men when I confess to you that I have no idea why women put up with it. I wouldn't. Sex is a wonderful thing. Great sex is awesome. Why on earth should I come around to believing that you could only have great sex with me and should have equally satisfying sex with another man? That's nuts.
As a matter of fact, the more sex you have with other men, the more you'd appreciate what is "hopefully" great sex with me! That's the thing that I never understood about jealousy and possessiveness.
Personally, I would kill for a truly open marriage. I don’t like using that phrase because the book was so bad. But for lack of a better way of putting it, let's just say that I hunger for the freedom that comes with total honestly.
That hunger, however, is tempered by the reality that notwithstanding having had more women in my life that I could possibly count, I have never met one who persuaded me that she wouldn't leave me in a hot lickety second if I had sex with another women ... and most especially without her KNOWLEDGE.
Even in so-called polyamorous arrangements, for some darn reason, women DEMAND to know. For some reason that makes a difference. It certainly makes a difference to all the women I have ever met -- including sex workers! NOW maybe as a child I got hit upside the head with some meteorite from another dimension or something, and so today, in adulthood, I just don't think straight like straight thinking people, but it seems to me that it's not especially relevant to how I feel about the whole person I am with. If I like you, if I love you ... I don't see how that's going to change because you fucked the mailman in the morning! That's just silly. Period.
... The thing is, when I am truly in love, I don't WANT to sleep with anyone else. It's probably a little to do with having a satisfying sexual relationship already, but it's probably more to do with not wanting to hurt HIM.
NOW you address what I think is the hardest question for us men to respond to. We hear your words and we appreciate your sentiments. And God only knows that we would love to be so selflessly monogamous. However, the truth is, that most of us are not. Some even us try very, very hard. Believe me. And we do so, partly because the sex we have with our primary partner is very good and satisfying. But very often we do so not only out of a desire, as you put it, not to hurt HER, but also, frankly, because of the HELL we will surely pay if we "step out" on her!
You refuse to accept that it's hormone driven. To be honest, I don't know if it is or not. All I do know is that if any modestly attractive, sane and hygienic woman came to me, got down to her birthday suit and ask to take for a ride around the block a few times, I'd be hard pressed to say no. The only thing that would keep me (and just about every other truthful man with pulse that I KNOW) from declining would be that I'm dead tired, a recent Bobbitization (without reattachment) or ... and this is the thing: that paralyzing fear that we all get when the thought crosses our mind that she just MAY find out. Now you do the math and guess which one, if any, normally prevails.
... As I said...all of my partners have demanded fidelity of ME. The one man I didn't sleep around on was my one true love...my soul mate, still to this day. Where fidelity was usually something I felt I COULD NOT do, with this guy it came naturally.
Well as I SAID, I don't demand "fidelity" from you because I have no right to do so. It's your life. And you must live it as you wish. I have no desire to control you. In fact, come to think of it, I would much rather that you be OUT OF CONTROL -- at least when you're with me! :)
I don't know why everyone has such a hard time seeing where I'm coming from on this...I am talking about HONESTY not SEX. I don't care whether he's lying about screwing the next-door neighbour or about leaving the toilet seat up. It's just not good enough to say "Everybody lies". It hurts to be lied to. It's a sign of disrespect. I will not stay with someone who says he loves me, then lies straight to my face. And I will not tolerate him going behind my back...if he feels he HAS to go behind my back, then he obviously knows I wouldn't approve, and if he KNOWS I wouldn't approve...then it's just blatant disrespect if he goes ahead and does it anyway.
But you see, you're not like other women. I had to disillusion you, but most women are not like that. The worst of it that some say they are, but if a man has any healthy respect for life and limb, he would never come home and say: "Oh, guess what honey? I slept with that waitress at Joe's Tavern this afternoon. You know … the redhead with the 44 DDDs. The sex wasn't bad. Not great. Not bad! ... So how was your day?" If you can live with that kind of honesty, than you're God's gift to every man, and I mean that with all my heart. The REALITY is, that it's not just about lying. It's really about the act itself with 99.99999 percent of women. The FACT is that women do NOT approve of their men seeing other women. And the truth is that hell has NO fury like a woman who's been stepped out on! So we lie. And believe me, we invariably feel pretty awful about it. But it's a Hobsonian choice. We either lie or face the fear and the certainty of THUNDERING retribution, whether by knife or court judgment.
On a separate note... I would love to know from you, RN, how you feel about your clients. I know that you know that they know that every body knows that they are either married or close to being married or otherwise in SOME kind of committed or semi-committed relationship. Sure they're exceptions, but those are few and far between. Chances are they are lying to their spouses or other significant other about their fidelity. How does that impact on how you feel about them? Does that not make them the basest of vermin on the planet, in your book? After all, they are liars and cheats. No?
How then can you justify your involvement with them as a sexual surrogate? And assuming that you can fulfill that function without any feelings whatsoever, how do you feel about yourself knowing that you just MIGHT be a family wrecker? You've been hurt. You know how it feels. Don't you feel like you're conspired in the deception? And if you feel so strongly about it, how can you live with yourself?
These are honest questions, which are not in the least bit intended to be condemnatory. I have nothing but the most profound respect for you. You have never lied here. You look people in the eye and tell them the truth as you see it. That's why I ask you the hard questions.
I cannot tell you how often over the course of my life I have tried to have a sensible discussion with a woman about these and other sexually related questions without benefit of anything approaching a reasoned response.
That said, I will look forward to your thoughts.
I agree with Winstar that we all lie because 99 percent of all Americans are jealous buffoons, both the men AND the women. Only the 1 percent who are on this site value honesty over jealousy. I for one would rather have an open relationship/marriage because let's face it, we all have sexual urges that can never be satisfied with just one partner. All mammals have that instinct until they die. It is just that this society places all these taboos on open relationships saying that it is not okay. Whose bible are they following anyway? In the old testament, God wants us all to multiply like the stars. Only the finger pointing self righteous prudes place the restriction of monogamy. And the reason 99 percent of us get jealous is that it is ingrained in us to be so. We think it is shameful to BE the one cheated on. I was formerly like that and now I realized what a buffoon I used to be acting all verprotective and possessive of my ex-girlfriend. I also used to be all stressed out and untrusting to the point of being paranoid of one of my ex-girlfriends being with her male friends. I realized the stupidity of this as well as my own hypocrisy and urges. I too felt the need for other women and wanted to date other women as well. This monogamy was totally stressful. I saw a professional sex shrink and she recommended that I have an open relationship. My jaw dropped when she first said this and I objected to this but she gave good reasons which were convincing enough for me to change. I was too belligerent in my former mindset for one because I would pick fights with people who only say "lewd" comments about my ex-girlfriends but don't even act upon it. Unfortunately most men are that uncivil but I got rid of this savagery that used to be in me by accepting the fact that all humans lust and should be free to look and even try others. This totally eliminates the paranoia that comes from the monogamy.
The sex shrink also said that not all men are complete and that one man can fullfill something that another man can't. The same goes for women. For example, an 80 year old man might not satisfy a younger woman sexually because he is impotent but a younger less wealthy man can fullfill the sexual need but not fullfill her needs financially or emotionally. The older man can be a counselor in case a woman needs someone to talk to yet he cannot lift heavy object like furniture if he had to while the younger man is less wise but can be handy. If we had polygamy, divorce would be almost to zero. Same example might go for women. An older woman might give the younger guy some great advice on life more than the younger woman yet cannot sexually satisfy the man like the younger woman can. EVERY need would be met in polygamy or open marriages. Everybody would be satisfied and not to mention there would be no paranoia about who's cheating on who. I for one am not perfect. I am more understanding if a woman is married to me yet dates a much wealthier guy or a guy with a skill I lack because I could never fullfill that need. I can do a lot of things like protect women from being robbed with my kung-fu skills but I can't do everything. I can't sing, swim, nor am I a millionaire so I would understand if a girl I'm married to dates a musician or a lifeguard for protection from the sea if she goes boating. I know I could never save her if she fell off the boat because I can't even save myself from the water. Jealousy does not have a place in this situaion or any situations. It is total buffoonery and makes people think and act irrationally.
Darkseid
Rubber Nursey
09-26-02, 13:54
Oh my goodness. See what happens when I miss a night online??? LOL I'll try and catch up...
Joe,
...the truth is that I was completely and absolutely faithful for many, many years, though immense stress and difficulty on the sexual side of the relationship until it became clear that my wife's attempts to overcome her sexual issues were more painful for her than it was worth pursuing...
That's exactly what I was getting at. Yes, you have an "open" relationship now...but it occurred after much discussion and open communication with your wife. To me, that is VERY different to going out and getting laid behind her back and then lying about it. Like I said, I prefer to think that my partner would come to me first and be honest with me. I want the opportunity to try and work things out. What if it's something that I am doing wrong that's making him unhappy? If I could change that and the problem was solved, he may decide that he doesn't need to sleep with someone after all. I'd rather that than have him bottle up his feelings and not address the issue with me, and then screw around and destroy our relationship for no reason.
And I am not completely discounting forgiveness and/or an open relationship. If I've been in a monogomous relationship with a guy for six months and he suddenly says he wants to start seeing other women, then it's over. (No, I can't explain why...it just seems wrong to me). But if I had been with someone for many years and had talked all the issues out but they couldn't be resolved...like in your situation...then my position would probably be different. I don't think I would want to lose a soul relationship over something as (ultimately) trivial as sex.
I suppose my wanting to be in a monogomous relationship is actually the result of MY OWN behaviour. In all the relationships in which I was unfaithful, I guess I had no real respect for my partner. Because of that, I didn't care too much if I got caught out and hurt him. I LOVE the thrill of new hands on my skin, and more than anything I like hot, passionate sex with people I hardly know and will probably never see again. Whenever the opportunity arose, I took it. I was totally selfish, and put my own satisfaction above the feelings of my SOs. (And I never got dumped...*I* always did the dumping when I got bored). But with that one "special" guy, opportunities arose and I didn't even look sideways. I couldn't bear the thought of hurting him. And I didn't want to risk losing him because he meant too much to me. I din't consciously make the decision to not sleep with anyone else...it just seemed to happen. Yeah I know...soppy women's crap! LOL But I can't help feeling that if a man sleeps around on me, he is displaying the same disrespect to me as I did to my previous partners.
Quite often, people say they do not really know why their spouse filed for divorce. It's that latter statement that I find astonishing, and clearly indicative of lack of communication.
This is my whole point on this...(hopefully) there would be no need for the lies and the betrayal if couples were open and honest with each other when problems arose, and at the start of a relationship when foundations are being laid.
Rubber Nursey
09-26-02, 14:51
WindStar,
I wasn't mad with you! I was just stating my case like the stubborn little feminist that I am *grin* It's just that...as is to be expected on a *****mongers board...I am continually reading things like "Men just need more sex than women", "Women don't have to pay for sex", "Women are too possessive", etc. Yes there are people who fit those moulds...stereotypes usually have at least SOME basis in fact...but it just pisses me to keep hearing these blanket statements about women, as if men are blameless. (Perhaps I should stop reading the American Woman thread...it's doing my head in!)
Anyway, PMS aside, lets get this stuff back on topic shall we?? In answer to your question about clients, firstly in their defence I need to say that not as many clients are romantically involved as you would think. "Studies" have suggested that about half of all clients are married, and I would probably agree with that estimate. Many more of them would have girlfriends or casual partners, but don't forget that we see men who work on oil rigs and don't have time for a partner, elderly men who's wives have passed on, young guys who are "too young to settle down", mentally or physically disabled men, disfigured men, obese men....the list goes on.
Ok, how does it make me feel to be part of their betrayal? That's a really hard one, and it's something that working girls talk about amongst themselves a LOT. Joe asked me this question just recently, and I've just realised that I didn't get around to answering it. Somewhere deep down...in the feminist part of me that belongs to the "sisterhood"...it tears me up to think that I could be destroying another woman's life. But then there's the other part of me...the one that says "This is not my fault. HE is the married one. HE is doing the betraying. I am just doing my job". The biggest thing in our favour is that we don't usually know their actual circumstances. Just because he's wearing a wedding ring, doesn't mean he is cheating on his wife. Look at Joe...he has an agreement with his wife, so he is hurting nobody. Thus, I am hurting nobody by having sex with him. My client's wife may have her own lover as well...she may be disabled and unable to have sex...there's lots of possibilities. Because I don't know for SURE that he's cheating on his wife, I don't take it quite so personally.
Some guys get a perverse thrill from talking about their wife during sex, or giggling about the clever little scam they used to get rid of the wife long enough to come and visit me. That often upset me...I DID somehow feel like a co-conspirator when they shared too much with me. I think some guys forget that we are women too, and that we feel bad for their wives.
But mostly, I didn't pay too much attention to it. I wasn't conspiring with them...I was providing a service that THEY chose to purchase. They came to ME. And I didn't judge them for that at all. Some were probably totally screwing up their relationships by coming to me, but some were probably saving them. How was I to know which one it was? I justified in my head that at least his wife would never get a midnight call from me looking for her husband, she would never have to worry about me getting pregnant, and she would never have to worry that we might fall in love and run away together. Ultimately though, it's not my problem. Should the hotel clerk feel guilty when he knowingly rents a room to a man and his mistress? Should the single woman in a bar feel guilty that she slept with a bloke who neglected to tell her he was married?
And thank you for the compliments WindStar :) I know I get stubborn and headstrong sometimes, (ok...most of the time!), but I just don't see any point in having a discussion unless you are willing to tell the truth and voice your honest opinion. The anonymity of the internet gives you an opportunity to "be someone else" if you want to...but what merit does a debate have if there's no passion behind what you're saying?
RN: Yes, but also please note that the fidelity/discussion side of things was really not mutual in an absolute sense. My wife finds any discussion of her own sexuality extremely painful and uncomfortable, generally cannot explain her own behavior or articulate her feelings surrounding it with any nuance, and her therapy didn't do anything but make us both more unhappy. (She is, of course, brilliant, perceptive and incredible in other ways.) Had I adopted the "one strike, you're out" approach you talked about earlier (as there was decidedly not any prior discussion surrounding her indiscretions) I'd have been tossing away the best relationship of my life. Was I hurt at those times? Absolutely, particularly the one where infatuation was a partial cause. But I did manage to understand that this behavior was actually not aimed at me, not even about me at all. And while that fact also had its painful aspects, it was made easier by knowing that there was a lot of behavior that truly was about me, and that she frankly didn't really understand what the behavior was about either, and also about knowing exactly how she gets when she is under stress and drinks too much. (I've been the circle's designated driver for decades, largely because while I decidedly like to drink, getting blotto is not one of my enthusiasms.) Perfection is an ideal, not something humans engage in other than irregularly and by happenstance.
I wouldn't, in fact, call what I have an open relationship in the way it's commonly defined. I would call it a way of avoiding an issue (in this case sex) in a relationship because it's become clear to both parties involved after long struggle that it cannot be worked out or made better, but that the rest of the relationship works. While I at times enjoy, as you've said it, new hands on my skin, I'm someone who's essentially monogamous at heart and in desire, and one of the side-effects of my behavior is a need to ensure a degree of emotional insulation in the process, as not doing that would truly constitute a relationship betrayal. So, for me, that means that it really must be "just sex" -- and probably ironically means I end up sleeping with more people as opposed to forming a combination sexual and emotional attachment with someone for more than a fairly short time. (That doesn't, of course, at all mean that I need to subscribe to the "fuck 'em and kick 'em to the curb" perspectives that are often advocated on this board, with their undercurrent of hostility and often misogyny, which I decidedly do not.)
Rubber Nursey
09-26-02, 15:07
PS Joe,
I forgot to ask you about this...
Gotta admit, though, that I don't see how you get the casual sex thing aligned with the relationship thing -- is it just a switch you can turn on or off depending on your situation?
Did you mean casual sex whilst in a relationship, or casual sex in comparison to a relationship?
I meant how do you expect to align the fact that "more than anything I like hot, passionate sex with people I hardly know and will probably never see again" with the ideal of having a serious monogamous relationship? Relationships where people start out by giving up things they truly love are generally relationships doomed to fail. Maybe this is the side of things where you've described yourself as "selfish, pigheaded, highly-strung" (which are actually all things that work great in casual sex encounters but not as much in long-term) but if that's truly your nature and not the hyperbole I suspect then it seems like this is setting yourself up to fail (which might be true, but my therapy shingle's in the closet at the moment) as opposed to looking for a scenario which more closely fits you, even if it's not the societal norm. Or are you sort of saying, well, ok, I really, really, really, like this, but I guess I gotta grow up and be an adult, and I guess I can live with that, if I can find someone to do it with?
And if I'm reading your situation and complaints :) right -- are you telling us that WA is a place where it's nigh impossible for a reasonably good-looking non-blonde woman in her high twenties to have a casual sex encounter? You're gonna make Dickhead's Ohio trucker scenario or my wife's assessment of Aussie men ("Seems like they're all rugby players or pirates at heart") need reassessment! And I'm not sure whether, in the context of this board, that says that all the punters should darn well get to WA as they can probably get it for free, or whether it says, good lord, stay the heck away! LOL
Like RN pointed out in her flaw of being "selfish, pigheaded, highly-strung", no woman is perfect, not even foreign women who are better than most American women. Every woman (and man) has something missing and most men seek other women to fullfill the missing voids. For example, a woman who is selfish, pigheaded, and highly strung may not be willing to listen to her man or only think of herself so he would seek out a woman who would listen to him and help him with his problems. The selfish woman won't help because she may only care for her own needs and just want a one-side taking relationship. RN, I'm not saying this about you but I am saying this about women who fit this example you gave.
I never started going to prostitutes until I started having the misfortune of dating a whole line up of prudes after my disastrous breakup with my abusive feminist ex-fiancee that wouldn't provide me sex. These ex-girlfriends wanted to "save themselves for marriage", or say they are "not that kinda girl". These are very unflattering and made me feel I slaved in the gym for nothing or that I needed to workout harder. I felt unaatractive from the lack of sex I was getting so I went to prostitutes who flattered me to tell me I had a good body and that I am doing a good job in staying in shape. This was the element missing in the relationship with the prudes but since I fullfilled this missing void, I stayed with them until they eventually found out about my little side hobby. I wanred them ahead of time that this would happen. They denied me sex but they were great companions and that was why I stayed dating them for months instead of days. In fact prostitution would save such a relationship as long as they don't find out. A lot of relationships start off platonic or become platonic over time. Some married couples get tired of each other physically but the emotional and spiritual levels are still there. The only thing missing is the sex because of inability to perform by one partner (impotence) or just being repulse from the effects of old age (they look ugly to each other with the wrinkled or fat bodies). As RN said, people come to her for all different situations. To name a few, my situaion where the poor guy is not getting any because the girl is withholding it for morality purposes, or old people whose partner is disabled or no longer physically attractive to them. In these cases, prostitution would help. Why do you think the divorce rate is the highest in America than in other countries? It is the illegalization of prostitution that could have saved marriages and our mindset of monogamous relationships based on jealousy. Perhaps these 2 aspects go hand in hand. We are so jealous and possessive in America that we don't want prostitution or hate the idea of someone else sleeping with "their" partner. In other countries, such as Amsterdam, they have less qualms about people having sex with their partners so prostitution is legal. I have talked to some of these clients who frequent the RLD and most of them are married. They had unattractive wives who they no longer sleep with but still love them at a higher emotional and spiritual level because of all the great times they had together throughout life. See, in this case, the RLD saved all those marriages. Divorce rate is much less in Holland than it is in the USA. These cases constitute more than half of the divorce cases in America, which is lack of sexual gratification or the lack of desire to do it with their life partner. Also Dutch women are less shallow and take care of their men unlike the American counterpart. Some of them go to swinger's clubs for some variety. I had sex with a man's wife and the husband was okay with it. There are a lot of these swinger's clubs in Europe because they are more lax in their morality issues than people are here in America. If I did the same thing here, I would probably have another kung-fu fight or would have to roll and cover from shotgun shells. The mindset of jealousy can also cause a divorce because of the extreme paranoia that comes with it.
"Ohio Trucker Scenario"?????
I don't think that was me.
Dick
My mistake -- once again I was going from memory, which fails me increasingly as I grow older. A search of the archives reveals 'twas FedUp, but the line contained the requisite amount of cranky surrrealism to be one of yours... :)
Rubber Nursey
09-27-02, 04:08
Actually, it was Prokofiev that originally suggested that I may be a 300 pound trucker. From memory, I think Fedup said something about us getting together sometime...if I wasn't actually a 300 pound trucker. (I can't be bothered doing the search!) Fedup was around when Proko first suggested it, and was just teasing me about it. Well I hope so anyway... I'm not a trucker from Ohio Fedup...honest! I don't even know where Ohio is!! LOL
Joe,
I really don't think I "switch" between wanting casual sex and wanting a relationship. It just happens with the right person. I think your previous comment summed up exactly how I feel...While I at times enjoy, as you've said it, new hands on my skin, I'm someone who's essentially monogamous at heart and in desire..." I feel the same way, but it needs to be REAL love in order for that to kick in. By nature I am flighty and easily distracted...and my needs and desires change dramatically depending on which "frame of mind" I'm in. ;) But in honesty, I am a homebody. I honestly love to have someone to care for, and I would walk to the ends of the earth for the man I love. And when that right man comes along...like he did many years ago...all that other stuff just seems to go out the window. It is not a conscious sacrifice or a case of me giving up something that's important to me...it just becomes no longer so important. I don't know how to explain it.
It's very much like the situation with my children. I don't have a social life any more, but my children's needs come first. I do often think about what it would be like to be able to just go out and do what I want, when I want. And I really did enjoy being part of a social circle and going out and partying, when money and childcare was more readily available. But I don't sit and pine over it. I don't ever get tempted to just dump the kids and go it alone. Seeing them happy is my top priority. Same happens to me when I find a true relationship. I don't consciously choose to give things up...the urge to participate just goes away. And I'm certainly not saying that should be the case for EVERYONE who is in a relationship, (before everyone starts saying "But men don't feel that way" :)), but that's how the swing from shagging everything that moves to total monogamy, happens for me.
As for Aussie men, (tell your wife that it's Aussie Rules football and drunken yobbos, rather than rugby and pirates LOL), my problem with Aussie men comes from me, not them. Aussie men are wonderful. They are down to earth, they'd do anything for a mate, they can laugh at themselves, and if Loch Ness were filled with beer they could probably drink it dry in one sitting. In most country areas chauvenism is alive and well, BUT they also seem to respect a woman who can give as good as she gets. The "tough Aussie sheila" is not just a stereotype. MY problem is that I apparently make them feel too comfortable!! I can spend all night with a group of guys, playing pool and telling jokes...they flirt with me and fill the conversation with sexual innuendo...they tell me how "different" I am to other women and how much they enjoy my company...and then at the end of the night they pick up some drunken blonde and shag HER silly!! LOL I think maybe I've come to a point where I've been out of the scene too long and when I go out, I just want to have a good time. I don't really go looking for sex, and maybe that shows. Maybe I just don't give off "I'm available" vibes any more? I'm sure I could get laid if I came straight out and said "Take me now", but I think I've kinda lost interest. It's also a bit daunting these days, with serial killers and psychos wandering the streets...I'm too scared to go home with someone I don't know, and I certainly wouldn't bring him into my children's home. If only I could afford a hooker!!! LOL
Q: What do you get when you cross a 300 lb Ohio trucker with a drunken Aussie yobbo?
DH
Rubber Nursey
09-27-02, 05:27
Errr...I hope you're not suggesting that the answer is ME?! :)
i think the answer would be something in the general direction of "overfilled urinals" and, no, rn, i don't think that's at all directed at you...
first of all, with your description i can do nothing but wish you the best in finding that right person to make the current flow though all the connections. i'd caution you against thinking in terms of putting your own life on hold because the children come first, because, of course, that's also a message they'll receive.
as to your social situation, let me suggest that to some perverse extent you, as a someone who's able to pass easily among the footballers and drunken yobbos, are actually someone who's far more a risk than a drunken blonde at the end of the night. she's easy to be turned down by. you're someone who's not only a far greater risk to be turned down from after a night of casual innuendo, but you're also someone who's more of a risk should you say yes, as not only does one have to live up to all that drunken banter, you're more of a problem to wake up to as a "mate" in the equation.
do you really have a far greater set of serial killers and [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) wandering around in wa than before, or is that simply another example of general urban infetion?
My distant - very distant - comment about RN was simply meant to point out that the InterNet is anonymous. We can be boys or girls, rich or poor, playboys or losers and no one will be the wiser. There are plenty of male posters pretending to be female . . . although clearly NOT on this site, since there is only one female to be found. And with all her medical posts, I've pretty much accepted her as a girl - although a visual inspection would clear up any lingering doubts . . . Peace, -P
Q - And what the hell is a yobbo? An Australian dog that ate Merril Streep's kid???
Amen, Proko, and sorry to have botched -- not once but twice, to my unending horror and shame -- the attribution! :D
Warpig2000
09-28-02, 02:34
Hey RN- if I ever follow my dream of getting a job out of Christ Church NZ on one of the US Millitary Sealift Command supply boats that goes to the Antarctic base in McMurdo, I'll have to fly over to OZ when I'm through with the trip and have a cold beer or two with you ;-)
Rubber Nursey
09-30-02, 11:39
proko,
according to my aussie slang dictionary...
yobbo
noun (derogatory) 1. an unrefined, uncultured, slobbish person: eg "i gotta change out of me stubbies, i don't wanna look like a yobbo".
2. a hooligan or lout: eg "i was hassled by a bunch of drunken yobbos on their way home from the football".
also, yob.
however, i don't think most aussies would consider the word yobbo as derogatory. it's more of an affectionate term which describes a stereotypical fun-loving, beer-swilling australian's personality. who really wants to be refined and cultured??? lol
warpig,
thanks honey :) i so wish i could meet all you guys. i'm sincerely hoping to make a trip to the us some time mid-2003. if i do get there, i'll be sure to look you all up...and i'll bring a six-pack!! lol
joe,
i'm really not sure whether there's been a rise in [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127), etc, or whether it's just the media attention and the increase in the number of women who report assaults these days. but lately there seems to have been a huge rise in the number of sex attacks here. for example, a few weeks ago a woman in her 30's was offered a ride home from the pub by a group of guys in their late teens/early twenties, and she was taken to a beach and gang raped. a few years ago, my girlfriend and i were accepting rides from strangers every time we went out and got drunk...and we always got home safely. maybe we were just lucky, but we did it many, many times and nothing went wrong. rohypnol (sp?) doping is also a huge problem in clubs here. girls can no longer accept a drink from a stranger...and we actually have to walk around with our thumb over the top of the bottle so nobody can slip something into it. (can somone please explain what the attraction is, to sleeping with a woman who's comatose???) i certainly don't think any of these problems are endemic to australia though, and i know that we are a lot safer here than women in many other countries are. but it is most certainly a risk, and it makes women very reluctant to go anywhere near a stranger....let alone go home with him. it's sad really.
rohypnol is also a huge problem in the university town near where i live, and has contributed to some terrible incidents (one young coed because so disoriented she fell out of a window and died.) as far as the attraction, i think it actually has some connection to the comatose aspect -- though women are usually described as "pliable" as opposed to comatose -- so one can do as one pleases. this syncs with the understanding that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is about control, doesn't it? the scary part about it is that because it's a "party" drug as well, it seems that there are guys who simply gloss over the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) aspects and somehow think of it as bing on a par with being drunk or on x. i've had some truly disturbing conversations in that regard, from people who should know better, mostly young guys without much sexual experience who simply view it as a way of increasing their chances of scoring. (shudder!)
but you're right -- such is modern life, it seems. i'm told there's a heroin problem in the little village of 2500 where i now live, which is simply astonishing in terms of pure numbers...
it's interesting though -- if we think back into the past women were probably every bit as much at risk as they are now. certainly [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and violence are nothing new, (we can think of all the elaborate social conventions aimed at not allowing wo,men alone with men as indicative of awareness of danger) and i doubt the percentages on acquaintence [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) have changed much over time (the old phrase "candy is dandy but liquor is quicker" isn't exactly a formula about informed consent). but of course you'd probably never be in a bar having drinks with men in years past, so i think it's more that the context has changed more than anything else, and with women being more independent the sense of their physical vunerability in society is more apparent.
ah well, wandering off topic, sorry. to come back to it by way of talking about roofies -- do you know of anything that talks about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistics in connection with legalization of prostitution? that would be a rather powerful case statement, if there was a positive correlation...
Rubber Nursey
09-30-02, 15:29
you mean you haven't witnessed my wrath when someone says "if prostitution was legal there would be less [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)"??? how could that have happened? i'm famous for that rant!! lol
i have a real problem with the suggestion that prostitution decreases [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). i don't know of any stats (probably because there isn't really a "control" group...i can't think of too many places that have no prostitution, whether it's legal or not), but i do know that it's a common assumption. even hookers say it!! sex workers get very bizarre requests...sometimes the clients have violent fantasies, and some even specifically ask for a [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) fantasy. however, i truly believe that the majority of those men go to sex workers for those things because they would never do it in real life. if he really wanted to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) a woman...and as we know, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is all about domination and control...why would he go to a hooker, discuss his fantasy in great detail, let her set controls and "safe words" and pay her extra for it to boot?! these men like the idea of [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) someone, but they would never actually do something to hurt someone for real. they choose a hooker because they get the rush of "[CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125)", without the consequences.
my theory on why people believe prostitution decreases [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)? sex workers, especially street based workers, are raped all the time. these [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) are almost never reported, so they don't make it into the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats. if you took away all the sex workers, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistics would rise dramatically, because the guys who used to only [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) sex workers, would now have to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) "normal" women. it doesn't mean that more women are being raped...only that different women are being raped. to put it bluntly...i believe that people want hookers there, not to "protect" normal women from being raped, but to be raped instead of normal women.
what legalisation/decriminalisation does do (and there are stats to back this up, but i can't find them!!), is protect hookers from being raped. the reason that sex workers are raped is because there is next to no chance that the perpetrator will ever be punished. sex workers don't report the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). if they do report the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), the police won't follow it up. and if the police do actually follow it up, the judge takes the worker's "character" and occupation into account, and the [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) goes free. working in an illegal industry means you have no legal recourse. you can't report a violent client without first admitting he was a client...thus incriminating yourself as a prostitute. in my city, street girls have actually gone to police to report an assault or [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and been arrested! that simply creates a pool of women that [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) are "allowed" to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)...and that is not good enough!
while prostitution remains criminalised, sex workers will continue to take the punches for the "good" women in our community. and here's a thought...if my theory is correct, and decriminalisation would make it harder for men to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) sex workers, then there would be a rise in the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) of "good" women. so what are the chances that the law-makers already realise this?
i tried to be gentle this time... :)
ah, good, rn, an area where we can fight! :d feel free on your response to completely let loose -- i'm fairly sure i can take it, even given the formidable force you are!
"to put it bluntly...i believe that people want hookers there, not to "protect" normal women from being raped, but to be raped instead of normal women."
well, let's be clear here -- that's rather obviously not my perspective, and i think it's frankly a straw man scenario filled enough with hyperbole that it distracts from the real argument. if you tone down the rhetoric from people wanting sex workers to be raped to the concept of sex workers providing an outlet for [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127), you're not that far off. read on a bit before you explode, though...
i'm not talking about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) of prostitutes, and i'm not talking about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) fantasies, per se, (though those clearly could factor in) i'm talking about the issue of control. my take on it is this: [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is the manifestation of the need for control -- in this case primarily the control of women -- being out of control, and things that get bottled up are things that spill out in an ugly way. providing a pressure valve, in the form of the ability to satisfy such needs by play-acting or "renting" control could thereby minimize letting those things get pent up until they spill out. this is not a new theory in this thread at all, and it's one you yourself have endorsed in other contexts.
i base this on the things i've read about both normal and criminal and deviant sexual behavior (and also serial activity both about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and murder) which tend to describe patterns of escalating behavior that eventually culminate in a need for release. one of the ways the police track serial criminals is by identifying recurring patterns of behavior. my readings in psychology say that the interruption of habit results in the creation of new habit to provide the same needed result or some facsimile thereof.
there are many theories about sports, for example, being a healthy diversion of male aggressive tendencies, and a substitute for war. let's look at the example of dom-sub activities, as another example of something that provides an outlet for feelings which would otherwise either be buried or manifest themselves in problematic ways. the concept of prostitution reducing [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) falls into this category. to answer your question -- why would a guy who wants to control and [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) go to a sex worker, set up an elaborate scenario, and walk through the process of play-acting? precisely because he can do that and not be a criminal, there are no negative consequences to his actions, and it can provide an outlet, albeit imperfect, for his needs. obviously, it won't work for everyone but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have an effect. let's remember that violent [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) going after the anonymous woman are the exception rather than the rule, as are true serial predators, and that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is primarily acquaintance-based.
the problem i have with your argument is that, frankly, it's off the point. this isn't about the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or non-[CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) of sex workers. this isn't about setting up sex workers as [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) targets as opposed to "normal" women. this is about the theory that providing a legal and available outlet for feelings and behavior may keep them from escalating into negative consequences (and, in this case, criminal behavior.) let's be honest -- you use this precise same argument frequently in terms of the availablilty of sex workers being a way to help guys gain confidence, experience, relate better to women, etc. in other words, to translate the experience into something positive that they carry with them to their real lives. why should it be different only in this specific context?
one of the basic differences between the p4p scenario and real life is that the client has a far greater say in exactly what happens, as that is part of the process. this has been discussed here on an endless basis, and provides one of the clear attractions for many men. why shouldn't that be extrapolated to those with more need for control?
i don't disagree in the least that decriminalization protects sex workers from [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), but i think that's a totally different point -- that's about the safety of the field and access to proper support structures as opposed to the availability of sex workers providing a legal outlet for behavior. it's seen as providing precisely that for normal sexual urges, it's seen that way for sexual urges which are non-normative -- why is the line drawn here when we're not talking about setting up a situation where the sex worker is in any way harmed or forced to be part of a scenario what goes beyond their personal rules?
Stranger99
10-01-02, 19:00
joe
i am not sure if i understood correctly here but basically what you are saying is to have sex workers do some containment action on potential rapers.
i think you cannot put all rapers in one box. on one hand you have the domination/submission scenario; on the other hand you have a bunch of losers that turn to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) (believe it or not) as a way to have sex.
in the country where i am originally from, for instance, it is not uncommon that many [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) are committed by immigrants. it is notorious that immigrant communities, in countries (like italy) which are new immigrants destinations, are composed for the majority by working men and that their chances to blend in socially (and therefore find sex within a normal relationship) are low because of racism, prejudices, economic status, etc., though resorting to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) as a sex source.
i think what you are suggesting might work in this type of scenario (leaving alone the fact of being able or not to afford a sex worker) as in reality what you need here is a masturbation alternative to decrease the hormonal levels.
maybe it would also work in the husband/wife [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) situations.
on the other hand you have a number of [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) committed by people whose way to relate to sex is based on violence where violence is not the mean to get sexual pleasure but instead is sexual pleasure itself.
i don't believe you can have a placebo effect replacing acting with the real thing and probably the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is for the raper just the surfacing top of the iceberg of much bigger problems.
the only way the de-criminalization of prostitution is going to affect sex workers against [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is, in my opinion, only through a very long term effect in they way sex workers are socially perceived.
i strongly disagree but wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are many people who raped prostitutes that would never [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) a non prostitute woman.
i think these people perceive that [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) a prostitute is something less of a crime since they would consider the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) as a job related risk (same as a car accident for a formula 1 driver).
uncounsciousle they probably think of the prostitute as a sub-human type of species.
i know this is going to sound ridicoulus but it gives you the idea of the long way to go that is still to be completed: a couple of years ago in italy a raper was acquitted because the victim, at the time of the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), was wearing jeans and therefore could have not suffered a [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) unless she had not collaborated, to a certain extent, with the raper.
let me be clear here -- in no way do i think legalization of prostitution is going to take care of hard-core [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127), either by "offering them a target" or by "containment." i'm not in the least advocating exposing sex workers to danger or potential harm by dropping known [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) into their laps. i'm not convinced that it will affect those with a true, solid psychological predilection toward [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) at all, honestly. the stereotype of the [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) on the prowl is generally different from the reality, however, even though it's what women tend most to cite and fear.
the majority of [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) are not committed by these snarling anonymous predators, as the huge majority of [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) are acquaintence or date [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124), (75% is the conservative figure in the us) and the most commonly cited causes/explanations in those crimes are miscommunication, drug or alcohol abuse, and lack of respect for women (in other words, aggression and desire for control.) the massive -- and every-increasing -- numbers involved here point not to the evolution of some new level of genetically programmed [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) machine, but instead to some clear societal dysfunction.
and what i am saying is that the availability of a controlled scenario to work out desires is exactly what prostitution is about.
you're absolutely right that there are [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) (and killers) who target prostitutes because of the attached social stigma, of general anger against women, religious warpedness, etc. i hope your scenario of a gradual reduction of that stigma takes place, though i don't think logic plays a huge part in the motivation here, and i also don't see the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution as affecting these folks much in a positive way. if anything, it's more likely the removal of societal stigma will be seen by these truly twisted folks as another example of how society as been "corrupted" and thus another thing to be blamed on sex workers. but, again, i think this is off the main point.
your comment on the socio-economic status of immigrants, and the connected tendency toward [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) mirrors us statistics of violent [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) (distinguishing here from date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)), which say that the vast majority of [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) are poorly educated, unemployed and/or unskilled. in other words, broke, frustrated, and socially undesireable.
"probably the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is for the raper just the surfacing top of the iceberg of much bigger problems"
i agree with this, (see my prior paragraph) and what i'm saying is that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is the manifesting behavior of those problems. and in point of fact placebo or replacement behavior is precisely the kind of treatment behaviorists advocate for dealing with such scenarios.
look, i recognize that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is a hot-button issue, and let's face it -- there are all kinds of simply insane things that come through the courts about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and we're still in the very early stages of having assaults on women, particularly sexual assaults, treated with the gravity they deserve. as a corrolary to your example, in texas about ten years ago a grand jury refused to bring charges against a guy who raped a woman at knife-point because she convinced him to use a condom for fear of aids, saying that implied consent. simply nuts, and the kind of societal mixed message that gives a blessing to screwed up sex-role attitudes!
j.z.
"the massive ...and ever increasing number of [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124)..."
do you really think it's massive and increasing? i think the reporting of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is increasing. and numbers probably rise with population growth. but do you honestly think that higher %'s of women are raped today compared to 25, 50 or 100 years ago? i doubt it. date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and wife [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is a rather new idea. not too long ago, the cops would laugh at any woman who claimed she was raped by her husband or boyfriend - someone whom she had slept with many times. and while i don't take violence or [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) lightly, i do think there is a big diference between [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) a stranger and a long time sex partner. i'm sure i'll catch a lot of hell for this - from rn and others, but the degree of "violation" is diferent. in the us it's ok to beat the crap out of your wife, but hold her down and screw her and you're looking at 30 years. fair? a good idea? i think not.
i await your wrath . . . - p
proko -- you may well be right that it's simply that more [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) are reported now that previously, though it's kind a horrible thing to contemplate the idea that one in three women have been victims of sexual assault throughout history, and that it's still only one in ten [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) that are reported. what exactly does that say about us as a species?
i think you somewhat mischaracterize date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) -- just because it's acquaintence based doesn't mean most of it in that category occurs between people who have had sex before. it can happen between friends, spouses, girlfriends and/or boyfriends, people who just met, etc..
especially considering that 60% of all [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) involve women under 18, and that 57% of acquaintence [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) happen while actually on a date, i don't think that really implies that these are mostly long-standing relationships, and they're sure not marriages for the most part. but you're certainly right that it still happens quite a bit.
and you're right that wife [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is a relatively new legal situation, but it's mostly been about the removal of an exemption for men about [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) their wives, as opposed to adding a new clause.
as far as your take on things, well, i don't know that being in a relationship somehow implies that a woman becomes property, to do with as you wish and i don't see that having sex with a person somehow "implies" future consent. violence is violence, and beating or forcing sex on a woman you're married to or involved with should be just as much cause for jail, as far as i'm concerned. marital [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) isn't about having sex any more than anonymous [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) -- most researchers who have spoken with husband-[CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) conclude that husband-[CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) to reinforce their power, dominance, or control over their wife or family, or to express anger. the only thing different about that and "normal" [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is just the presumption that it's your right to do so.
to me, the violation of trust involved and the difficulty of escaping from your [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) makes it worse as opposed to mitigates it. bad enough to do it to a stranger, but to someone you allegedly care for? if you're not getting sex, or not getting it in the way you think you should in the relationship, there are decidedly other options.
(and apologies -- this has strayed rather far off-topic from my original query to rn...)
Stranger99
10-02-02, 03:28
i tend to be doubtful or at least perplexed towards us statistics.
i mean, one every three women was a victim of a sexual assault: this is a huge number....
the multi million dollars lawsuits (mike tyson type of cases) have bastardized the system which is now flooded by true and pretentious data. this is probably an explanation of the rising number of assaults being reported.
let me make an example. i live in michigan, in a very liberal, culturally and economically rich, cosmopolitan small city and every month i receive the city magazine with a crime map in it showing the previous month crime occurrances and location.
i am astonished to see that there are at least 5-10 sex assaults per month (the majority by acquaintances, the rest by strangers).
now, very incidentally, the city i am from in italy has more or less the same social characteristics and pattern (dimension, university city, population density and composition, etc.) of the one i am currently living in, here in the us.
well, in my italian hometown [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) happen once a year (if that) and when they happen they make a 9 columns headlines on the local papers.
so, here the frequency is 10 times higher which is sort of scary but my point is, is this realistic?
Rubber Nursey
10-02-02, 06:57
just popping in for five seconds (i'm at work, and don't wanna get caught!), to tell you that i will be back in a couple of days. i got my darn phone disconnected, and won't have net access for a little while. hopefully it won't be too long, or i'll go insane! :)
ps stranger99...i wonder if the "empowerment" of american women makes a difference in the statistics when comparing countries? firstly, women would be more likely to report an assault if they felt they were going to be taken seriously (which in this age of equality, american women would expect), and secondly, in many cultures the abuse of women is considered "normal". in a country where, for example, forced sex within a marriage is just "a woman's lot", it would make sense that very few women would even consider it to be [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)...let alone take it to the authorities. just a thought...
see you soon boys. play nice!
well, stranger, i live near that exact town, and i tend to be amused when locals in this university town get all aghast at their crime stats, as they're ridiculously low proportionate to other places. and that includes sexual assault, which happen to be very high in university areas, but are nothing compared to more inner-city urban areas. i plotted crime statistics many years ago for the police department of a city of only slightly larger size about an hour north, where the crime was far, far higher.
i think this goes to proko's point about part of the increase being more [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) reported than in the past. i think it's a cultural and definitional thing, in that acquaintance [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) doesn't get reported as often in other countries. but i think it's worth noting that the us rates are not the worst in the world.
some men [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) women because of the stricter laws defining [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). a lot of men are married to women who are prudes because of american society's double standards or are married to women who aren't really interested in having sex with them so these men either try to force their wives to have sex and thus get reported by their wives to have raped them or they try to have an affair, but if they get caught, they lose everything they own to their ex-wives. some turn to prostitution but prostitution is illegal here and they would also get arrested. so what's left, try to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) a woman and not get caught? this is still a dumb option because if they get caught, they also get arrested. they then go back to the first option which is force sex from their wives and then the wife reports it. a lot of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) cases reported are date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or marriage [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) which is absurd. foreign women are taught to be submissive to their husbands when they demand sex. this is the only culture that women rebel against men because they know that they have more legal pull than men in america. this is why i prefer foreign women over american counterparts. i think that couples should be sexually compatible before they get married but that's not always the case because some women (or in fewer cases men) marry for money or status.
Stranger99
10-02-02, 14:56
well, there are always 2 ways of looking at things.
for example: the number of inmates in the us is ridicolously higher than any other western country.
what does this mean?
does it mean that that the us are a more violent society or does that mean that in the other countries people get away with crimes more easily?
i think the us are in general a more violent society and this opinion of mine is reinforced by the fact that statistics i thought to be high (the one of the city where i live) are in reality lower than the average, as joe explained.
so, rn, it could well be that the poor italian women fear reporting the daily violence they suffer from their husbands as they know that this would lead nowhere and to even more violence but it could as well be true that in the us it is more frequent for people to use violent means to get what they want (now i know where the us foreign policy comes from...).
in all honesty i believe it is a little bit of both.
the court system here works better and the punishment for [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) crimes are truly proportioned to their gravity which is probably the reason for more reports (and for more abuse of this system).
in italy a more severe law has been in discussion for over 10 years now, and the catholic representation in parliament (which is cross-party and therefore always in majority) cannot agree to include in the law the [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) within the sacred-family circle. so they boycot it and the result is that we are stuck with an old law that allows rapers to get away with their crimes relatively easily (which could partially be a reason why fewer crimes are reported).
finally, i am sure there are cultures where the women are generally submitted to their husbands but when talking about western europe there shouldn't be any problem in comparing statistics with the us (or australia) as i believe the overall social patterns are the same.
hey guys,
here in the u.s., we're seeing the slow decline of good, clean fun available in ways it traditionally has, and i think it's posing some legitimate problems.
nowadays, you get popped for dui, you get loud and fight with the old lady and the cops come, you pick up a sw, whatever....you're life is pretty much ruined. your name is in the paper, your job is in jeopardy, you're generally a pariah castaway from your family and friends and bosses.
at the same time these high walls of morality are being erected (no pun intended) we're being bombarded by sexuality in the media more than ever! it's kind of like a kettle of water put on the stove while the temperature gets cranked up slowly higher and higher. there's no safe place for a guy to "blow off steam" anymore, lest he wind up living on macaroni and cheese at the ymca while he does the unemployment/divorce tango at the same time.
not excusing [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) here by any means, but a guy can only tolerate so much. keep closing down the strip joints, peep shows, hooker strolls and massage parlors and goddamned girl scouts won't be safe selling cookies door to door anymore.
europeans have for centuries accepted the fact that a certain segment of their population is going to participate in bad behavior (be it drugs, prostitution, whatever). instead of wasting their energies shovelling sand against the sea, they focus on containing it as best they can in areas they can monitor it.
and don't go giving me this line about "the negative effects" such leniancy has on the rest of their culture. european children trounce american kids in school scores. europeans live better quality of life with attention paid to family, arts, and entertainment. and yeah, they even suffer fewer instances of heart disease and live longer too!
i love my country, but man we get our moral panties in a bunch way too easy.
originally posted by stranger99
well, there are always 2 ways of looking at things.
for example: the number of inmates in the us is ridicolously higher than any other western country.
what does this mean?
does it mean that that the us are a more violent society or does that mean that in the other countries people get away with crimes more easily?
well, it really pisses me off when people say the us is a violent country and i want to beat the shit out of people like that.
but seriously, the reasons for our ridiculously high prison population are
1) the drug laws.
2) racism and bias in sentencing.
3) racism and bias in sentencing people for drug crimes.
4) (and rising in importance) the private prison lobby.
now on the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) thing: yes, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is a crime of domination and not sexually motivated in many cases. no sane guy is going to go out and [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) someone because he can't get laid. that is why the god in whom rn and i do not believe created his greatest gift, jacking off. it is the gift you give yourself.
but and you can flame me all day and all night and i don't care, a lot of these reported [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) are total bullshit. there is no way that some of these alleged statistics are true. 50% or more of all women being victims of a "sexual assault"? come on. now if we define "sexual assault" as i grabbed your ass one time when we were both drunk, maybe. shit happens. people make mistakes. signals get misunderstood.
my sister was raped at knifepoint when she was walking home from her job at burger king in a quiet, low-crime, bucolic university town similar to jz's (purdue). she was 15. now that's [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). it's not [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) if you have ten beers and i have ten beers and we fuck and the next morning you decide it wasn't a good idea after all. it's also not [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) if we are fucking and i am two strokes from coming and you tell me to stop, and i don't.
now [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) within marriage is a stickier issue. yes, you married me and there is an implied or perhaps even legally explicit promise of sex. but, if you withhold sex frequently and unreasonably, should i use physical force to get sex from you? in my opinion, no. you should see a qualified, professional prostitute and then divorce the *****.
however, this is complicated by the possibility of being taken to the cleaners financially in the divorce. i should say that i am divorced and my wife did not attempt to do this, so this is not sour grapes.
some men are thieves. some women are thieves. due to physical differences, men would be more likely to stick up a liquor store with their finger in their pocket while women would be more likely to attempt to extort money by claiming [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). neither of these scenarios describes the majority of men and women in any country where i have spent time.
i don't understand [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and the subject doesn't interest me particularly. but, this whole "date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)" thing has given women yet another card to play, and it has gotten out of hand.
this is my opinion and is not meant to be presented as immutable fact.
dickhead
date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats do need scrutiny as they are an inflammatory issue, and particularly as the first major study on the issue (which had its stats as being well over 60% of college women being victims of sexual assault) ended up being a complete farce and damaged serious consideration of the issue for quite a while -- they'd defined sexual assault in completely ridiculous ways (such as "unwanted looking") and it got lots of play. (flawed methodology and unwarranted conclusions in studies is one of my pet peeves, and i look at those aspects a lot.) but i've also looked a bit at some of the other studies, and their methodology seems to be fairly solid. and the assent on the numbers is fairly universal -- it's not just women's groups who are citing them.
booze is definitely a serious contributing factor, but from what i've read, it's more likely that the guy was drinking than the girl -- 75% to about half -- it may well be that a lack of correct signal reading and lowering of inhibitions is greater on the male side, to an extent every bit as great or greater than "buyer's regret" (though that's speculation) especailly given that a woman has to go through a fairly humiliating process to report a [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). so a contributing factor to the he said/she said equation may be a guy's inability to properly understand the nuances of "no." while two people getting drunk and screwing is certainly nothing new, it may very much be [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) if i have ten beers and she has none and i know she wanted to sleep with me and that her protests were just part of a charming seduction ritual, cause i know how damn charming i am when i'm drunk.
even if you cut the percentage of every single [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistic in half as a way of ruling out the potentially bogus ones, they're still appallingly high.
i agree with dickhead on the prison side of things, and would add political grandstanding in lawmaking and sentencing to the list. and no disagreement with lynntrash that the fun quotient has been declining here, hence my original query about legalized prostitution and [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistics.
just to clarify one thing i said, when i said "reported" [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124), i did not necessarily mean reported to the police. i was more meaning "reported" in the sense of women who reported (in a survey or whatever) having been raped.
dh
the problem i have with date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is the fact that it is usually not [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) at all. at least, imho, the girls that do get "raped" were asking for it. no, i don't mean they secretly wanted to get raped. i mean that they said no, but went back for more, so to speak.
for example: two people meet at a bar and are a little tipsy. they go back to his place and start to make out. they are passionately necking and petting. he gets her top off, but as soon as his hand gets in her pants, she says no.
at this point, no should mean no. the girl has a moral obligation to end all activities at that point, get up, and leave. if she does anything else at that point, like get back to the business of making out, then she is giving implied consent. because, what the guy hears her saying is that "i am just playing hard to get, i really want you, but i don't want you to think that i'm easy."
if you say no, and really mean no, then do something about it. if you say no, and don't want to have sex, then you need to leave so that there is no question whatsoever as to your motives.
if the girl says no, and stops all sexual activity, but the guy continues, then it is [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and the guy should be castrated.
but, if the girl continues this cat and mouse game, saying no, then going back for more, then she gets what she deserves if she winds up getting the shaft!
i don't believe a woman should ever be forced to have sex. everyone should have the right to say no and mean it. but, if you do say no, get yourself out of the situation quickly, to avoid any unpleasantness.
--just some thoughts
So you're saying that saying "no" to intercourse means an immediate "no" to all activity such as necking and petting, which has been going on to that point? I put my hand on her crotch and she either has to screw me or leave? So because she doesn't want to sleep with me at that point, my existing fun also has to grind to a halt? Uggh -- I don't want to live in your world.
CBGBConnisur
10-04-02, 00:34
Maybe the US has higher crime because people don't seem to get enough sexual intimacy and that makes people uptight. Though that is not a total solution, Brazil has a very laid back attitude towards sex but it is one of the most violent societies on the planet, in fact the most dangerous US cities are much safer than any comparable Brazilian city. Rio De Janeiro, Brazil had almost 7000 murders in one year!!! The causes of violence are more complicated than simply a lack of sex.
how about if you meet a gal at a bar or wherever and she agrees to come back to your house, but then decides she doesn't want to fuck (after she already said she did want to)? of course that does not entitle you to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) her, but my question is: are you obligated to take her home? this has happened to me a few times and i always did take her back to her car or whatever, but recently it happened, and i was sober enough to drive when we went to my house, but after a few additional drinks i did not feel like i was.
what is my obligation? i have a hard time seeing why i should pay for a cab in this situation. i told her to just sleep on the couch but she said she was "afraid to." not afraid to come home with me but afraid to sleep on my couch??? i offered to call a cab, and did, and then she said she needed money for the cab. i told her i needed a ferrari and went in my room and locked the door. i have no idea what she did.
i don't agree with the poster who said she has a duty to leave once she decides she doesn't want to fuck, but i am sure as hell entitled to kick her out of my house if she pulls that shit. aren't i?
The Virgin Terr
10-04-02, 03:23
dickhead, i think you're right regarding the situation you just described, and i also think you were right on about the reasons america imprisons so many. it's also worth noting i think the fact that "primitive" non-hierarchical, non-sexually repressive cultures in which most property is communally owned and shared, such as native americans, had virtually no crime or need for criminal sanctions.
regarding this [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) discussion, i recall reading some professional "expert" citing data which suggested that a direct correlation exists between the amount of sexual repression and the amount of sexual violence in different societies. this seems likely to be true in my view. anyone have anything to add, such as more specific knowledge of any such data or studies on the subject?
heebie jeebie talked about brazil being violent, which it for sure is, but i wonder if they have much [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123).
god, there is this brazilian gal in my spanish class who is so foxy and sexy and friendly and married ...
joe_zop, i wasn't saying that you have to stop your activities as soon as you reach for her crotch and she says no. i was just pointing out that if a girl says no, then goes back to necking and petting then she deserves to be fucked because she is asking for it.
my point was that the girl cannot call [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), after the fact, if she said no, then didn't leave. in my world, if a girls says no, but comes back for more, then she is getting fucked. but, if she says no, and means no, then she should get the fuck out.
let me state that i agree with jz that the incidence of "true" [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is indeed high here in the united states. this is in no way inconsistent with my earlier statement that the incidence of "bullshit" [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) is high as well, at least in my view.
i agree with a lot of what vt says as well. i usually agree with vt, and i often agree with jz, and i usually agree with rn but even when i don't i usually admire her approach.
but i am an unregenerate dickhead, so i have to say that women have an innate advantage due to being sitting on a million dollars. we are overlooking this and shouldn't, in my view. the penis is a superior instrument as far as urination is concerned, but fails in comparison with the vagina in most other aspects. the vagina is more easily protected and less prone to injury, especially during a street fight, and cannot be easily detached by a psychotic lover in the middle of the night.
i believe this is significant since it may be the case that our physical vulnerability makes us more aggressive in order to defend ourselves.
how about this: testosterone is a natural source of aggressive behavior. socialization seeks to control this. control leads to resentment. resentment of control causes or leads to sexual misbehavior among those who are inadequately socialized.
proposed solution? safe and legal prostitution readily available at a reasonable price.
just throwing that out there. i am inadequately socialized, but the inadequate upbringing that led to the inadequate socialization led me to prefer to fight with other men rather than beat up or [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) women and i am not quite sure why.
dh
brazil may have more violence than most us cities but they are not of the nature of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). the nature of violence in brazil is usually about money and debt. the people in the fevelas which is the concentrated poor population of brazil (which is why you never take the bus that passes the downtown area), commit violent crimes which are related to hold ups and carjacking because they want money so this is the quickest way to get it. brazil is more laid back sexually so there is a much lower [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistic than even the safest city in the us but the violence is greater than that of detroit, mi because there is a higher concentration of lower class people. when people go to rio, tourists are shown only the upper class of this city and the bus tours never stops at the fevelas where all the violent crimes are concentrated. also, never argue with a brazilian guy against his favorite soccer team, this can get you a bottle on your head. the us because of its strict and puritan laws against prostitution and sex is still the highest in [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) related crimes.
dickhead, your approach is a very nice encapsulation about what i was leading toward in bringing up this topic in the first place (i can hardly wait to see rn's massive and, as promised, rep001hing, response to all this stuff.) let's face it, society is basically a construct wherein base desire is all forms (from murder to greed to whatever) is partially curbed in return for some promised degree of comfort and safety. it's the degree of curbing and control that's always at issue.
boxcc said -- "i was just pointing out that if a girl says no, then goes back to necking and petting then she deserves to be fucked because she is asking for it."
see, that's where we diverge. to me, what she's asking for in this situation, after she's made clear that things are not going to escalate to intercourse, is more necking and petting. if a guy can't handle that it's up to him to back off -- i don't buy the "excited beyond all control" excuse. if that's true then you ought to stay home and whack off as opposed to interact with others. otherwise this is an impossible slippery slope -- she "asked for it" because she didn't stop kissing him even after she said no to going any further, because she was in the room with him alone, because she walked out with him, because she kissed him, let him feel her up, wore those clothes, etc. there's a difference between being in a hot and heavy makeout session with someone and necessarily being with someone who's prick-teasing, though of course at times they overlap
and let me say that there's nothing wrong from my perspective with a little prick-teasing in any event, as long as the ground rules and limits are clear enough. i know we've gotten far past it these days, but i personally think seduction rituals and teasing are good things, and can add to the experience. play is play, and even someone who leads you on doesn't somehow forfeit the right to say no. (and since in truth she's saying "not now" as opposed to "never" that can also be alluring.) can that be frustrating? hell yes!!! -- heightening desire is precisely the point. is that grounds for telling her to take a hike? up to you, and certainly moreso if it's something that keeps happening and you're feeling like she's not worth either the wait, frustration or pursuit. is it grounds for forcible entry? not in either my eyes or those of the law. look -- if you kick her out (with or without taxi fare, depending on your level of discontent) or break up with her because you're tired of being teased and not fulfilled, it's not as if it's not clear why it's happening. then it's up to her to decide how she wants to respond to what is essentially a choice about having sex or calling the relationship off. there's nothing in that equation that hasn't played out a million times, from high school onward -- it underlies the whole dating scene.
i'd take one of dickhead's (great, as usual) statements further -- not only does control leads to resentment, but frustration leads to greater desire for control. and control is what [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is all about. my original postulation was precisely that -- legalized prostitution could lead to a lower degree of frustration, thereby leading to a lowered need for control, thereby leading to a smaller incidence of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), particularly date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). if your girl has left you high and dry, and you in the back of your mind is the knowledge that you can simply head out and buy relief, then your urge to force the issue could be dissipated.
Originally posted by joe_zop
[And let me say that there's nothing wrong from my perspective with a little prick-teasing in any event, as long as the ground rules and limits are clear enough. I know we've gotten far past it these days, but I personally think seduction rituals and teasing are good things [/i]
I think "seduction rituals" are very different than prick teasing. We disagree on this issue. Although, I don't think saying you just want to make out and pet and don't want to fuck is prick teasing IF this is really what you mean.
Prick teasing is sort of like what Potter Stewart said about obscenity. I can't give you an exact definition, but I know it when I see it. And, I think it is damaging to the entire dynamic of male/female relationships.
If you think about how the average American grows up, women are always telling him "no": first Mommy, then grade school teachers, crossing guards, school bus drivers (mostly women these days), and finally postpubescent girls.
Whereas, oftentimes Daddy lets you do more fun dangerous stuff than Mommy does, your football coach encourages you to be aggressive, and your guys friends are always encouraging you to DO stuff, never to NOT do stuff.
I think this may be significant.
DH
While I generally classify making out and petting as foreplay, I don't think foreplay necessarily always ends in play itself, and making out and petting can be fully entered into with no intents of going any further than a mutual degree of excitement and enjoyment. My comment about prick-teasing in that context was not because I think making out is prick-teasing, but because it's a common epithet hurled at women who make out and don't screw.
And as far as prick-teasing goes, please note that I said "a little." I completely agree that hard-core prick-teasers -- who get their jollies out of teasing and exciting men and who have no intention of ever going through with anything other than saying "no" -- are damaging to the male/female dynamic. (Speaking of issues of control and power...)
But I see nothing wrong with a moderate degree of "you know you want me, you've gotta earn it" activity. That's fun.
And I agree with you completely about the roles of yes and no in society. It might be that women tend to say no because they are generally the ones later saddled with cleaning up the various messes that result from stuff guys encourage each other to do. :)
originally posted by joe_zop
it might be that women tend to say no because they are generally the ones later saddled with cleaning up the various messes that result from stuff guys encourage each other to do. :)
agree and brings me to my pet peeve. i go to méjico a lot and i meet women and i ask if they are married and they say, "sí pero se fue." (yes, but he took off).
so my pet peeve is guys who are not responsible about birth control and think it is a big joke and not their problem and then don't support their kids. not only is this just flat ass wrong, but it makes it harder for a guy like me to get laid. this falls under the heading of leaving the woman to clean up the mess that the guy contributed to making.
sometimes i'll be asked if i have kids and when i say no, some guy will say, "that you know of, ha ha." i hate that, and it's not true in my case, and i always call them on it. one guy said to me that any guy who says he is sure he has no kids is either a liar or a faggot. by the time that fucker regains consciousness, his clothes will be out of style.
not only was my vasectomy the best money i ever spent, but my ex-wife paid for half of it. and, before i had it, i never had unprotected sex, not even once.
in the bahamas they have a thing called "out-children." these are children that married men father by women other than their wives, and they feel no obligation to support them, although they mostly try to support the children they have with their wives. i never understood this until i learned how the country was settled. plantation owners from the carolinas sailed there with their slaves to see if the land was good for growing cotton. it wasn't, so the plantation owners sailed away in the middle of the night and left the slaves there. that was because life, in the form of slaves, was so cheap that it was more economical to buy new slaves when they returned than it was to feed the slaves on the return voyage.
in the us, if you see a kid who is half black and half white, it is a fairly safe assumption the father is black and the mother is white (at least 90% of the time would be my guess). in jamaica, it is the opposite. so, the black kids pick on the mulatto kids, because the assumption is that if your dad was white, he was a john and so yo mama's a ho.
what goes around, comes around. pussy should be on a rack by the door like anything else. clean up your own fucking messes, guys.
Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 04:29
ello boys :) i'm back...
boxcc,
i have the same problem with your comments as some of the guys seem to have. why should a no to sex mean a no to any other sexual activity? i mean really...if she says no to any touching, she's a frigid b*tch who's not worth your time, but if she says she wants to play around a little, she's gotta be prepared to go all the way? what happened to the thrill of the chase? and surely the promise of sex at some point in the future, is better than nothing at all? to tell the truth, if i thought that all men thought like that...that if you continue kissing and playing then you deserve to be raped...i would be too afraid to go near a man at all.
re: "implied consent". does that mean you can anally [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) a prostitute after she agrees to have vaginal sex with you? what about if she agrees to sex with a condom...is she still consenting if you take the condom off half way through? when a woman signs marriage papers, does she automatically agree to violent, forced sex? in my opinion, if you and i were necking on the couch and i said "we've only just met so i don't want to have sex yet, but can we just fool around until i get to know you better?", i have given "impled consent" for a future meeting. are you really gonna ruin those chances of a future relationship by saying that i either have to leave or be raped?
and here's another scenario i'd like to hear your opinion on...
a few years ago, i went home with a man. we had fooled around all night at the club, then went back to his place and fucked for a couple of hours. all with my consent. then i said i had to leave. he said he wanted me to stay for a while longer, and i said no. he slammed the bedroom door, belted me across the face, threw me face down on the bed and fucked me. he rammed me so hard, and for so long, that my inner thighs were bruised afterwards. so were my arms from all the struggling. and he didn't use a condom this time. was i raped, or did i give "implied consent" by being there in the first place?
originally posted by rn
ello boys :) i'm back...
and here's another scenario i'd like to hear your opinion on...
a few years ago, i went home with a man. we had fooled around all night at the club, then went back to his place and fucked for a couple of hours. all with my consent. then i said i had to leave. he said he wanted me to stay for a while longer, and i said no. he slammed the bedroom door, belted me across the face, threw me face down on the bed and fucked me. he rammed me so hard, and for so long, that my inner thighs were bruised afterwards. so were my arms from all the struggling. and he didn't use a condom this time. was i raped, or did i give "implied consent" by being there in the first place?
that is [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and the guy is a psycho. i just don't understand men who hit women, let alone [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) them. even though i grew up with a lot of violence, there was no hitting women in my family (although the women hit the men). i myself will fight anyone who fucks with me no matter how big they are, and i have a bad temper, but i have never even come close to hitting a woman. it is just anathema to me. why is that?
but i have always attracted masochistic women who liked to be tied up and shit like that (my ex liked to be choked during sex - very scary but i aim to please). the ex also had [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) fantasies and was always trying to get me to do the fake [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) shit. i could not get it up under those conditions (although i have no problem with tying a gal up if that's what she wants). you would think that might anesthetize me towards violence with women but in truth it was just something i did because they wanted it (same with anal but now i refuse to do that).
i have read and heard that many prostitutes have a history of physical and sexual abuse, but maybe that's a us thing. i think it is probable that a majority of us hookers are drug addicts but did they become hookers to get drug money (my bet) or drug addicts to deal with being hookers (don't think so)? whereas, most other places i've been, the majority of hookers did not seem to be drug addicts and thus i conclude they become hookers cuz there are no other jobs. maybe if you're a junkie people can beat on you all day and all night and you don't really care?
i never really believed that say violence on tv could cause violent behavior, but i am beginning to think i may be wrong. a constant media bombardment of violence and gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence and gratuitous violent sex, be it rap music, movies, or whatever maybe just rubs off after a while and since on tv you don't see and smell the blood and get it all over you, maybe you just get desensitized. you read about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and violence but you don't as often have to deal with first hand. so maybe the perpetrators of some of this stuff have the inchoate concept that she will be fine in time for the next episode?
because when i am in a fight and i smell blood, my own or the other guy's, something snaps in my head and i go over to the dark side ....
Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 05:43
joe,
originally i said that many people claim that prostitution reduces [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)...
what upsets me more than anything is the comment that usually comes after it. "anyway, prostitutes are used to that sort of thing/they expect it/they can cope with it better/it's part of their job". it doesn't hurt them as much as it does a "normal" woman. surely you can't say that you've never heard that argument made?? and it's reaffirmed in the courts. "she's been having sex with strangers for the last five years, so the trauma she suffered from the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), if any, would be significantly less..." that's why i believe that most people think sex workers prevent [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), by being raped. ok, so maybe the law-makers think differently. but if you ask most people on the street why they believe prostitution stops [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), those are the sorts of answers i've always been given. it burns me up inside.
i'll grant you that violent tendencies in men may come from, or be accelerated by, sexual frustration. but i tend to agree with dickhead in that most men i know would be more likely to start a fight with another man, or drive fast or maybe destroy property, etc, when the anger reaches boiling point, rather than [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or beat a woman. i see sex crimes as something very different. i mean, if a man was really angry and just wanted to lash out, why wouldn't he just beat me to a pulp? i've always seen [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) as a very "personal" attack...and it goes much further than just control. it's the ultimate act of masculine domination. it's not just a show of physical strength or power...like a sound beating would prove...but a reinforcement of "the power of the penis" if you will. "i am gonna put my dick right inside you...and there is fuck all you can do about it. i'm gonna show you who's boss". the same goes for male to male [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and although there are two men involved, i believe the "take this" mentality is still a part of it. a [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) doesn't just hurt your body like in the case of a beating...he invades your body. it's a punishment, and an assertion of dominance.
that's why i don't believe that having access to "normal" sex with a sex worker would change that. maybe it would even accelerate it? could a man who goes to a sex worker...thinking she is a filthy piece of shit and he's gonna degrade her and victimise her further by fucking her...be annoyed when she doesn't respond in the manner that he expected? when she bows to his every whim and treats him like a number, would he decide that the only way to attain the level of control he's looking for is to find a "good" woman? can [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) a prostitute...regardless of how traumatised and humiliated she is...really satisfy a [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) who, like most of the population, doesn't believe a prostitute can really be raped? just a thought...
anyway, i think that there would be at least one correlation between legal prostitution and [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)...and that would be societal attitudes to sex. in places where prostitution is legal and largely accepted as "normal", the community is probably more likely to have a more relaxed attitude to sex in general. my theory is that men from sexually repressed cultures believe very much in the "good girl, bad girl" stereotype. one motivation for [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) would be to turn a good girl into a bad girl against her will...to humiliate her by "soiling" her. in countries with a more liberal view of women's sexuality, being a bad girl is not so degrading so that particular motivation is removed. however, i don't think legal prostitution contributes to that in any real way...the societal attitudes had to already be relaxed in order for prostitution to become legal in the first place.
so i stand by my original statement...the only way prostitution keeps the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) rates down is by hookers being raped instead of the good girls. and i must add here too, that when hookers get raped, it is rarely ever "just" a [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). because of the "prostitutes can't be raped" mentality, to achieve the same sense of control that the [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) would feel over a normal woman, he has to do a lot more damage. hookers are often anally raped, raped with foreign objects like baseball bats and broken bottles, beaten severely, pissed and shat on, gang raped, etc...whatever they can do to make it as different to a normal booking as they can. why just have "normal" sex with a "normal" woman and risk getting caught, when you can have all that fun with a hooker and get away with it??
go for it joe...you're so sexy when you're being argumentative... ;) heh heh
Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 06:08
Dickhead,
I would be very wary of ANY statistics on sex workers and their history of drug/sexual abuse. You need to remember that most of those "stats" come from welfare agencies, drug agencies, crisis centres and the criminal justice system. They are usually the only point of contact with sex workers and of course, those particular sex workers are in crisis situations when they arrive in those places. The more "professional" women who work independently or for brothels are less likely to ever end up in those situations, and therefore they never make it into any surveys or research projects. Also, illegal sex workers keep their heads down and stay away from any authority that may be collecting data, for fear or prosecution.
In studies done by Australian sex worker agencies...who have access to both legal and illegal sex workers, who can talk without fear of exposure or prosecution...have collected stats that show a very different picture of the sex industry. Those studies found that around 80% of all street-based workers are drug dependent, (and yes, their dependency was the reason they started working, not the other way round), BUT street based workers make up only around 2% or the sex industry here. I have read that it's about 10% in America, but either way it's certainly the minority. Stats for the ENTIRE industry suggest that drug use and child sexual abuse is the SAME as in the general community. As a matter of fact, there is a LOT more drug use in the entertainment industry (nightclubs and pubs) and the transport industry, than there is in the sex industry. The biggest problems occur in the street workers, who are often victims of extreme poverty, violence, homelessness and drug abuse before they start working. Being the most visible side of prostitution, people see that stuff and lump all sex workers in the same box with them.
"Whereas, most other places I've been, the majority of hookers did not seem to be drug addicts and thus I conclude they become hookers cuz there are no other jobs."
Not so. Many women (probably the majority in my opinion), are hookers because there are no other jobs THAT PAY SO MUCH. Women don't really have that sort of earning capacity in any other job, especially if they have children or have no tertiary education. Even if you DO have other abilities...I have formal qualifications in a few different fields...sex work is a way to earn large amounts of money in a short amount of time, which means more time with the kids and more time to enjoy your money! I have worked with women from all sorts of professional fields...real estate agents, teachers, nurses, and heaps of students who are studying to be lawyers, psychologists, doctors, etc. When faced with the choice between a 40 hour week in a supermarket earning $450, and a 20 hour week earning well over a grand...which would you choose?
The Virgin Terr
10-05-02, 06:57
i think sexual repression is highly correlated with female repression, socially speaking. islamic societies are probably the most repressive in the world, and women there have virtually no rights. this is because the burden of repression falls almost totally on women, and merely being attractive is considered an immoral and punishable offense, except within the privacy of the marital bedroom. to me sexual repression and all it's attendant misery, such as male frustration at not getting laid, and violence against females who cross the ridiculous boundaries placed around so-called "good girls", is pure evil. humanity is evil and will always be so unless and until it can acknowledge that sex is one of the best things in life, something to be celebrated and indulged, not vilified.if i could i'd make it a requirement for everyone to participate in public sex on a regular basis to ensure that the sick evil which is sexual puritanism could no longer exist.
rn, of course you were raped in the incident recently described. i don't give a shit how many times you've had sex with the guy, or how recently, you have the right to leave when you want. regarding your assertion that prostitutes get raped instead of "good girls", there's probably validity to that i'm sure, but i think you're still missing the point some of us are trying to make, which is that in a hypothetical sexually free culture (which doesn't exist to my knowledge), prostitution would not only be legal, it would also be as legitimate form of sexual activity as state sanctioned marital sex is currently. there would be absolutely no stigma involved. since this is hypothetical this is only conjecture, but it is my belief that if such conditions actually existed, there would be absolutely no sexual animosity of any kind, and the idea of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) would be simply unthinkable. we'd live in a utopian world, or as near to that as possible.
Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 07:57
terry,
re: a sexually free society would have less [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). your comment is pretty much exactly what i said in my post to joe. what i was trying to say was that in my opinion, even if prostitution is legal in a country, it's existence is not the factor that lowers [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistics. i would presume that if a country has a tolerant view of prostitution, it probably already had relaxed views on sex. and it would be those relaxed views that contribute to a lower number of sex attacks, rather than the fact that prostitution is legal. (hmmm that sounds like double-dutch, even to me!!) :-)
i don't know that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) would be wiped out completely though. certainly the idea of humiliating a woman by "soiling" her would lose it's power, and maybe many cases of date-[CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) would disappear if men knew they could readily get sex somewhere else instead of [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) their date, but the power trip that comes from forcing someone to do something they don't want to do will always be there. and there will always be women who do not want to have sex with every man who demands it, even in your sexual utopia. regardless of whether a society is totally relaxed about sex or not, women will always be wary of having sex indiscriminately because of the consequences of sex that we have to bear. obviously pregnancy is the big one, and there is also the fact that we are at much more risk of disease being the receptive partner. and yes, (as much as i hate to admit it!! lol), women are, in most cases, the "weaker sex". a man who feels the need to vent but doesn't have the balls to fight someone his own size, will still end up taking it out on a woman...even in a sexually liberated society.
welcome back, rn (as though you've been gone for an immense period lol!)
first, no question that you were raped -- the very definition of an acquaintence [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and points out precisely why it's so hard to prosecute. i'm guessing you didn't report it, which again speaks to the statistical reality. and my attitude is the same as dickhead's toward guys who hit and force women -- clearly, their balls are missing because they don't fit in my definition of men. and my sympathies to you -- you're clearly a resiliant and strong person, but an experience like that still has to leave a psychological mark.
next, no question that legalizing prostitution won't stop [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). as i said before, i think that's a straw man argument -- no one really thinks that would happen, and that was never either my point or contention. bad seeds are bad seeds, but there are also varying levels of tendencies toward social aggression and acting out, and the fact that there's a bunch of men walking around with rage toward women (or themselves, or the fact the cereal ran out this morning, or whatever) doesn't mean it's necessarily going to manifest itself in [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123).
i agree with you completely, rn, that people on the street may well think that prostitutes reduce [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) of "normal" women by becoming targets, and i agree that hardcore [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) who feel the need to degrade women are unlikely to be deterred, and i agree with most of what you've said, but that wasn't what i asked, was it? i asked if you knew of anything that supported a correlation between [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) statistics and legal prostitution. i didn't ask about people's opinions or attitudes, which are all-too-frequently idiotic, and i'm not necessarily a fan of social restructuring based on people-on-the-street interviews. people are more likely to believe in angels than devils, and a quarter of all people in the us believe horoscopes are a valuable source of information about their day. tons of people believe george bush the younger is a capable president. :) what people believe is often far different from what is true.
it may very well be, as vt eloquently stated, that there's a connection between [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and overall societal repression around sex, and that having legalized prostitution is one piece of evidence that supports that. but we all know that there's a degree of chicken and egg in this argument, in that while having legal prostitution may be evidence of a less up-tight society, the act of legalizing it may further contribute to that situation. you have stated here many times that decriminalization helps change the status and perception of sex workers in society, which is an argument that the legal status helps cause social change. i don't see how the distinction is somehow more absolute in the subject of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). we all live in a world with colors other than black and white, and there are tons of contributing factors to equations.
so basically, all i was wondering was whether there was something that compared [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats by countries/regions where prostitution was decriminalized with those where it's not, as i figured to start with facts and then interpret, as opposed to the other way around. and all i said was that having such a correlation would make for a powerful case statement, not that there was some sort of massive conclusion that could necessarily be drawn. i mean, i can just as easily say that the best way to reduce [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is to give everyone an income of over $75kus a year, as that's the group with the lowest reported incidence of all personal crime, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) included. same same on living in a suburb between a quarter and half-a-million population size (though living in a rural area is still safer overall.) again, given that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is all about control, it probably means that those with high incomes and homes that are not stacked next to their obnoxious neighbors generally feel a greater sense of control, and thus are more likely to need to work it out violently. it may mean they've channelled their deviant [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) impulses into the corporate accounting world. i don't know -- i was just asking a question trying to get us back in the general direction of the topic -- i didn't plan on a descent into the seventh ring of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) opinion hell...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN
"Dickhead, I would be very wary of ANY statistics on sex workers and their history of drug/sexual abuse."
This opinion not based on any stats but rather on 30 years of field work. DH
"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
"but either way it's certainly the minority. Stats for the ENTIRE industry suggest that drug use and child sexual abuse is the SAME as in the general community. As a matter of fact, there is a LOT more drug use in the entertainment industry (nightclubs and pubs) and the transport industry, than there is in the sex industry. The biggest problems occur in the street workers, who are often victims of extreme poverty, violence, homelessness and drug abuse before they start working. Being the most visible side of prostitution, people see that stuff and lump all sex workers in the same box with them."
I think you are confusing me with someone who doesn't know anything about prostitution. DH
"[i]"Whereas, most other places I've been, the majority of hookers did not seem to be drug addicts and thus I conclude they become hookers cuz there are no other jobs."
Not so. Many women (probably the majority in my opinion), are hookers because there are no other jobs THAT PAY SO MUCH."
A first world perspective. May be true of hookers in Australia but not in Latin America. DH
"Women don't really have that sort of earning capacity in any other job, especially if they have children or have no tertiary education. Even if you DO have other abilities...I have formal qualifications in a few different fields...sex work is a way to earn large amounts of money in a short amount of time, which means more time with the kids and more time to enjoy your money! I have worked with women from all sorts of professional fields...real estate agents, teachers, nurses, and heaps of students who are studying to be lawyers, psychologists, doctors, etc. When faced with the choice between a 40 hour week in a supermarket earning $450, and a 20 hour week earning well over a grand...which would you choose?"
Well, I have chosen to earn FAR LESS money in order to do a job that is more satisfying to me and more socially valuable, and I am not materialistic, so my viewpoint may differ. But I recently was with a hooker from Colombia who was a chartered accountant. She was working as a hooker not because she could make more money doing that than being an accountant, but because she could not get a job as an accountant AT ALL due to the economic situation in her home country. So again, I think your perspective is highly first world (which is perfectly understandable). DH
Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 17:12
oops...sorry joe. boxcc's comments threw me completely off the beaten track. i got back online and read all the posts, but when it came to actually responding, only his stuck in my head. :)
to bring me right back to my original answer to your question...no, i don't know of any hard facts on whether legalisation of prostitution reduces the rate of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). i would think it would be difficult to get completely accurate stats about that sort of thing anyway...because the creation of a legal sex industry (not decriminalised) usually causes an illegal industry to flourish along with it. with an illegal industry still operating, any benefits that may come from the legal industry may still be overshadowed.
decriminalisation is a little bit tricky to find stats on too, because from most of what i have read, not too many places have actually officially decriminalised their sex industry. in most cases it was either once illegal and then made legal, or it was never illegal in the first place. i know i read some things about the crime rate in sydney after decriminalisation (because i remember them saying that crimes committed by women dropped quite dramatically), so i'm trying to find that stuff as we speak, to see if they mention [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats.
and anyway, as for the tangent i went off on...yes, i know it was definitely [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and no, i didn't report it, because i figured that i would be blamed for being there in the first place. i just mentioned it because i wanted to point out that "implied consent" wasn't quite as straight forward as boxcc suggested.
originally posted by rn
"i see sex crimes as something very different. i mean, if a man was really angry and just wanted to lash out, why wouldn't he just beat me to a pulp? i've always seen [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) as a very "personal" attack...and it goes much further than just control. it's the ultimate act of masculine domination. it's not just a show of physical strength or power...like a sound beating would prove...but a reinforcement of "the power of the penis" if you will. "i am gonna put my dick right inside you...and there is fuck all you can do about it. i'm gonna show you who's boss". the same goes for male to male [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), and although there are two men involved, i believe the "take this" mentality is still a part of it. a [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) doesn't just hurt your body like in the case of a beating...he invades your body. it's a punishment, and an assertion of dominance."
i agree 100%. dh
"in places where prostitution is legal and largely accepted as "normal", the community is probably more likely to have a more relaxed attitude to sex in general."
i disagree 63%. look at all the catholic countries in latin america. prostitution is legal or tolerated and "normal" but attitudes towards sex are not relaxed (brazil may be an exception; i havn't been there). there, it is more your good girl bad girl thing. date your good girl on friday night and then go fuck a hooker on saturday night because you certainly wouldn't want to fuck your girlfriend, because then she wouldn't be a good girl. seen it a thousand times in méjico.
an obvious exception would be the netherlands. dh
"my theory is that men from sexually repressed cultures believe very much in the "good girl, bad girl" stereotype."
agree but many of these cultures are the same ones where prostitution is accepted and normal. for the record, i do not think prostitution reduces [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123); it only reduces sexual frustration and therefore may be effective in reducing bar fights, but not [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). dh
>i would think it would be difficult to get completely accurate stats about that sort of thing anyway...because the creation of a legal sex industry (not decriminalised) usually causes an illegal industry to flourish along with it. with an illegal industry still operating, any benefits that may come from the legal industry may still be overshadowed.
well, yes and no. in this case, if there's any correlation between [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats and either a legal or decriminalized sex industry that should still be apparent even if there is still an underground. looking at, say, the rate in the netherlands, nevada, thailand, sydney, brazil, etc. may or may not tell anything, but it would be nice to be able to take a look. one should still be able to see a trend, if it exists, between those countries where prostitution is either not illegal or is more or less officially tolerated and those where it's clearly labeled and treated as criminal.
i've found it incredibly difficult to track down decent [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats by country and region in any event. (not to mention the issue of the veracity of comparative statistics, but one has to start somewhere...)
>i know i read some things about the crime rate in sydney after decriminalisation (because i remember them saying that crimes committed by women dropped quite dramatically), so i'm trying to find that stuff as we speak, to see if they mention [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) stats.
which makes sense -- as part of the thing i've always heard, particularly from street workers, those who are poor, and even moreso from those who are with a drug habit, is that prostitution means they don't have to steal.
and we've clearly got no difference in our definitions of consent. if there's any doubt at all about what's implied, it's simply not consent. 'sides, personally i not only want consent, i want active and enthusiastic participation :d
>"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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
Ah, the semantics of the sex trade! Always confusing :)
Mobile working girls? Perambulating prostitutes? Itinerant hookers? SW squared (Street Walking Sex Workers)? Moving muff?
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] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)! i may have a copy of it at work though, so i'll have a look around on monday.
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] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=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.
[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
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!
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?
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.
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 :D
You mean a mick? I never said that before??
Dick the Mick
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.
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.
Aah Rubbie that really sucks but just remember, the author of this probably has sex once a year in the missionary position under the Christmas tree, and comes after three strokes.
I believe the god in whom neither of believes would say, "Judge ye not, that ye be not judged." The god in whom I do not believe is a merciful god when called for, yet a vengeful god when called for. Mean people like this have much to fear on judgement day.
A large percentage of US prostitutes are in fact drug addicts but I view that as a criticism of the drug laws here more than anything else. Hell, a large percentage of US non-prostitutes are drug addicts. A lot of people would say I'm a drug addict because I drink a lot and like to smoke pot. I won't deny it. Denial is a river in Egypt as far as I am concerned. Others are strung out on work, legalized gambling, or the strongest and most dangerous drug of all, religion.
When I dropped out of high school, my mother advised me that I would be pumping gas (petrol, Rubbie, not farts) for the rest of my life. Then she said, "If you're going to be a gas station attendant, at least be a good gas station attendant." I am fairly confident that if I had told her I was going to be a prostitute, she would have said, "Well, at least be a good prostitute." And I bet you are! It's not the job you do, it's how you do it.
To quote Cheech and Chong: "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Then, I found the Lord. Now, I'm all messed up on the Lord."
Dickhead
RN, whether or not your response letter makes it into the paper, I'm pretty sure it would be welcomed here, though having the good grace to actually be on topic we might not know what to make of it :D
Rubber Nursey
10-09-02, 10:12
errr...ok. i wrote a letter back that was a lot more "friendly" and to the point than i felt like being at the time, but i figured it was better that way. i just used all his/her words in quotes. the paper comes out in a couple of days i think...i'll let you know if they print it or not. i've wiped out the name of the writer (as much as i'd like to see him/her humiliated for writing it), in case you're wondering what all the ******s are for.
according to ****** "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 ". really...well, isn't it also a "well known fact" that all car salesmen are liars, all aboriginals are drunks, and all ethnic men are [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127)? i'm sure "we all know" that all muslims are terrorists and all priests are paedophiles, right? stereotypes are dangerous and cruel, ******. they are conceived in ignorance and fear and propagated by misinformed and judgemental people such as yourself. how dare you call fellow human beings "low class individuals" and suggest that they are not "useful" members of society, and then have the nerve to consider yourself "charitable"! obviously your idea of moral decency is very different to mine.
and just out of interest, you may be surprised to learn that the tax department actually has a special audit section that deals specifically with the sex industry. the government doesn't care whether your job is legal or illegal...income is income, and the ato wants a piece of it regardless. sex workers, even though they receive no employee benefits, superannuation or employment protection in return, contribute millions of tax dollars to our state every year. so, ******, next time medicare pays for your doctor's bill, or you receive government subsidised childcare or more funding is given to schools or roads or hospitals...spare a thought for the "moral degenerates" who helped make that happen.
pathetic, i know...but it's the best i could do in a fit of rage, without using any four-letter words. *grin*
Your approach is a very solid strategy -- not only would you simply be dismissed by the writer and other readers if you were too incendiary, you'd likely not be printed. I've just gone through a rather similar (and prolonged, with multiple letters on both sides) exchange in a local paper with someone from the religious right who is against teaching condom use in schools, using a misreading of a scientific survey to support her position, which has has been what I attacked as opposed to the fact that she's a complete idiot. Reasonable, lightly chiding, and factual is the only way to go, I think. My only suggestion would have been to use some of the addiction stats you've presented here in support of the stereotype statement, but I love the way at the end you tied in tax support of other programs and place sex workers firmly in the column of financially responsible citizens.
Rubber Nursey
10-09-02, 16:12
these people have been exposed to the stats over and over again. the last letter that i had published gave stats on street worker numbers, drug use and sti rates...the comments that followed suggested that "anyone can manipulate stats to support their cause". it shits me, because the "80% of all sex workers are drug addicts" stat gets wheeled out by every anti-prostitution activist (which is actually a legitimate street worker figure, not an overall industry figure) and it's taken as gospel. i've decided from that now on, the only tactics i'm gonna use are a) make people see sex workers as human, and b) make people realise how the prostitution laws can be used on the community and not just the sex industry.
another tactic that's proving very successful at the moment is the feminist angle. for example, the inner city police recently stated "it's easy to spot a sex worker because of the way they dress. if they live in the area, and we know some of them do, we tell them that they need to change their clothes if they are just going down the shops". women are horrified when they hear this. it's the 'women in short skirts deserve to be raped' thing all over again. when we point out that non-working women are being stopped on the streets on a regular basis by police and then being blamed for dressing "provocatively" when they complain, it really hits home. it takes the emphasis off the prostitutes and onto the law...which is where we really want people to focus their energy right now.
RN, big hugs - sorry I have not been able to post for a long time, but it has been getting awkward with all the tech changes in this forum.
Anyway, your posts would definately qualify for a Ph.D in sociology and a professorate if viewed from a purely academic stand (this is not a joke). Bad news - they are not viewed like that and you know it.
For some reason, sex is a taboo area even in modern western society.
In Scandinavia, p4p is prohibited and criminalised in Sweden, and the other countries are considering the same.
We all agree that there is a connection between prostitution, drugs and organised crime. The word is pimps and pimping mafias. They exist.
I have been fortunate enough to avoid this part of the industry. My experiences mainly extend to expensive night club hookers in European cities - quality experience for all sakes (chicas from all over the world - ridiculously expensive but a full night of the real thing in exchange) - no faking and no hustling.
I have also tried on the "non-professional" scene (BS!) e.g. in Russia - big fun too.
Most of the girls I met in these scenes were actually sober, intelligent, adventure-seeking people who had the sense to make a buck too. In other words lovely girls.
Government employees do not understand this. They are people who seek a low-risk, low-excitement life. They also, unfortunately, represent the majority.
So, consequently, people employed in government tend to dislike risk-takers (ban by law base skydiving, mountain climbing and any other stuff that may tend to go wrong), adventure seekers (we want to live a quiet and safe life), and sexually adventurous people who like to have sex (that is indulging in pleasure - life is supposed to be one of suffering....)
This is what you are really up against RN - not politics as you see it or common sense - but people who wiew life and how to live it totally different from your wiews.
That said, I have a lot of memorable experiences, and great times with girls of "the oldest profession" who maybe matched my desire for adventure and life way more than anyone else. I once said on the board that you would make a great mom for anyone's kids RN - and I maintain that opinion. Very much.
Rubber Nursey
10-10-02, 05:43
traveller! long time, no see babe...welcome back!
ok, you mentioned another pet peeve of mine...one that joe is more than likely to argue with me about *grin*.
"we all agree that there is a connection between prostitution, drugs and organised crime. the word is pimps and pimping mafias. they exist."
i have a bit of a problem with the perceived "connection" between prostitution, drugs and organised crime. i also have a problem with the idea that prostitution and police corruption is "linked". before you all get up in arms and tell me i'm sheltered (dickhead lol), i'll tell you what i mean.
these are separate problems...even the law recognises that. there are penalties for sex slavery, people trafficking, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), pimping, drug use/sale, police corruption, bribery, and running organised crime operations. and then there is a separate punishment for the act of prostitution. the argument often given for the criminalisation of prostitution is that they need to control the "undesirable" aspects of the trade. what they refuse to acknowledge is that those undesirable activities are always separate crimes in themselves.
for example: street workers/kerb crawlers hassling "decent" people on the streets, and having sex in public places...they can be charged with public indecency/lewdness, assault and any number of disorderly conduct charges. they are the acts that were offending the complainant...not the actual act of handing over the money for sex. so why is the street worker slapped with a prostitution charge if the offensive act was not actually the act of prostitution, but the act of having sex in public view?
my biggest problem is with the suggestion of links between prostitution and organised crime or police corruption...the suggestion that one encourages the other. to me, that is like saying that a [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) victim works in cahoots with her [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126). sex workers are the victims in these sorts of situations, not co-conspirators. an example is when police bust a prostitution ring and find heaps of girls that were tricked/drugged/abducted and forced to work as prostitutes in a foreign country. what do the authorities do? bust the syndicate for pandering and kidnap and various other things, and charge the girls with prostitution and deport them! if you took away the fact that those girls had worked as prostitutes, and instead said that they had been kept as sex slaves in a personal "harem", would they have been charged and deported?
police corruption is the same. a policeman comes in and threatens to shut the business down unless he gets some action. the madam, fearing the loss of her business and criminal charges, gives him one of her girls for the hour. the girl, fearing prosecution and the loss of her job, is forced to have sex with the policeman for free. what else can they do? call the police??? if this type of story makes it into the courts, (which as you can imagine, is very rare), the sex industry are to blame. they are charged with bribing a police officer, and the industry is accused of corruption. in this case the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) victim (and she is a [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) victim) really is, quite literally, blamed for coercing her [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126).
as for drugs...that's completely irrelevant to prostitution. the authorities believe there is heaps of drug use in the industry, so it's used as another reason to ban prostitution. that makes f*ck all sense to me. that is exactly the same as saying, "there are too many people using drugs when they go clubbing...lets ban nightclubs". or "there are too many doctors and nurses using speed to keep themselves awake at work...let's ban the night shift in hospitals". there is drug use all over the place. it is not something unique to the sex industry, and in fact, there are other occupations who use drugs more than sex workers do! prostitution is the act of having sex for money. nothing more, nothing less. if there are undesirable activities going on within the industry, they should be dealt with as the separate crimes they are. those other crimes should not be considered when creating sex industry legislation...what should be considered is how the law encourages these types of activities, rather than the sex industry itself.
Now, Rubbie, I never said you were "sheltered." In fact, I doubt that very much. What I have said is that having spent your life in one place, you have a perspective based largely on one place. No more and no less. So do a lot of the Yanks who post on the board. Probably the Pommies do too, but being a Mick I try to ignore them.
Dickhead Needs A Spanking
Rubber Nursey
10-10-02, 07:14
I know...most of what I say is based on one white Aussie woman's experience, and my experiences would be very different to the experiences of other women.
But you have to admit, that kinda proves my point as well. If it is actually the act of prostitution that causes all these problems, why is it that prostitution doesn't have the same effect on ALL women in ALL countries? Surely if prostitution itself was inherently violent, etc, it would be the same all over the world? To me, that just says that prostitution itself is not the problem...it's the stigma, the laws and in many cases, the status of women in society, that create the problems for sex workers.
Well, yeah, but you are "preaching to the choir." Of course I think prostitution is a "victimless crime" between two consenting adults and I do not believe it to be criminal at all. If in fact there is an inherent correlation between "organized crime" and prostitution (I take no position here, surprisingly) it is merely because some assholes (arseholes?) decided it should be a crime in the first place.
If I thought it was a crime, then I wouldn't participate in it. Same thing with pot.
So again we get back to the Costa Rican model. If you are >= 18 years old, and I am >= 18 years old, and you want to sell me some sex, and I want to buy some sex from you, it is legal. No ifs, ands, or buts (well maybe some butts). No "zones," no "times," no nothing. Just pussy on a rack by the door like anything else. But if you or I are < 18, big trouble (allegedly, anyway; not too sure how it works in practice cuz homey don't go there). But there is a national ID card so if I didn't find out that you were a minor, I have no excuse.
Therefore, no pimps.
I HATE PIMPS. Improve society, beat up a pimp today!
My website, www.ihatepimps.org, has been shut down but you can call my toll-free number, 1-800-IHATEPIMPS.
Rubber Nursey
10-10-02, 07:35
Ok, here's a bizarre question, and I won't be surprised if you don't/can't answer it...just wondering.
I know you feel the same way about pimps as I do. So...you see a girl who you find really attractive, she tells you that she doesn't do drugs and she's paying her way through Uni with her earnings, BUT she tells you her pimp takes three quarters of her pay. Do you sleep with her?
I was wondering about it myself...on the one hand, I would want to give her the money for her schooling (and maybe prevent violence from her pimp for losing a booking), but on the other hand I despise the thought that she is gonna hand over the cash to some greasy arsehole after the job is over. Not really sure about what I would do. What do you reckon?
Originally posted by RN
Ok, here's a bizarre question, and I won't be surprised if you don't/can't answer it...just wondering.
I know you feel the same way about pimps as I do. So...you see a girl who you find really attractive, she tells you that she doesn't do drugs and she's paying her way through Uni with her earnings, BUT she tells you her pimp takes three quarters of her pay. Do you sleep with her?
I was wondering about it myself...on the one hand, I would want to give her the money for her schooling (and maybe prevent violence from her pimp for losing a booking), but on the other hand I despise the thought that she is gonna hand over the cash to some greasy arsehole after the job is over. Not really sure about what I would do. What do you reckon?
I would sleep with her, give her the money, hunt down her pimp, beat the crap out of him, take the money away from him, convert it to small change, and shove every single coin up his ass/arse sideways. Then I would tie him up until he shits it out (wouldn't take long, I promise you!), make him change it back into larger bills, and give it back to her.
Plus I don't give a shit if she does drugs or not, as long as it isn't needle drugs. The Bible in which neither of us believes says, "Let he among us who is without sin cast the first stone." And, since I've never committed a sin, I have no worries.
How's that sound?
Rubber Nursey
10-10-02, 07:59
Sorry...I didn't mean anything by the drug comment. I was just removing a reason that may stop you sleeping with her (so that the only issue was the pimp). Lots of people have said to me that they don't like giving women money knowing they're gonna "shoot it up their arm". Also, there is the health aspect of IV drugs. I just wanted the only reason why you might turn her down to be her pimp.
As for your solution ...it sounds very workable to me!! LOL
Oh I took no offense/offence at that. I just smoke pot. I don't even think about it as a drug. A lot of US prostitutes use cocaine. I tried cocaine a bunch of times like 100 and it never made any sense to me (and yes unfortunately I tried it with a needle twice but that was over twenty years ago and all I can do about that is apologize). But I am very hyper and I have never needed anything to amp myself up. If there are those who do, I have no problem with that but I think that drug is very dangerous. Also ridiculously expensive.
Now, drug-wise and connecting to prostitution, to me the problem is tobacco. I hate it. I often see a good looking woman, and then she sticks a cigarette in her mouth and I say, "Well, she just went from an 8 to a 2."
That is yet another reason why I like Méjico. There is some "social smoking," which makes no sense to me, but the overall rate of smoking is low, perhaps because the average person cannot afford to smoke on a regular basis. My recollection of Australia is that smoking (tobacco) is somewhat less common than in the US.
So I really hate tobacco smoking, needle drug using, PIMPS.
Rubber Nursey
10-10-02, 08:23
the drug of choice among sex workers here is speed. contrary to all that "they use the drugs to cope with the job" shit, these girls usually use it for the same reasons as anyone else doing "shift-work" does. to stay awake. lots of girls here have normal jobs from 9-5 (or kids) and then take amphetamines to stay awake all night in a brothel.
i'm absolutely terrified of needles (to the point where i whimper and sob through a blood test!), so iv stuff is not something i would ever get into. i smoked a bit of pot as a teen, but i haven't done it in years. i'd rather drink if i want to get into party mode. never tried any other sort of drug. i'm psycho enough without 'em! ;)
here in the us, speed vs cocaine is a class issue. speed is much cheaper and is used by the relatively lower classes while powder cocaine is used by the upper classes. now within cocaine you have your snortable (expensive, upper class) powder cocaine, which can also be injected. then you have your smokeable "crack" cocaine, cheaper and used largely by blacks. so, to summarize:
powder cocaine: rich whites and rich blacks.
crack cocaine: poor blacks
speed: poor whites (very popular in rural areas)
i only tried speed maybe 3 or 4 times as it was obviously redundant to my personality. i tried cocaine a lot more times just to be sociable back when a lot of my friends were doing it. i think it had less effect on me than it does on most people. but, i was usually drunk at the time so it's hard to say.
again i say that if you look at us prostitutes, many (i hesitate to say a majority) are on drugs, but which came first, the chicken or the egg (remembering your joke that you posted a few months back, ha ha)? if in fact drug addicts turn to prostitution (i do believe this does happen, at least over here), is the answer to the problem legalization of drugs or legalization of prostitution? i think it is reasonable to assume that if prostitution were legalized here that the price of pussy would drop. so, then would the drug addicts turn more tricks or find some other way to support their habit? i think the latter = burglary, bad checks (cheques) and so forth.
i think i just made an argument against legalizing prostitution. that scares me. so, we'd better legalize the drugs first.
no, i think the ultimate answer to this possible problem is for american women to give out more pussy. then supply and demand would be more equalized. this could raise the unemployment rate for prostitutes, a potential negative. but, analysis of supply and demand for pussy is complicated by the fact that pussy is one of the few things where you can give it away and yet still have it. i feel a thesis coming on ...
Rubber Nursey
10-10-02, 09:08
Actually, when brothels were legalised in Victoria, the prices went up. Legalisation brings with it ridiculously high business registration fees, licensing fees, etc that brothels have to pay to remain open (probably the only reason why a Government would legalise in the first place). Prices go up...and house cuts go up too, leaving pissed off workers who then give crap services. Crap services lead to less clients, which means less brothel income, which means prices are put up again to cover the costs! The prices at illegal brothels are usually a lot lower, because they don't have the overheads that the legal brothels do, but the standards are usually a hell of a lot lower too. You get what you pay for.
I think rather than legalising drugs or prostitution to decrease street work, I think they need to look more at WHY the girls become addicts in the first place. Like you, I believe that the majority of drug dependent girls started work to support their habit, not the other way round. (There are plenty of papers available worldwide to confirm that too). But why did they get a habit in the first place? Sure, many people start using because they just wanted to...I have no real problem with that. But if they were "forced" to use because of mental illness, homelessness, sexual abuse, etc...why aren't we trying to stop that happening BEFORE they start using drugs and hooking?
Personally, I have a great deal of respect for a heavy drug user who would prefer to work the streets, rather than rob little old ladies to finance their habit. Sad that the Governments are trying to force them into REAL crime instead of allowing them to do sex work.
RN, your pimp story is an interesting one, and I go two ways on it. First of all, the pragmatic approach I have is this -- if I'm going to engage a sex worker, I'm purchasing her services, not being responsible for/making judgements about how she ought to live her life. So one take of my pragmatic side says it's none of my business, that it's a choice she's making, and that trying somehow to "control" the situation is both outside of the realm of what I ought to be doing and is a judgemental take, defining how she ought to live her life.
Staying with the pragmatic take on things -- I can also leave her completely out of the equation (since I really don't know her, or even if her story is true, though I've no reason not to believe it) use the approach of being a responsible consumer :) and say, well, I don't want to support that construct, so I'm going to vote with my money and give it to someone who doesn't support a leech.
To me the key thing is this -- does she want the situation to be different? I'm not going to frequent someone who feels they are being victimized, or contribute to that victimization, and I'm generally willing to engage in helping someone who's in that situation. But it's got to be her judgement and approach on that, not mine, or I'm just being a paternalistic moralist imposing my own ideals on someone. I'm not one for taking advantage of people who I think are screwed up in their heads, will walk on that regard, and here that might be the case, but I make a distinction between mental illness and people with self-esteem issues. (If I was to make the latter be the bottom line I would have to write off probably 90% of the planet, so it's all a matter of degree.)
And as far as the drug thing goes -- as someone who basically took whatever was put in front of me in my youth as long as it didn't have a needle attached, I figure I'm not in a position to judge anyone about anything in that regard. Though I say that with the absolute exception and agreement regarding Dickhead's approach on cigarettes -- a complete and final turn-off. Tried to overcome that once many years ago with a girlfriend who smoked, but I simply couldn't stand either kissing her or being around her in a closed space, which pretty well spoke doom to that relationship.
And, personally, I don't mind paying slightly higher prices for the assurances of good worker and client treatment and conditions. I say the same thing about most goods and services, and particularly those where it's an optional purchase.
RN, according to your own description it is not the LEGALIZATION of prostitution that drives up the price; it is the REGULATION. I don't see any reason why it needs to be regulated. It isn't in Costa Rica and it works just fine.
Rubber Nursey
10-11-02, 02:55
Dickhead,
Yup, it's the regulation that f*cks it up. But I have yet to see a legalised industry (as opposed to a decriminalised industry, or one where it was never illegal in the first place) that didn't have intrusive and unreasonable regulations. Certainly not saying it doesn't exist mind you, just that I haven't seen one yet. (If there is one, let me know so I can research how well it works!)
Seems to me that in the majority of cases, legalisation is done for the sole PURPOSE of regulation...control, control, control. Oh, and the promise of more taxes. :)
Joe,
That is exactly my quandry...do I support a woman's choice to earn money in the way she feels comfortable with and ultimately support her pimp with my hard-earned cash, or do I walk away and deprive her of income? I too would want to help someone who was in a dire position that they wanted to escape from. But if she IS being exploited and victimised by her pimp, aren't I making it worse by refusing her? Could I be responsible for her getting a beating? I really don't know what I would do. I totally support a woman's right to choice...and if her choice was to have a pimp, then I can't argue with that...but I am also "morally" opposed to pimps. To make a decision whether or not to see her I would have to compromise one of my values, be it my hatred of pimps or my feminist notion of a woman's right to choose. Don't really know what I would do. Lucky I don't make a habit of picking up street girls, huh? LOL
If you refuse her, and he beats her, that doesn't make you responsible. Just because B follows A, that does not mean A caused B. I think there is even a name for this logical fallacy. I remember it from Intro to Philosophy. I got in a lot of trouble in that class. We studied "The Problem of Evil": if there is a god, then why is there evil, and if there is evil, can there be a god? Some gal refused to discuss the issue and just said "there's a god cuz I know there's a god (evil regardless)." I told her she'd been "drinking too much Jim Jones Kool-Aid" and I almost got bounced out of the class.
Well, this quandry is actually part of the frustrating part about this whole scene, in that what's essentially a physical act and release ends up completely suffused with all these political and social implications. It would be nice to simply have things be what they are -- actions by two adults that don't involve anyone else, and therefore should be only their own business. Maybe it's an argument for letting the little head make the choice -- if he's properly in a quandry over what should happen, then nothing will. If not, maybe something will. But sometimes it's damn tough to just be basically animal when all this stuff swirls around :)
Disagree with JZ here because if it were "essentially a physical act and release," masturbation would suffice. While I am not one to overly romanticize my encounters with prostitutes, I think it is more about a need for physically bonding with another human, however briefly. I suppose one could argue that masturbating with a vagina is superior to masturbating manually. But I think there is a more overarching element of wanting the woman of our dreams, however briefly; the experience of a lifetime, however fleeting; and the allure of the unknown, however risky.
Perhaps this is why I enjoy screwing a third world hooker in some dank, dilapidated brothel far more than I enjoy a nice antiseptic screw with an emotionally detached call girl in a comfortable American hotel.
Or maybe I'm just a
Dickhead
Clarification well taken: physical bonding is definitely a better way of putting it, and I'm not in any way trying to mitigate the myriad levels of charms and attractions it holds. But even as you describe it -- "wanting the woman of our dreams, however briefly" -- with the various added garnishes of the tawdry, the exotic, the inknown, etc., it's still a basically uncomplicated issue of coupling between two people that has all these societal layers unnecessarily heaped onto it. I'm someone who generally never wants something simple when I can have something complex :) because there are more layers to explore and experience, but there are times when some of this stuff can just be a complication and distraction as opposed to an added attraction.
Stranger99
10-11-02, 19:33
This is the same dilemma you face whenever you buy something: do you buy Nike's shoes knowing they are made by children, or do you buy your mexican made car knowing that it was built by underpaid workers, do you buy pot knowing that you are giving money to the drug industry?
The problem, especially in a third world scenario, is that I don't know how free is the freedom of choice for women being in the business.
It would be nice if you could just pay a penalty as you do for instance for organic food. Are independent escorts the choice here?
The social implications bother me and there is no winning position you can take: going with a prostitute under these circumstances is going to strengthen or weaken her dependance that she has with the form of organized she depends from? What about not going with her?
Rubber Nursey
10-12-02, 03:55
"Do we buy Nike shoes, knowing they were made by children". Changing the subject completely (but, believe it or not, actually remaining on topic *grin*), that's a subject that I often bring up when debating the legalisation of prostitution.
Our beloved Police Minister has said that the main purpose of a system of licensing and registration is "to keep the criminal element out of the sex industry". The idea is that INDIVIDUALS will have to undergo probity checks, immigration checks, ID checks, etc, before they get a license. (And yes, this means that people can be deemed unsuitable to be a prostitute!!). This type of control is apparently necessary because "we all know" that the sex industry is famous for it's underworld activities and exploitation.
My argument is the textile industry. When people think the textile industry, they automatically think sweatshops. They think of children chained to looms and starving women earning 10 cents a week sewing jeans. So tell me...why is the textile industry not illegal? Why aren't individual seamstresses licensed and placed on Government registers? Why are there no probity checks done on people opening these factories? If licensing and registration is going to be so successful in "curing" the sex industry of exploitation and corruption, why not do it to the textile industry as well?
What DO we do to stop the exploitation of women and children in the textile industry? We police it and arrest the bad eggs, of course! We don't treat every person in the industry as a potential criminal. We see it as a legitimate commercial venture that has the potential to be abused by crooks. And only the crooks are punished.
As I see it, the difference is entirely a matter of perceived "morality". (See, told you I was on topic! Yay!) Individual textile workers are VICTIMS just doing their job, and being exploited by criminals. But prostitutes...who by their very nature, ARE criminals...are party to the crime of their own exploitation. They voluntarily participate in it. Even encourage it. There is no point just punishing the big guns in the business, because ultimately the "victims" themselves are responsible.
Personally, I think certain aspects of the crinimal element should be brought into the sex industry -- I've always wanted to bang a gun moll. :)
I have no problem with organized crime. It's disorganized crime that infuriates me.
Rubber Nursey
10-13-02, 16:40
Fear thee not, Dickhead...for I am indeed a highly organised criminal. (Or can at least pretend to be for the hour...Joe ;)) heh heh
Hmm, never saw an Edward G. Robinson movie featuring a gum-cracking hottie with an Aussie accent, but we've all gotten much more multicultural and internations since those days... :)
Rubber Nursey
10-15-02, 11:36
Hard to think about the 'Morality of Prostitution' while there are so many immoral bastards running around the world with bombs. How can they even consider prostitution to be an issue at a time like this??! F*cking for money just doesn't compare to the senseless slaughter of holiday-makers.
May the Goddess be with all my Aussie brothers and sisters killed in the cowardly attack, my condolences to the Balinese people and the families of those victims from other nations and a very loud F*CK YOU to the Australian Prime Minister. I hope you're proud of yourself, you ignorant bastard...
I know this is off topic, but I had to say something. Sorry.
I agree RN. My condolences go out to anyone affected by this lastest act of religious horseshit. Funny how the most devoutly religous (and supposedly peaceful) are the first to go out and kill innocent people.
I'm a very tolerant guy but the fact that very few Islamic people are even concerned (and certainly don't speak out) about these acts is starting to rile me. How long do they think it will be before whites start reciprocal bombings.
To keep this on topic...
Always wear a condom!!!
Originally posted by Fedup
religious horseshit
Isn't that redundant?
To look to some extent at blending the two subjects (prostitution and bombs/religion) the core issue comes down to control, and the need to control in order to have things operate as you believe it ought to, doesn't it? Whether you're talking about religion or governmental policy or the morality police, it all comes down to a need to define how other people ought to act.
I do have sympathy toward mainstream Muslims, a number of whom have spoken up and strongly disavowed terrorist acts as being a perversion of Islam. The difficulty is that certain approaches are simply gathering steam, including the concept of setting up religious oligarchies as a way of legislating behavior in an area, which we can now see in movements in a huge variety of countries. I understood (though I didn't empathise with) the political statement that was being made years ago by terrorism -- a combination of 1) you're not listening, so I will get your attention, 2) there are no such things as innocents when I am being oppressed, and 3) see what you have driven me to -- but now it's simply a tactic for warfare, with no pretense for anything other than "do what I want or people will die." While it happens to be something that Islamic extremists are now most notorious for, let's not forget that this is a tactic that's been used far longer be other groups -- various marxist movements have certainly pushed it, for example. Plus, if you take away the moral justifications it's been a tactic for state-sponsored elimination of opponents for a long time (can you tell I'm emotionally steeling myself for my visit to Cambodia's Killing Fields?)
Given the basically intractable conflict between those who want extreme positions -- either moral/religious authoritatianism (along with the kind of governmental policies of the US and others that other countries should simply bow to their interests) or civil liberalism and libertarianism -- are there any even utopion solutions to letting people get what they want? It would seem that the concept of segregating beliefs is basically impossible -- having districts or regions where one belief or another hold sway not only doesn't seem practical but tends to promote conflict as well (not to mention the plight of those "trapped behind enemy lines" as it were.) Don't those who want control (or, I suppose, lack of control) see that extending to anywhere they please, not being stopped with this area or that?
This last question is one that can not only be aimed at the current religious/socio-political conflicts, but toward the prostitution legislation RN's area is struggling with.
Stranger99
10-16-02, 17:49
with all due respect, i do not see islam as a religion that historically has ever done any sort of proselitism trying to expand and take over other religion areas. this has been a major characteristic of the catholics (see thousand of people killed during the colonization of south america).
having said this, and condamning of course any act of violence, i believe that the religion has little to do in the latest escalating violent events.
there are double standards in the world (un??) policy: resolutions against iraq must supposedly be imposed by war, the same does not apply against israel.
unfortunately, nobody can make this statement publicly without having some idiot accusing you of anti-semitism.
terrorism is a form of asymmetric war: "i cannot kill your soldiers in a classic war scenario, then i'll kill your people crashing planes in your skycrapers or bombing your discoteques".
somehow i think cold war times were better.
Well, I rather think it's necessary to disagree on your point about Islamic expansion, given that Egypt and Spain, among others, were forcibly subjugated, that the Taj Mahal was built by Afghan warlords who took over and ruled part of India, and that the crusades were by and large a response to Muslim military actions (though there were other causes there, of course, and the Catholic Church was a million miles from blameless in all that.)
No real disagreement from me on the Israel question -- I'm convinced in fact that the real victim of 9/11 was the Palestinian cause in the US, which was gaining an increasing degree of sympathy during that year, most of which has now either dissipated or been made unpalatable and thereby silent. But this side of the discussion is far off topic -- I was thinking less in terms of this side or that, religion or not, and more about the part of human or societal behavior that articulates a need to control belief and behavior as it relates not only to terrorism (state or otherwise) but to the issue of prostitution.
Well I will bring it back on topic by saying: "Who wants a prostitute who wipes her ass with her hand?"
Rubber Nursey
10-17-02, 13:11
LOL! Trust the Dickhead of the room to find a way to take the [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) out of the most serious of topics. :)
I'm sorry about my little outburst a couple of days ago. This was certainly not the place to do it, but I was kinda boiling up. Almost every single person I have spoken to in the last few days has been touched by the bombing in some way...including a workmate who's brother hasn't been heard from since. It amazes me that Aussies could become involved in a 'religious war'. We don't even have the word God in our national anthem for crying out loud! From the slaughter of the Cathars to the Witchfinder General to the Saracen war and all the way to 9/11 and the Bali bombing..."killing in the name of God", whichever damn God you're doing it for, has gone on for way too long.
Ok, back on topic. Joe, "...are there any even utopion solutions to letting people get what they want?" I believe it's possible. To me, a crime is something that creates victims. Someone who "deviates" from the so-called norm is not committing a crime. Someone must be hurt (physically, emotionally, financially, etc). For example, I believe in religious freedom and the right to practice your faith BUT female circumcision is absolutely abhorrent. At best, a woman loses all ability to ever enjoy sex...at worst she dies thanks to the rusty blades. Regardless of a person's belief system, they should have no right to commit what can only be classed as GBH, on an innocent girl. Prostitution is the same. The thought that it is illegal for two consenting adults to have sex for money, is absolutely laughable. But someone who FORCES someone to be a sex worker, and thus creates a victim, is committing a crime. I can't see why we can't all do whatever we damn well please, if there are no victims as a result of our actions. (And I mean REAL victims...not people who are just "morally outraged" by others behaviour).
Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust.
Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give....
....When you have and hold a need, harken not to others greed.
Mind the Three-fold Laws you should, three times bad and three times good....
Be true in love this you must do, unless your love is false to you.
These Eight words the Rede fulfill:
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
(Seriously abridged version!) No, I'm not trying to preach or anything like that.Even though I do not necessarily class myself as part of any actual faith...this is how I live my life. Why can't our laws reflect this sort of attitude? NO laws may lead to chaos...but in my opinion, too MANY laws lead to rebellion.
The Virgin Terr
10-17-02, 17:12
utopian solutions? one needs god-like powers 2 enact such things. for example, in my opinion the reason religions are so popular and governments so powerful is because most people r dumb as rocks and also neurotic. if such a thing as god existed this problem could be solved, but then again it wouldn't exist in the first place, would it?
i laugh or tear my hair out listening 2 the american media whipping up fear and hatred of saddam hussein and islamic terrorists. i doubt saddam is any worse than the asshole currently in the office of the american presidency, and i personally fear my own government much more than the distant threat of the islamic nuts. the people most oppressed and threatened by those assholes r those living within the domain of islam, just as real freedom loving americans r most threatened and oppressed by american law enforcement. if people wised up they would recognize their real enemies aren't foreigners, they're the right-wingers living next door, or within their own borders. it's all about idealogy 2 me, not nationality. a right-winger is a threat anywhere, religious nuts r menaces 2 everyone, but most especially their own neighbors. the poor people of afghanistan, particularly the women, were living in hell under taliban rule.
Stranger99
10-17-02, 18:10
Joe & VT,
I read recently some articles on an Italian paper written by Gore Vidal (I think he lives in Italy, now). What is your opinion on him?
I was positively impressed although I don't kow if he is sort of exagerating with the idea of conspiracy.
Some of the things he wrote are very close to what VT says.
Going back on the forum topic I have a couple of questions:
1) to the guys:
How can you tell upfront when you deal with a sex worker if she is going to truly participate actively or just be there for the sake of business hoping that time will go by quickly.
I mean, are there any signs that will tell you upfront (possibly before you decide yes or no) that your money will be well spent?
2) to RN:
With new customers, your attitude towards them was always the same or was something in particular that the new customer might do or say that will put you at ease with him and treat him more friendly?
i believe that religion is a way to take away freedom. it is a way prudes use god as an excuse to control people. our laws are based on overly puritanical beliefs and values. they promote censorship in all ways. they ban pornographic movies or videos with too much sex or fake violence which is totally victimless. their excuse is that it will corrupt the kids. they use kids as a shield and as a scapegoat to pass ridiculously stupid laws that take away freedom to solicit sex for money or go naked on the streets. these overprotective american laws are like those safety bars that my overprotective parents put on my bedroom window to prevent me from sneaking out to clubs when i was in high school and boy was that a traumatizing and confining experience. i know what it is like to be in an overprotective and confining situation. it is like being in jail especially seeing the safety bars every time i woke up in the morning. i am fortunate to keep my sanity. i wasn't even allowed to hang out with friends because my mother thought that the neighborhood i lived in was a dangerous area. these laws that involve vixtimless crimes are at best ridiculously overprotective and unnecessary. they in fact cause rebellion. it causes black market prostituion (pimps and all) and pirates. this brings the crime scene into america. i notice there are no black markets for prostituion anywhere else where prostituion is legal.
this same abuse of religion is apparent in islamic terrorist violence. they use religion as an excuse to kill people for the "sake of god". they also use god as an excuse to put burkas over women and treat them like shit because these terrorists are really a bunch of homos that hate women and the way they look. they would rather see naked men than naked women so they cover up their women thinking they are repulsive. their religious excuse to cover up their homosexuality is that the sight of a beautiful woman would cause them to struggle with lust and make them [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) them. this is how the burka thing originated from a finger pointing person who raped a woman so the judges wanted to protect [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) from falling into lust and ordered burkas to be worn by women. and by the way, that gay judge executed the woman who was raped and spared the [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126).
Darkseid, yes, organised religion has always been a means to control people - above all. In the medeival ages, it was the way of giving legitimacy to the "king by the grace of god" etc. The christian (catholic) church has always sought power, and got it too.
These days, the same thing is happening in the moslem world - the religion and state power is interwowen. In the West, now being "educated" - we tend to consider this medeival and 14th-century-ish. Probably right too - lack of education tends to foster a climate for primitive, by-the-word religious zealots.
But on second thought - what are the people of the highly educated, modern, scientific western world (to which I certainly belong) doing?
Oops - they still try to make religion a main factor of state government!!!!!! With all those university-educated people making up the voters??
Bush (as American politicians in general) makes a big point of his church-going. No Euro country has the WWII German "God with Us" state of mind that the US has. ("God Bless America") - why? Why not someone else or everyone? What has God got to do with our follies anyway?
But also Euro countries still have the religious politics - various "Christian"-democratic parties are in power - some more founded on religion than others.
South America? An abundance of the world population controlled by the Vatican........
Thus, religion is still a major factor in controlling people, as it was 1000 years ago. In some respects, it has a serious function, establishing rituals, routines and basic morals that society will always need. And in some respects (NOT regarding the individual, but the society as a whole) a way of controling people's behaviour may be required to keep us from becoming wild animals - I read a "novel" some years back describing a chimp society which was based on how those are - it was disguised as a story based in a US big city ghetto/gangland scene, and you really recognised it as that till it was revealed that it was a description of chimp life in the jungle..
The problem is, some people will always want to use it to kill everything they dislike. Like prostitution, drinking a beer every now and then, my teen kids hooking up with the opposite sex (and probably make out too) etc.... Which we in the West at least don't consider a religious or moral issue anymore (sowwy - maybe not speaking for the majority - guess lots of people out there still do consider it that way).
Erw.....a favourite topic of mine this...sorry.
BTW RN - I actually agree with you completely that the issue is not one of legalisation (and control) but one of decrimialisation.
As rgds the "connection factor" - I saw a very saddening new film the other day about bonded prostitution in Europe - a East Euro 16-year old kept against her will in WE. I recalled once meeting one such girl - a few years older, but however cute her looks, I could not for all of the world want to think of sex....just letting her cry out on a shoulder was enough by all means. The ugly part of the scene is real - and although I realise it is only a part of it (I have met several happy hookers) it gives ammo to the ones on the side fighting it. They even announce internally that they should not be "bothered with details" (as like there were different kinds and moods of hookers) but consistently speak of "traffickong of women and children" and focus of the term "children" - which is to mean anyone under an arbitrary 18-year old limit..........(but gives the benefit to the propaganda of sounding like a crying little real small child).
Politics is not about making the world better.
Politics is about having power. Which you only get with voters. So pat the voters. Make it look like you are doing something substantial, and take popular stands...
God........I have to stop or I get banned.......or my computer heats up......
RN, thank you. Every forum needs a Dickhead or two and I hope I am filling the role adequately. VT, I quite agree (inadvertent rhyming is a sign of schizophrenia, BTW) that the right wing in general is the enemy. The only revenge we have is the knowledge that we are having way more fun than they are.
"i doubt saddam is any worse than the asshole currently in the office of the american presidency" - VT
I would say he may be moderately worse than Dubya but how would we know, given the control of the media by the military industrial complex. And, even if SH (funny how those initials work out to Shithead, not to be confused with Dickhead!) is moderately worse, Dubya is infinitely more dangerous due to having more resources.
"I believe that religion is a way to take away freedom." - Darkseid
Oh my goodness, do I ever agree with that. Taking away freedom and retaining the dominance of the ruling class are the first two commandments of any organized religion.
"They would rather see naked men than naked women so they cover up their women thinking they are repulsive." - DS
Well, they often are but that is only because they lack water with which to bathe in many cases and plus there is the whole wiping your ass with your hand thing. On the other hand, all naked men are repulsive by definition.
"Politics is not about making the world better. Politics is about having power." - Traveller
Agree totally again. Boy, there are some very intelligent people ("very intelligent" can be defined as "on the same page as Dickhead") in here today. What a shame that politics must be like that, but that is the way it is.
"1) to the guys: How can you tell upfront when you deal with a sex worker if she is going to truly participate actively or just be there for the sake of business hoping that time will go by quickly.
I mean, are there any signs that will tell you upfront (possibly before you decide yes or no) that your money will be well spent?" - Stranger
OK, to get back to pussy, which is far more interesting than religion, especially given that all pussies are different whereas all religions are essentially the same ...
This is judgement. Judgement comes from experience. Experience in turn comes from using bad judgement several times and hoping to survive the immediate consequences. Your instinct is always correct. If you have ANY feeling it will not be a good session, go home and jack off and live to try another day. But to give some rare practical advice, just chat with her. If you can try to communicate in her native language, that is always better. If she is trying to communicate, however poorly, in YOUR native language, be patient. Be relaxed and confident because you are a monger and mongers RULE. Look at the surroundings. Are you comfortable? If not, go home and jack off. Sex is never fun when one is not comfortable (although some of us mongers may be strangely comfortable in seemingly dangerous situations, even be excited by danger, and that is fine as long as you are comfortable with danger). Consider her overall appearance and hygiene. If she doesn't give a shit about that, she is unlikely to give a shit about you.
Trust your instinct. There is a lot of pussy out there. If you have ANY doubts, defer the session and try again later, someplace else, with someone else. Yes, you have a hard on, but it is quite likely that you will have another one.
Rubber Nursey
10-18-02, 02:10
Traveller,
"The ugly part of the scene is real - and although I realise it is only a part of it (I have met several happy hookers) it gives ammo to the ones on the side fighting it."
I totally agree that it's real. It's heartbreaking and it happens way too often, all over the world. What I have a problem with however, is the suggestion that it's "part of it".
The young girls you described were not sex workers. They were not involved in prostitution. They were victims of a separate crime. Sex slavery, trafficking, kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, child abuse...they are all crimes in their own right. For the anti-prostitution activists to suggest these things are just "part of" the sex industry is quite ridiculous. Do we say that corruption is just "part of" police work? (OK...bad example. :)) Is stealing from the till just "part of" working in a supermarket? Are sweatshops and child labour just "part of" the textile industry? Fast food chains are regularly being caught exploiting teenagers in their kitchens...but they are not gonna shut down McDonalds because of it. Everybody accepts these deviations in other occupations as separate crimes, and they are punished as such.
If only these right wing, feminazi pains in the arse would recognise the difference between what is a legitimate form of income, and what is exploitation and victimisation. I for one am in full support of cracking down on paedophile rings, syndicates who sell women, pimps on the streets...but that is just not the same as having consensual sex for money!
While I quite understand where you are coming from, Rubbie, in Traveler's defense, my dictionary does not include the word "consensual" in its definition of prostitution. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that consensual prostitution is a subset of prostitution, and that forced prostitution is another subset, albeit a heinous one.
Bleeding hearts and other apologists might similarly argue that prostitutes who are having sex for money because they are addicted to drugs are doing so involuntarily, and then by your definition (if you in fact agreed with the apologists), they therefore wouldn't be prostitutes either. So, I think you head down a slippery slope when you say that these women (to whom Traveler refers, not the drug addicts) are not engaging in prostitution, simply because they are being forced to do so.
I don't think those teenagers working in fast food restaurants are being exploited either, though, so I'm probably just a dickhead.
But I STILL HATE PIMPS.
Rubber Nursey
10-18-02, 03:37
Yup...most dictionaries only talk about the money (and the loose morals of course)...mind you, the Macquarie defines it as "a person, especially a woman, who engages in sexual intercourse for money as a livelihood", which is a start...but what I was talking about was the creation of prostitution legislation. Fair enough, someone who sells sex is literally defined as a prostitute, but isn't legislation aimed at controlling criminal behaviour? To prevent exploitation, etc? So in my opinion (and that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm right!) there needs to be a clear line drawn between women who need rescuing and women who are working in a job of their choice, when it comes to creating legislation.
My main point is, if we already HAVE legislation punishing sex slavery, paedophilia, child abuse, etc...what purpose does prostitution legislation actually serve??? In effect, that means that prostitution legislation is NOT created to protect the victims of exploitation, because they are already protected under other legislation.
As for drug dependent workers, I believe if they are forced to use drugs and work as prostitutes, they are victims of a crime. If they are trapped in a cycle of drugs and prostitution that they WANT to escape from, there should be people and agencies willing to assist them. But if they CHOOSE to use drugs and then support their habit with sex work, then that's their choice. And to me, being 'forced' by circumstance is very different to being forced by a third party.
The bleeding hearts should stay the hell out of it. To ask a student/feminist/do-gooder to speak as an authority on sex work, is about as ridiculous as asking ME to make a presentation on biochemistry. I would be laughed out of the room. So why aren't THEY???
"isn't legislation aimed at controlling criminal behaviour?" - RN
No, it is aimed at maintaining the dominance of the ruling class. Everything else you said I agree with, as I think you were aware. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, i could go to the store right now and pick up a six-pack of some good weed. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, we would not have a minimum wage law but a maximum wage law. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, our government would break up the cartel that sells the dangerous, addictive, and stinky drug: tobacco.
If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, these child molesting priests would have their balls cut off. If legislation were aimed at controlling criminal behavior, these fashionable low riding pants would not be sold in any size bigger than 12.
Well, I guess it depends on who is defining criminal behavior. The Dickhead Criminal Code would have very few pages.
Rubber Nursey
10-18-02, 04:21
Personally, I think it should be a fair trading offence for anyone under the age of 21 to wear those low riding jeans. The current environment is not conducive to fair competition from us old chicks, and monopolisation of a particular share of the market is illegal...
canada has the right idea with their laws of prostitution. they are totally against pimping! they make laws protecting prostitutes rather than arresting and incriminating them. they are more tolerant of sex than the us could ever be. in canada, i read that it is illegal to make money off of prostitutes. technically, escort agencies are illegal but the agencies find a loophole in the laws. they claim the money they collect (usually 30% or less, more would be suspicious and would make their agency get shut down) is for advertising these escorts. this is still a better situation than criminalized prostitution in the us because at least the law enforcement gets involved and makes sure that the escort isn't being exploited. in the black market prostitution we have in the us, prositutes work for room and board only and/ or drugs. criminalized prostitution is caused by rebellion against the strict moral standards and laws of our country.
more than half of the prostitutes in canada work independently and are advertised in the mirror. some work for an agency but give up a cut of their earnings to the agency for "advertising" fees. strip clubs with sex are illegal still. the ones in the main city only do contact lap dancing. the strip clubs where you can get sex are located outside the city in the middle of nowhere. the service is not as good as the independent escorts but it is an experience still. the owners of these strip clubs are considered pimps by law because the prostitutes give up half of their pay to the owner. the clubs would be shut down if they were located in the main city because technically, it is pimping.
a weird thing about canadian laws though tolerant, is that street prostitution is illegal. i guess this is because they are hard to keep track of. also, street prostitution may bring in the black market pimping into the situation like it does in america.
i think that if the united states adapt the regulation of prostituion rather than criminalization, things would be a lot better. for most women, prostitution is a much better alternative than working minimum wage in mcdonald's or toys r' us. it also pays more than what the johns themselves make. as i posted in previous posts, it is the overprotective and over puritanical laws our our country that causes crime. most people here are not happy with our puritanical laws so that is why there are so many [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) and black market prostitution. notice that canada and other countries where prostitution is regulated there is about zero [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) cases there. meanwhile in new york alone, more than 3500 women per year get raped and i'm not talking about spouse or date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), i'm talking about stalkers and other bastards that drag women into alleys at knifepoint.
the purpose of legislation - is it to control criminal behaviour? technically yes. but defining what is criminal behaviour is a political issue (lawmaker's stuff).
politicians tend to want to criminalise the stuff their potential voters don't like. secures votes.
prostitution in its own right (including the happy hooker variant) is offensive to lots of voters (including wives, mothers, next-door neighbours who don't get it themselves, religious people etc.)
so society (politicians) do as the feminazis - never mind the happy hookers - show off the sorry ones and then criminalise the whole business (never mind "details").
rn we do really agree - i have only been showing the way politicians and priests serve it to folks. does not mean i agree with the approach. certainly any real "criminal" acts connected with p4p (coercion, bondage, violence, ****, etc.) is criminalised otherwise (the lawyer is talking here:-) so the only remaining reasons to criminalise prostitution "per se" is morality or religious views (which are not excessively expressed in this forum in a way that could have a chance of being "politically correct").
btw - i read rn's frowns over low-cut pants with a chuckle - please get this: yes, a teen (e.g. 15) girl sometimes has the sexiest, most attractive looks and body any man can imagine. the fashion industry encourages this by employing models who look as close to that as they can.
but the whole fantasy that allows men to drool over such images is built on an illusion - namely that the little cutie has the mental capacity, experience and whatever else of a woman 10 years older - which we all know is not the case. so rn, rest assured that while we may look and drool at that sexy teenie (and god forgive be trapped for a night too) us in the know are aware it won't work - yer wits will get us pretty soon. and i wanna bet you are not as ugly as you think :-)
You got an excellent point there traveller. Politicians want to please EVERYONE especially those prudes, feminazis, jealous wives and mothers. They want their votes so they ban prostitutes altogether for their sakes. Banning of prostitution is all about winning votes. These prudes and jealous people make up the other half of the United States population. Some of the prudes are men! That makes them overpower the minority like us in votes and therefore these prudes have their way which is I think personally the wrong way. Queen Elizabeth may also disagree with prostitution but she sees a better solution than banning it which is regulating it. She is NOT pressured by voters to do the wrong thing which is to ban prostitution and cause a crime filled black market but instead she allows it with certain rules. This is one of the flaws of our system. I'm not saying it is a bad system altogether but politicians feel they have to give into the demands of prudes or else they won't be voted in.
Darkseid
Rubber Nursey
10-19-02, 04:41
oh, i'm sure we probably do agree traveller (otherwise i doubt you would be posting on this type of board! lol) i was just disagreeing with the premise in general...not you in particular. :)
darkseid,
pimping laws are not as good as they sound. if a woman is being tortured, beaten, robbed or raped by her 'pimp', then there are already assault laws that he can be punished under. all pimping laws really do is erode a sex worker's freedom of choice in employment.
this is gonna sound strange coming from someone who is so dead against the whole pimp concept...but i believe if a woman wants to work for a pimp, then she should be allowed to. pimps give them security, find them clients, maybe give them somewhere to stay...if a girl agrees to give up half her earnings in return for these favours, who are we to tell her what she can and can't do with her money?
the worst aspect of pimping laws is that they are usually used on brothel owners. a brothel is one of the safest places a working girl can work in. it's also a hell of a lot less hassle to earn the dollars...brothels do the advertising, linen, water, power, etc, and all the girls have to do is show up in the morning and work. yes, the brothels take a percentage of your wages, but the services that they provide...plus the added security of having other women around...makes it worth it. pimping laws remove the brothel option from working girls, forcing them to work in places that aren't as safe.
one of our laws used to control 'pimps'...the offence of "living off the earnings of prostitution"...means that girls working from their own homes are not legally able to hire a receptionist or security guard. that is extremely dangerous. plus, those laws are used on partners and even adult children of sex workers, forcing them further into isolation. a woman should be allowed to work where she wants and give money to whoever she wants. pimps may suck and deserve to be punished...but pimping laws usually punish the workers more.
The formal justice system is ill-equipped to deal with pimps. The formal justice system is too nuanced to deal with a subject this simple. Street justice is required. Beat up a pimp today. I disagree hookers should be entitled to pimps for protection. Get a big dog.
Rubber Nursey
10-19-02, 05:53
Hookers should be entitled to "safe systems of work", like all other workers are. This includes hiring a security guard, or bringing a great big mate along to look out for you. 'Pimps' who get women hooked on drugs, beat them up and take all their money should be SHOT...or at least arrested...but there must be a distinction made between a pimp and a security measure. My local video shop has a security guard out front every night after 8.30pm, for the protection of their staff. Sex workers should be afforded the same rights.
Rubber Nursey
10-19-02, 05:59
Plus, my state has numerous "anti-pimping" type laws...but there ARE no pimps! I realise the pimping laws serve a purpose in other countries, but pimps are not a feature of the Australian sex industry. The only people who have pimping laws used on them here are brothel madams, and the husbands, male friends and adult children of sex workers.
So now I am confused as to whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. I have no problem with a hooker hiring a security guard; I see no difference between a big yobbo (although I'm still not too sure EXACTLY what a yobbo is!) and a big dog. I would suggest a tough little mick instead of a great big mate, though; it ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
I see a big difference between someone who has already made an independent, adult decision to be a hooker hiring a great big bloke for security, versus some guy who is too lame to earn a living any other way than being a fucking pimp and provides these same security services yet has a degree of control over the hooker. Maybe it comes down to commission versus straight salary. If the great big bloke gets more money the more tricks the hooker turns (a "cut"; had to be careful I spelled that right!), then he has an incentive to be a de facto pimp. I've never liked working on commission or for tips and would prefer that whole economic concept were eliminated.
France has similar laws about "living off a woman's earnings." I haven't seen much evidence of these laws being used to harass hookers; I see them being used to harass pimps. Harassing pimps is good and should be an Olympic sport. I don't think a real man lives off a woman's earnings, or another man's earnings, however derived. I think a real man pays his own way in life using whatever legitimate skills and abilities he has.
This leads to another question which might stir up some shit: If women really, truly, have the same type of sex drive as men, why are there not sexually frustrated women paying men to fuck them? I don't think the average woman has the same sex drive as the average man. Some women, some times, yes, but overall, no.
Flame away.
Rubber Nursey
10-19-02, 08:07
i'm pretty sure we're kind of agreeing. :) i am completely and utterly on your side regarding the stereotypical violent leech-type pimp. what i'm saying is that the difference between one of them and a mate acting as a security guard, is not recognised by the law. any man living off the earnings of a prostitute is fair game to be arrested under pimping laws.
i know the simple fact that a man is "allowing" his partner to be a prostitute makes people's stomachs turn, but everyone has different attitudes to extra-marital sex, and to sex itself. (is it really any different to having an 'open' marriage?) when you ignore the 'sex' part of the equation, what you end up with is a simple financial decision made between a couple...based on who has the greater earning capacity. for example, if i was a lawyer and my husband was a checkout operator, we may decide that he will stay home with the children to cut the childcare bills and i will go to work and support the family, because i have the ability to earn more. sex workers and their partners should have the right to make similar agreements. pimping laws make that impossible.
the closest thing we had to pimps here were the partners/mates of the street based workers who would be there for their protection. the guys would stay in a car, look after the girl's money and condoms, take down rego numbers of client's cars and be in mobile contact with the girls if they got in trouble. new pimping laws introduced two years ago stopped all that, and the rate of beatings and [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) among street workers rose dramatically. those guys were not pimps...and treating them as such has left the workers in danger.
as for the way a guy is paid...that's a little tricky. you'll find the majority of sex workers pay receptionists, security, etc, "per job" (commission). it's done that way because we are paid commission, and to agree to pay someone a flat rate can leave us out of pocket, eg. if i say i will pay a guy $100 per night for security and i only earn $50.
as for the other question...i don't know about other women, but i can assure you, in all honesty, if i had the money i would regularly pay for sex. i can't be bothered with the hassle of relationships or having a man hanging around or calling me after a one-night stand. but i am going crazy not having sex!!! the only sex i am getting at the moment is the very occasional client, where i have to be in control and do all of the work. if i had the means to pay someone to pamper me for a couple of hours, no strings attached, i would do it in a flash.
The Virgin Terr
10-19-02, 20:01
RN, you're a weird chick! i can't imagine a woman of your age who isn't a cow or the hunchback of notre dame complaining about lack of sex! the problem with sexually frustrated women is how choosy they are, not that there's no guys available eager to service them. i'll bet on a typical day u meet many guys like me who are too mousey or think they are too mousey to attract women, who have basically given up trying, who would jump at the chance to pamper you with sensual and erotic pleasure, if they only knew of your frustration. i'm sure i would. sheet, girl, put a frigging ad in the paper. you'll be overwhelmed with responses!
i should add that i'm not really a mouse, i just play one in public. i have no problem whatsoever dealing with prostitutes, but since solicitation is a crime and since the world is full of jealous assholes and puritanical assholes, adopting the camouflage of a mouse is good for my physical health, if not my psychological.
Rubber Nursey
10-20-02, 05:30
Terry,
Do me a favour and replace the word 'women' with the word 'men" in that first paragragh you wrote, then re-read it. If it's that darn easy...why are there so many MEN in this forum complaining that they can't get laid? Are YOU a hunchback?? Are YOU just being fussy?
Why is it so hard for men to see why a woman would want to pay for sex? Just have a closer look at it...why do YOU go to prostitutes? Don't tell me it's because there are no women out there who will shag you, 'coz there are PLENTY of available women around. (They just may not be young enough, beautiful enough, thin enough...) But there are OTHER things, aside from the sex itself, that attract you to commercial sex, aren't there? Like maybe the fact that she will never call you afterwards? She will never fall in love with you and want to have your babies? The fact that you won't catch any diseases from her (at least in my country you won't)? The fact that she can be solely there to pleasure YOU, and you don't necessarily have to do any of the work? That she won't talk about you to all and sundry after the fact? And that you can have a different women every night without feeling like a callous bastard (or in my case, being branded a sl*t!)
There are a shitload of reasons that I can think of why I would rather go to a hooker than advertise in a singles column. I just don't want the hassle of an emotional relationship, and no matter how 'casual' things start out, every REAL sexual experience (as opposed to commercial) has the potential to get emotional. I just want sex with someone I never have to see again. No dating, no flirting, no desperately trying to impress someone at a bar...just someone I can walk up to and say "F*ck me", then walk away from when it's over. Hookers are the only people who are gonna give me that.
The Virgin Terr
10-20-02, 07:01
RN, i'm not hunchbacked or ugly or stupid or gross in anyway, but i guarantee you if i go out to a bar and hit on women, i face rejection over 99% of the time, simply because i don't know how and refuse to even try to learn how to seduce a woman using guile. and i don't use prostitutes for any of the reasons you state, quite the contrary. i'd love to have a relationship with a prostitute, i'd love being a "pimp", providing a prostitute with emotional support in exchange for her financial support, so dickhead wants to kill me now. hell, i'd love her for free, i just want someone to love, someone not fucking hung up on monogamy, and yes, someone physically attractive, but not necessarily a knockout. i think prostitutes provide a necessary service, i think what they provide can fall into the category of loving, so therefore to me loving a prostitute, if she enjoys being a prostitute and is nurturing towards her customers, is loving the best sort of woman there is. and i absolutely despise society for taking such a noble calling and making it illegal, unsafe, and something universally reviled.
the "available" women you refer to are unavailable to someone who doesn't believe in sexual repression, socially mandated monogamy, or the easter bunny. unless that guy is someone like hugh hefner perhaps, someone enormously successful and rich, because guys like that attract women regardless of their other traits. my problem besides alienation is lack of success. women don't go for losers, which is sadly what i am at this point. sex is so psychological. genitalia are pretty generic, it's the person attached which makes the experience what it is. i doubt you would have consensual sex for free much less pay for it from a man you perceived as a loser, regardless of his looks or desire to please you, just as i wouldn't with a woman who is visibly repellent to me. her pussy might be identical to a beautiful woman's, but it's the rest of her body which has to turn me on.
likewise for you, i'm sure, the man must have a certain kind of personality for you to want to fuck him.
i imagine it's not that easy for you for the same reason it's virtually impossible for me. that reason is society is intolerant of blatant sexual come-ons whether originating from men or women. plus you're correct in asserting that it's very difficult to separate sex from emotion, and prostitution helps to keep the 2 separate. why must you have such a sharp dichotomy in your relationships? what i mean by that, is it seems to me that you either have to have a very possessive relationship with a guy, or else you want no emotional involvement whatsoever. why not something in-between, why can't there be caring and companionship between people who aren't possessive of each other?
Rubber Nursey
10-20-02, 07:37
"...but it's the rest of her body which has to turn me on.
likewise for you, i'm sure, the man must have a certain kind of personality for you to want to fuck."
Yup, exactly. That's what I was getting at...I am living without sex for the same reasons as you are. I like the idea of visiting a prostitute for all the reasons I listed before, PLUS the fact that I do not have to fear rejection. Fear of rejection is something I suffer quite badly from (like most of the population, I guess). Women also have to worry about being perceived as a sl*t if they hit on men, just as men have to worry about being seen as a sleaze. I just can't be bothered with the whole drama, quite frankly!
"why must you have such a sharp dichotomy in your relationships?"
I know it sounds that way, but I don't really. Straight sex, no emotion is what I am looking for right NOW...at this particular point in my life. The discussion we had earlier on about how I feel within a relationship, was really based on what I was feeling THEN. (I haven't been in a relationship for years...I was younger then). Right now I have a job that dominates almost my entire life, and children that dominate the rest of it. I have good friends around me to share my joys and heartbreaks with. At the moment I am not in a place where I feel I need "love"...but I still want to have sex. Yes, monogamy was something that was extremely important to me in previous relationships, and I still feel it would probably be important to me now...but I can't really be sure of that. I have grown a lot and feel very different about sex and relationships to what I used to (thanks to the 'biz") and maybe now if I was to meet a man I loved, I may not find it so important after all? Who knows...
Right now though, my sexual frustration has got to the point where light globes are blowing around my house on a daily basis! (That's the honest truth! Don't understand it myself, but whenever I get really sexually frustrated, light globes blow. When I'm getting it regularly, they last for months. There's one for the X-Files...)
RN, you couldn't walk up to a guy in a bar, buy him a beer, ask him if he wants to shoot some pool, and then after chatting for a while and deciding you like him, just ask him to take you to a hotel? I do that shit to women all the time and I am successful like maybe one time out of fifty (2%) but I still try. But you are young and good looking AND FEMALE so my guess is your success ratio would be well over 80%. Eliminate the married guys and my guess is 99%. PS you should pay for the hotel under these circumstances (my assumption is you'd rather not bring a stranger home although guys have to do this all the time) and give him cab fare home.
One time in Auckland I was hitting on this gal and the music was over and the bar was closing. I asked her if she wanted to come back to my hotel for a nightcap and she said, "I've had enough to drink; let's just go straight to your room." That's about as overt as a woman has ever been with me. You don't think you can pull that off? What the kind of yobbos do you have over there? You can tell him up front you never want to see him again; this gal knew darn well she would never see me again since I told her I was leaving the country the next day.
VT, I'm thinking you wouldn't last too long as a pimp. But, yeah, that's pretty weak if you want financial support from a woman. Just my opinion.
RN, you bring a new facet to the concept of sexual electricity, that's for sure LOL! I suggest you target tourists :) since they'll likely be out of your long-term hair fairly easily. As far as DH's suggestion to you, I agree, but I'd add the idea that you might want to move to a less familiar bar simply to reduce your issues about dealing with follow-up contacts.
I don't have the same complete line in the sand that Dickhead does regarding a man being supported by a woman, but I do think there needs to be some sort of equitable distribution of what one brings to the equation. Emotional support is certainly important and part of the equation, but there are many shades of that, and if it's simply "I got your back" then it's the parasitic equation most here deplore (especially when it's that unhealthy "you need me" or "no one else cares about you" scene that is the stuff of the pimp cliche.)
Rubber Nursey
10-21-02, 00:42
So out of interest Joe, do you consider a man staying home to take care of the kids while his wife goes to work in a brothel, the same as a man who stays home while his wife works in a legal firm? The 'househusband' phenomenon is being seen more and more these days, and most people see it as a perfectly reasonable agreement. But in the case of sex workers and their partners, the 'pimp' mentality still seems to be a factor. Living off a lawyers money is ok...living off a hooker's money is not.
Many hookers are in 'normal' supportive and loving relationships. How do you feel about THOSE men staying home and living off their wife's earnings...for example, to relieve the financial burden of childcare?
The Virgin Terr
10-21-02, 00:51
RN, i was thinking last night after my last post to you how odd that we're having this discussion with stereotypical gender roles completely reversed, with you arguing for having sex with no other involvement at all, and me saying that sex is great but it can be hurtful if, after just having a pretty good roll in the hay, one says to one's partner, "that was great, now let's never see each other again." i would be hurt and baffled, but the stereotypical guy might say, "fine with me, babe, thanks for the good time". but i can definitely empathize with your situation from years of experience. it's a relatively recent phenomenon with me, now in my 40's, to value relationships more than sex, not that i wouldn't "take pity" on someone like you and relieve both of our libidinal frustrations. as i'm sure the vast majority of men would also do, if only you could confidently approach them and explain your dilemma. it's the lack of freedom to communicate forthrightly and explicitly that causes so much frustration and conflict. i just think that with a properly worded ad, and good screening of the responses, you should be able to find some real life male stereotypes able and eager to meet your requirements.
guys, how about a little support in the era of women's lib? how about some men's lib as well from our stereotypical roles as mainly financial providers in relationships? i'm all for both men's and women's liberation, freeing both genders to assume non-traditional roles. with all the erotic and sensual affection prostitutes provide to strangers, don't you think they deserve someone to love them in return, and don't you think, given how most guys look down on prostitutes, having one who doesn't would be of considerable value to some prostitutes? dickhead, you're absolutely right that i wouldn't make a good pimp given the social climate that currently surrounds the issue, which makes it a virtual requirement for a pimp to be a really tough guy acting as security, as well as someone able to deal effectively with sleazy corrupt vice cops. in a completely different social climate however, i might do allright.
RN, absolutely, I think it's the same -- in both cases there's a clear full-range relationship as opposed to an exploitative one where one benefits financially while being an emotional parasite on the other. Couples should be able to decide who works, who stays home, whatever, and I deplore the fact that anti-pimping laws mess over sex workers' families as opposed to go after true pimping situations. You involve kids in the scenario, and you have a family as opposed to a business arrangement that may have an emotional patina. The trick, of course, is defining the true nature of the relationship so clearly explotative pimping scenarios are disrupted but families (with or without children -- and I'd say being married clarifies the relationship as much as can be done) are left unbothered. But who brings in the income and how they do it is irrelevant -- it's whether there truly is a "couple" at the heart of things, or whether there's a "stable."
VT, I don't disagree with you in the least that sex workers deserve (and perhaps more definitely need) love and support, and I'm one who values relationships, sexual or not. But I don't see why, in your equation, it has to be structured so that the woman provides the money and the guy provides the emotional support and love. Relationships can be (and in my experience work best) when it's a two-way street in as many regards as possible. A partner is different from a pimp.
And in the interests of full-disclosure, I should note that I've spent time both as the primary bread-winner in my family and as the basically domestic support person, (as well as lots of time where we both do it) and that's something that has switched on and off over the years, depending on whether I or my wife are heavily or lightly employed, and whether or not our jobs are controlled in hours or overwhelming. We used to have a joke that as soon as one of us started making 100K a year the other could stop working permanently, until we took a look at things and decided we were both trying too hard not to get close to the threshold :)
The Virgin Terr
10-21-02, 02:01
RN, there's another potential solution to your dilemma so obvious perhaps we're all overlooking it: masturbation! it's been my main sexual outlet most of my life, unfortunately, but it beats the hell out of blowing light bulbs! being a guy, visual turn ons predominate, so pornography involving knockout gorgeous women, along with some imagination, works well with me. i'm sure there are ways you can turn your self on, and there is a certain advantage to the situation when you control your own stimulation, touching yourself precisely the way you like best, actually often leads to better orgams than having to interact with a partner. so get with it, girl, and start making yourself explode instead of those poor defenseless lightbulbs!
Rubber Nursey
10-21-02, 07:02
Terry
Ummm... at the risk of having everyone laugh at me...masturbation IS my sex life!! LOL As a matter of fact, I probably indulge in a lot more than is considered healthy. It's just not the same, honey.
As for your other post, I'm a little concerned about your fascination with prostitutes as lovers. I get the impression, (and PLEASE don't be offended, and please forgive me if I'm wrong), that you have an image in your head of the poor, stigmatised sex workers who just need someone to understand them and love them. Whether or not that image is correct, what concerns me most is what it says about your idea of a relationship. To put it bluntly...it sounds like you are aiming low, to avoid the chance of rejection. I think you need to raise your sights, babe. You are an intelligent man who shouldn't be setting himself up for a life of 'babysitting' an emotionally crippled ex-prostitute. You also might just find that many of these women are a lot stronger than they seem to be, and that you will need to have an inner strength yourself to make the relationship work. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but the only other reason I could see for a man to specifically target sex workers is to exploit them...and I don't think you sound like the sort of bloke to do that. Aim high Terry...you're worth more than that. :)
"the only other reason I could see for a man to specifically target sex workers is to exploit them"
Well, let's not forget the fact that you're talking about women who are open to sex and who presumably have the abilities there to make a man happy -- that's attraction enough for the sex-oriented or starved :)
And remember that VT's quixotic quest is for a no-strings-attached open sex relationship where he's given affection (and also the control to walk away at any point, which I find more problematic.) But of course you're right that there's far more to a healthy relationship than sex.
Rubber Nursey
10-21-02, 07:55
Well yeah, there's the sex...but I was looking more at the type of words he was using. "They deserve someone to love them in return" and "given how most guys look down on prostitutes". And in his previous post he said "Women don't go for losers..." I was just getting the feeling that maybe he was looking for someone who NEEDS him, to reduce the risk of rejection. And I'm not being at all judgemental about that you know...I have been there before, myself. At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own trumpet, my ex-husband was beneath me in every way. He was poorly educated, had no knowledge nor interest in the world around him and aimed lower in life than any self-respecting person ever would. He drank, he used drugs, he treated people like dirt...and I figured that he NEEDED me to 'help' him straighten his life out.
I may be very, very wrong about Terry and as I've said, I will truly apologise if I am...but I would just hate to see someone go down the same self-destructive path that I took. :)
"and I figured that he NEEDED me to 'help' him straighten his life out"
Which is to say, in other words, that you needed to be needed. I think that's fairly universal; it's just how it manifests itself that can be tricky, as your experience proves.
My way of finding a loving but uncommiting sexual relationship is through foreign travel. I don't just go for the prstitutes when I travel, although early in the day before hitting the clubs I do go to the massage/sex parlors to relieve my desperateness for sex, but I hit on the locals in the foreign country when I go to their clubs. I do admit that I get a miss percentage (I have a 25% success rate overseas whereas in NY I get only a meager 2%) overseas but it is much less than what I get locally because women also want non-commitment, like RN. There are many women like RN out there who came out of a horrible relationship but just like the warm feeling of having someone sleep with them and hold them without the guy asking, "Where were you last night? Were you cheating on me?" Guys who come from overseas like myself fullfills that void temporarily and they can always find a new guy when I leave to go back to the US. Short term relationships also tend to be less jealous and possessive. I know that when a girl I met in my first time in Amsterdam found another guy, it was much less devastating than a girl I know for years and live with in the same city finding another guy because I knew that after this trip, I would probably never see her again and for what it's worth, the sex was great. I love sex especially if it doesn't come with the headache of a relationship. I myself just came out of a broken engagement with a girl I had a long term relationship with and I don't feel I am ready for another long term relationship at this time so I have short term relationships overseas or go to prostitutes to score some sex. The possibility of a non-long term relationship in your hometown is almost impossible because you lose the excuse of having to go back to your hometown because you ARE in your hometown. Girls also see a guy from their hometown as guys asking for a long term relationship so they give going home with the guy second thoughts. If they go home with the guy, the guy might expect her to be with her for the rest of her life and most guys who ask women from their hometowns out are trying to settle down. This frightens women more than it frightens guys so that explains why a guy like myself or VT has a lower success ratio of getting laid in his hometown than overseas. There is no chance of getting stuck with the guy or girl for the rest of the lifetime.
As for the pimping laws, the street scene is not allowed in almost any country even the ones that do allow prostitution. In fact the red light district booths are city owned (the city is the pimp in this case because they collect rent, $300Euro a day from each 8 hour shift) or you can work in a sex parlour or they can put up sex ads. However, street prostitution is illegal because they believe that the street prositution is an unsafe environment. RN, you might disagree with this clause of Holland's laws. I agree that it takes away a flexible option and I agree that a woman should have a choice as to how she advertises her services. The street scene allows some flexibility that the escort agencies or the booths don't allow like flexible hours or freedom to relocate to another spot if the business slows down in one area and picks up in another. In the booths, you are stuck in the location you rented for 8 hours and you are stuck with that shift. They have a day 8am-4pm, evening 4pm-12am and night shift 12am-8am.
I have no problem in theory with the man staying home to take care of the kids and the woman being the breadwinner (although this is the ONLY situation where I have no problem with it). In practice, however, it tends to be a different story, at least in this country. If this is happening, it is likely because the woman can earn substantially more money than the man. That in itself causes problems in a lot of relationships that I've seen. Whether it should be this way or not, it represents a sign of failure on the part of the man.
Two things control a relationship: money and pussy. The woman already controls the pussy. If she controls both the money and the pussy, the man becomes a mouse. I didn't invent this system and I'm not saying I like it, but that's the way it is. Theoretical disagreements are sure to come flying at me, but in your gut, you know it's true.
Well couched, DH :) and I'll rise just slightly to the bait. I agree with you that the money earning thing causes trouble in lots of relationships, since men's programming still tells them they must hunt and provide, and that not to do so is a failure. We've had countless centuries of both genetics and social structure telling us so, and that's not something easily or quickly overcome.
That said, I don't believe it has to happen like that, and I know several couples who have no problems at all in a scenario where the man earns little or less, and none of these guys are geldings. The trick is that the guy has to be doing something he loves to do and feels is worthwhile in order for his self-esteem to stay high. (It helps if there's a potential pot of gold at rainbow's end, whether or not said rainbow actually exists.) And the social status of the jobs can't be dramatically different. In other words, there must be some way to at least be an equal.
If you substitute "worth" for money then I more or less agree with your equation. Many men control relationship by defining who is and who isn't worth something or is worth nothing, very often using money as the big stick, and women's self-esteem is often tied directly into their mates' definition of their worth. (Obviously, this is a two-way street, too, and women can do the same thing, particularly when the guy's earnings can be attacked.) I'd also note that guys tend to spend a lot less time intentionally trying to control a relationship in a scenario where we don't feel as though we're holding "worth" trump -- we basically tend to think either we do or we don't. Women are the ones with the interpersonal training and skills, the better ability to shade and highlight, and it's little wonder we're apt to get played for fools in a relationship, since we basically are fools. :D
I think that's one of the basic attractions of prostitution -- I've got the money, so I get what I want. To use your equation, in prostitution money becomes a way to control pussy, though pussy still can still control the amount of money involved.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop
men's programming still tells them they must hunt and provide, and that not to do so is a failure."
And I am lot more successful at it if I only have to provide for 45 minutes. DH
"The trick is that the guy has to be doing something he loves to do and feels is worthwhile in order for his self-esteem to stay high."
Or be a musician, or pretend to be a musician. DH
"it's little wonder we're apt to get played for fools in a relationship, since we basically [i]are fools."
Pussy tends to cloud one's judgement. DH
The Virgin Terr
10-22-02, 00:42
dickhead, u r a great big dickhead, but a funny one at that. instead of a musician, my dream is to be a famous activist. it keeps my self esteem from completely dying. everyone needs a dream, or their lives become drudgery. amazing so msny people r content with that. of course, a lucky few actually get to live their dreams, in which case their lives r actually an adventure. but i don't just dream because i want fame, although after all the rejection i've faced, any validation is welcome. i dream because to me this world is a nightmare that must be changed. and i dream because i've been inspired by the stories of those who have come before me, and done the seemingly impossible, and whose examples of courage and faith in themselves and their causes has lit within myself a fire which wasn't there previously. one goes through life being beaten down and loses hope, the fire gets extinguished, one needs extraordinary inspiration to re-light that fire. but once relit, one can't return to the hum-drum existence previously experienced, one is commissioned to follow in the footsteps of those previously mentioned, my spiritual forefathers. to do less is to dishonor them. and besides, i'm just plain fucking tired of being a mouse. it's boring and humiliating.
RN, if people r laughing at u, they're laughing at me even more, since i brought masturbation up as a topic, and it consists of well over 90% of my sex life, so the laughs on me. and don't worry about my relationship choices, i'm actually a big boy now, and i'm not looking for anyone fucked up to "save". but we all need to be needed as well as have someone on whom we can depend on or need. given my political orientation and beliefs, i have a good idea of what i want from a relationship and i think the
sort of woman with whom i'm most compatible. u might even fall into the category yourself except for your jealousy and relative conservatism (relative to me).
VT, yeah, I think if you work on that activist story, you can probably get laid with it. I recommend saying you are "working on saving the _________ (insert favority cuddly animal here) from ____________ (extinction, exploitation, not receiving the full marginal product of their labor, etc)." Should be good for lots of pussy, especially if you hang around left-wing college campuses a lot.
DH
Hah -- is it that Brazillian, DH? You've definitely been in fine fettle of late.
She dropped the class because she had to travel too much. Buncha heifers is all that's left.
Rubber Nursey
10-22-02, 11:34
Terry,
Like I said babe, if I was wrong I would apologise...and I apologise. I guess I was just projecting my insecurity onto you.
"...except for your jealousy and relative conservatism" I'm conservative?? Well that's a damn nice change from being called loose and immoral!! LOL
DH,
"The woman already controls the pussy. If she controls both the money and the pussy, the man becomes a mouse."
That is my EXACT theory as to why prostitution is illegal. *grin*
Joe,
"...since we basically are fools."
I hope you don't mind if I print and frame that admission for posterity (and occasionally throw it back at you with gay abandon! :)) heh heh
The Virgin Terr
10-22-02, 21:39
sorry about that stream of consciousness rant yesterday, and thanks for not flaming me in response. sometimes i get carried away.
the comedian george carlin jokes about how we aren't going to destroy the planet, just ourselves. i agree, except along the way we're taking alot of other species along with us. i want to be an activist for personal freedom. when i referred previously to modern governments being the most oppressive, i meant post-civilization, although with modern technology they may be worse now than ever before in their ability to cast a broad and dark shadow, a pervasive presence, whereas centuries ago even if they were more barbaric, their powers were more limited. but i suppose technology cuts both ways in that the internet for example empowers individuals.
VT -- well, there are certainly a fair number of folks working on the personal freedom side of things, and being an activist by and large simply means going to it. I agree with you regarding contemporary governments' abilities to monitor people, but that also goes in both directions, as we're better able to monitor government on a basic level than ever before as well, and also to influence, since current forms of government, for all their control by various forces, still have more entry points than oligarchic systems of the past. I'll take that over a jackboot in my face any day. (The worry, of course, is that monitoring turns darker -- I still find it hard to believe that we've passed Orwell's dark year by almost two decades and how prescient he was.)
But, to not leap off too much from our designated topic -- given DH's prescription regarding control issues, is it any surprise that we constantly see scandals regarding sex and politics, including a fair number of prostitutes being involved (in cases literally all across the world) given the that men with power also want to assert that power in a sexual way? While screwing the country may give a certain heady thrill, that doesn't mean it has the same visceral effect as actual screwing. Not, by the way, that I generally care in the least who politicians are buggering, as long as it's not me, and I'm generally in favor of them working out their frustrations thusly as opposed to via legislation.
The Virgin Terr
10-24-02, 01:06
jz, i wouldn't put it quite the way u did. i don't see "men of power" asserting their power by buying sex. they are just doing what most of us would if we could, men i mean, which is having consensual sex with very attractive women, women who arouse us with their overpowering beauty. the thing is, if sexuality was destigmatized and of course decriminalized as well, it would no longer be a black market, many more would participate, and it would be much less expensive to customers, much safer and psychologically appealing to providers and potential providers. fewer people would have to resort to masturbation, like poor me and RN, and there would be much less poverty among women struggling to raise kids alone, thus lightening the burden on society to financially support them. in fact, for women like RN it would be killing 2 birds with one stone because not only could she support herself well, if she wanted to pay very attractive men to satisfy her i'm sure she could easily afford to. hey RN, would u pay me to ravish u orally? sheet, i'd pay u for the privilege.
The Virgin Terr
10-24-02, 05:05
my dream is to become a professional activist by attracting financial supporters to my cause, which is their cause also, for which my work and life would be dedicated. the prostitution cause is perhaps the most appealing because it is both radical and doable in my opinion, as it's an activity which large numbers of people engage in, and much money involved. it's radical because it comes close to the root of what ails humanity in my opinion, which beyond ignorance is a neurotic fear of the power of passion resulting in an unhealthy subjugation of that passion. i sense i 'm gifted with words, at least in writing, which could be of great use as an activist, and i possess great conviction in the righteousness of the cause, but i'm burdened by a great sense of despair regarding the odds of success, despair that persuasion alone is an inadequate tool for changing people. it's also discouraging that there is so little organized activity currently for decriminalization of prostitution in the u.s. my strategy for getting started involves developing a relationship or relationships with other(s) who are already involved or wanting to get involved who share my passion for this activity as well as compatible overall beliefs and values regarding such things as religion and personal freedom in general. i need such partner(s) for personal psychological reasons, perhaps mostly for moral support, or perhaps mostly for practical support as someone who could assist me in areas in which i'm deficient, such as personal relationship skills and practical thinking, someone as well grounded and able to handle day to day affairs as i am gifted in envisioning and articulating the big picture. perhaps most importantly i need someone to bolster my faith in myself. as a lifelong "loser", i need to believe that i can yet be a winner. i guess u could say i'm looking for a soulmate, a relationship such as i've never known, who will unlock my thoughts so that i may share them with the world. someone who actually wants to listen and can provide the proper sort of feedback so that i'm not constantly getting bogged down by the impression that i'm not getting through. someone with indomitable will.
tactically, my dream for beginning outreach involves something like civil disobediance, except done with an eye towards generating sensational publicity, so as to gain the attention of as many potentially sympathetic people as possible, and then to inspire those people by my own eloquence, passion, and commitment, to become involved themselves and creating or greatly expanding a (pre-existing) organization of advocacy for prostitution rights. that's a long, long way from materializing. right now it seems more like an unrealistic dream i engage in as a means of postponing accepting the reality of myself and my life's circumstances, which are that i'm a nobody with no realistic prospects for positive change.
Rubber Nursey
10-24-02, 09:58
Joe,
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that powerful men would have sex with prostitutes to "assert their power in a sexual way". Over the years I have had quite a few powerful and/or 'celebrity' clients, and the main reason they came to me was because of the hookers 'code of ethics' regarding secrecy and anonymity. A lot of truly powerful or wealthy men are actually quite vulnerable when it comes to R/L women and relationships. They can't be sure of a woman's motives...she could be a golddigger looking to marry money, she could be trying to advance her career, she could get pregnant and sue for child support or (if he's already married) she could go to the media or blackmail him. As a general rule...and I mean general, because obviously not everyone is honest!...a sex worker would not do any of those things. We don't need to marry him for his money, because he's already paying us regularly for sex. The same reasoning would apply to getting us pregnant to him. And the majority of sex workers wouldn't go to the media, because we have to retain our OWN anonymity as much as he does.
I've also found that men who are often in the public eye really just enjoy being with a woman who couldn't give a damn about who he is or what he does for a living. They are relaxed and grateful for the break from the intense scrutiny. They also enjoy the chance to play a more submissive role for a change, rather than having to maintain their public image of always being in control. (Look how often judges are caught getting a spanking! ;)) To be honest, rather than wielding their power over a sex worker, powerful men usually tend to become quite docile when visiting a brothel.
Mind you, I will concede that a lot of powerful men probably do abuse their position to get laid. You just don't say no to the President of the United States...in the same way that you don't say no to the guy who does the hiring and firing in your firm. However in this day and age, it's getting a lot harder to abuse a position of authority and get away with it (as your last President found out! LOL) Hopefully that means more rich clients for the hookers!! :)
Rubber Nursey
10-24-02, 10:23
Terry,
Prostitution activism is the most frustrating activity you could ever indulge in! Large numbers of people may participate in prostitution, but MUCH larger numbers of people are completely against it. And the rest just couldn't give a stuff. You have conflicting opinions coming from all directions, from people with all different agendas. Brothel owners, welfare workers, churches, politicians, residents action groups...all have their own (usually selfish!) motives. Sex workers and clients? They are two of the most secretive groups of people on this earth. They will not support you in any way...their reputation/family/jobs/etc depend on them keeping their mouths shut. The media is easily manipulated by "big brother" to censor anything they consider to be a threat to public order. The media is also responsible for reinforcing the myths and misconceptions of prostitution with every movie they show and every sensationalist story they write. What you say as an activist is totally in conflict with everything the public have been told about the 'reality' of the sex industry. They have only heard your story once...they've seen Law and Order SVU a hundred times. Who are they gonna believe?
That said...if it is truly your passion (as it is mine), get involved with PENet, Blackstockings, PONY, COYOTE or any other prostitutes collective near you, and fight the good fight!! At the very least, they will be able to help you gain a thorough knowledge of your local (or national) prostitution legislation, which is something you need to know back to front if you're gonna fight the Government. And be prepared for it to take over your entire life! (Ok, so maybe not everyone's as unbalanced and obsessive as I am... lol) Good luck with your dream...from someone who's currently living theirs. :)
Hey VT, man, don't call yourself a nobody. You are a unique individual just like all the other six billion people in the world.
My point in saying "assert their power in a sexual way" wasn't at all that there was any abuse involved in the process, simply that having sex is a natural male perk of success, all the way from animal structures where the "leader of the pack" gets his choice of (or in some species, all available) mates, to being pursued because of riches or power. Yes, it's hilarious that judges want to be spanked for being "bad" and I know that many execs go the submissive route as a way of completely giving over control, but how it manifests itself is, to my mind, irrelevant and individual. Guys want to be movie or rock stars because they "get all the girls" and political or business success, which revolve around power, are no different. In the case of politicians, I do definitely see some irony because of their position as those who safeguard public safety and morals, but, hey, I'm a champion of human inconsistency, generally.
And VT, IMHO you've got the equation backward. Become the activist, and the supporting partner will become apparent, because you will be manifesting the ideals they seek, and you're also likely to find like-minded people involved in your cause, as opposed to the other way around. Activism starts with activity, and one must invest time and demonstrate effectiveness before the money is going to flow, unless you either know someone with big bucks whose cause it is or have an unusual degree of personal charisma and can convince folks to go on faith. It's difficult to become a professional activist without first having been a very active amateur, unless you hire into an existing structure.
I think the key is defining what you mean by change, both in activism and in your life. The act of following a dream and of being true to your beliefs is itself an act of making change, and it's important to note that the organizations RN mentions are relatively recent on the cultural landscape, so the battle is still young.
vt - regarding your desire to become a top activist. no one is going to follow a self professed "loser". who do you want as a leader? churchill or peewee? learn to respect yourself and your opinions, or no one will ever pay attention to you. this may be a chicken/egg problem however.
rn - still no dick, eh? here's some info for you. if you're somewhat attractive then most guys already want to fuck you. this is not your problem. your problem, as you mentioned, is actually "how do i get rid of him?". much like the old adage... "i don't pay a hooker for sex... i pay her to leave when i'm done." what's the population of perth? if it's less than 250 000 then you're screwed (or rather, not getting screwed). with a population that small word is likely to get out that you're playing, and all the negative bs that goes along with playing will haunt you.
during the course of my job i see many different attractive ladies (from 18 to 40) that i'd like to fuck. the reason i say nothing, nor do i flirt, is because in this climate of male bashing and feminist shit, i don't want to get arrested or have them complain about harrasment. i'd reciprocate if the woman started, but i'm not about to stick my head out and get it chopped off.
my suggestion to you, rn, is exactly as the others said. go out to dinner/movie/pool whatever, explain to him (earlier in the night) that under no circumstances do you want a boyfriend (make sure that you're crystal clear), and them take him home for the night. if he still get's clingy, then you're perfectly warranted to tell him to fuck off (with no worries of his emotional wreckage).
Perth's population (as one of the basically handful of major cities in OZ) is well over a million.
And Fedup, I think your commentary on job stuff says it all in terms of why that's rarely a place to allow yourself to look -- even if, as very often happens, there are women looking for the same thing. And given issues that swirl around, even having the woman be clear about things isn't necessarily safe, as the story can change if things go south.
FU, me, I mess around with the women I meet at work. Where else am I going to meet people and see them in an everyday context so I know what they're really like, instead of what they would pretend to be like on a date?
I figure it'll backfire and cost me a job some day, but I can always find another job.
One time I lost a job that way already. It was after work and we were talking in the break room about who was Polish or Irish or whatever. Many people were saying, "Well, I'm half Irish," "I'm half Italian," whatever. One gal said, "Well, I don't have any Irish in me at all." I said, "Do you want some?" That's all it took for me to be asked to leave.
Since then I quit worrying because I could slip up at any moment despite my best intentions, given that I am a
Dickhead
Rubber Nursey
10-25-02, 02:59
The closest thing I had to a 'romantic attachment' this year was a woman, (yes a woman...sorry :)), from work. The tension was there for soooo long and it made things very difficult for both of us. We talked about the work issues, planned things out, agreed on everything...and then when it came down to it we couldn't go through with it. Too strange. I'm quite glad about that now though. I'd rather not mess up the work relationship, just for a shag!
Fedup,
Joe's right...there's a bit over a million people in Perth. Perth is the capital city of Western Australia, and even though it is one of the smaller of the nation's capitals, it's still large enough to be sort of anonymous. That said, it is a REALLY small town as far as the 'six degrees of separation' theory goes. Everyone you know, knows someone you know, who knows someone they know. One of the biggest risks about working in a Perth brothel is that sooo many men come in that you have a connection too! We're just one big happy family in Perth *groan*
I do have to admit...I have recently found a totally gorgeous boy who I've firmly set my sights on as my next "challenge". *wicked grin* Been flirting with him a little for the last few weeks and as of yesterday, I think I may be finally starting to get somewhere. I'll keep ya posted! :)
BTW, RN, do you work in a brothel or do you work freelance in the street scene? And which would you prefer?
Rubber Nursey
10-25-02, 16:17
For the greater part of five years I worked in a brothel, but for some of that time I worked in a private home. I've never worked on the streets. These days I don't really work at all, but when I occasionally do...I work for myself :)
The Virgin Terr
10-26-02, 16:58
thanks everyone for comments re. my last post. i thought they were all pertinent. it remains a dilemma how 2 achieve greater self esteem, courage, faith, etc. in oneself. having this forum, which is kind of a support group, is great.
The Virgin Terr
10-27-02, 04:20
i want 2 turn this discussion towards activism. RN, how big a part of your life is prostitution activism? do u network much with other activists? what do you all do or propose to do? do u hold meetings, publish newsletters or other materials? belong 2 any formal organizations? anyone talking about challenging the law in court?
now i want 2 ask for a little free psycho-analysis from everyone here. probably one of the reasons i fail alot at relationships is because i'm emotionally needy, relationship starved. i think this repels alot of people but it's who i am and i'm comfortable with it, i just need to find people who are also, because i much prefer deep authentic relationships 2 artificial, shallow ones. this also means i'm severely limited in the number of people i'm compatible with, since intimacy requires having much in common if it is 2b a healthy intimacy, and there aren't alot of people who share my views and values. i've been corresponding for a few years now with an ex prostitute current activist whose autobiography i read. we share much in common in our views of religion and relationships and indignation over the way society is. i want 2 become much closer 2 her and become her partner in work. she is reluctant 2 become more involved with me now as she is busy with alot of stuff but asks that i be patient. i'm being very patient so as not to alienate her but it isn't easy. what's your advice?
The Virgin Terr
10-27-02, 04:44
i should add more 2 the preceding message. i believe she's sincere. i've revealed alot of my heart 2 her and i think she's responded. i've made it clear that i want a close personal relationship also, not as lovers, as she is in poor health and already very much in love with her long-term soulmate, but as very close friends, the way families should be. i have alot of respect for her as an intelligent, creative, compassionate, honest, courageous and determined individual. i very much wish for a closer relationship with her, but i fear i'm deluding myself.
VT, for free (more rhymes):
1) You are deluding yourself.
2) You need to do something to boost your self-esteem. I suggest working out, especially strength training.
3) Say something to every attractive single woman you see, especially while you are doing routine things like shopping.
4) Stop putting women on pedestals. They squat to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140), for chrissakes.
5) Activists of any kind are very high maintenance. This applies to both you and the women you seek.
You would probably be a bit more successful with women if you were a little bit more of a
Dickhead
VT -- to add to DH's very good advice, I think in particular the advice about saying something during routine activity is a good one.
I have a (female) friend who is very emotionally needy and relationship starved. She is also thereby a self-fullfilling prophecy, in that as soon as she finds someone who could be "the one" she grabs on tight and drowns the both of them. It's the rescue syndrome. The other person, who may well think she could be "the one" as well, is suddenly basically given an all-or-nothing kind of choice of either going in really deeply, really quickly, or backing off. By and large, the latter choice is what happens. When we talk about it, she says she knows she's scaring people off, but just can't help it because she wants so much to have a soul-mate. This is a pattern that's existed for many years, and in her one successful long-term relationship (the real love of her life, who she ended up stupidly dumping over the most inane thing) she took her time, restrained herself from going to fast or demanding too much too soon, and let things happen how they happened without trying to control them.
I have a lot of emotionally needy friends (my wife seems to collect them) and one thing I see in common is that they focus too heavily on their own needs in a relationship, and make the meeting of their needs (and schedules) be a kind of test for the partner, which invariably leads to disaster. There's a regualr pattern of measuring and judging based on what needs you might have. I think the proper approach -- especially for the emotionally needy and relationship starved, is the opposite, focusing on what the potential partner might need/want out of the relationship, fulfilling their needs first, and setting up a structure where you acknowledge that they're going to get more out things that you. (This might not be true, but it's a good defense mechanism against that everwhelming sense of need.) Keep the demand level low, and just figure out if you like being with the person for them as opposed to because they're a missing piece of you.
And before I get jumped on -- that's my advice for the relationship starved and emotionally needy, not necessarily for all relationships, though I think the kind of emotional measuring of needs met tends in general to damage things, and a bit of selflessness can go a long way. Few of us can manage to actually not be selfish in any event, which is natural, so we're generally safe on that side of things, but putting the focus anywhere but on your own needs can only help the process.
Manofkosice
10-27-02, 21:18
vt, you say you are corresponding with her.
How often do you see her face to face?
If it is not often (like every month minimum) then you should maybe concentrate on other women because you can't build up anything in her when you don't see each other regularly.
It's important not to build up one woman as "the one" especially if you are not yet in a relationship with her, you make yourself look like a loser, and women want to climb upwards not down.
VT, I would suggest seeing several women at once because there may be a woman who is better, less conceited, and unmarried than the activist. This would give you several to fall back on and it would raise your self-esteem at the same time. If you are just seeing one uncommited girl, you are setting yourself up for disappointment because all your hopes lie with that one girl and if it doesn't work out then you'll be crushed. If you see several, then you may find one that is better and if the one you are seeing leaves you, it won't matter because you'll have 2 or more others. Also, women are scared to death if you declare you want a long term relationship immediately after you meet them. Like anybody, they want to test your waters before jumping in. They want to see if they are comfortable around you, if you are compatible both physically and emotionally, and if they see themselves with you for the long haul before declaring you as a boyfriend or soul-mate. All women are like that but American women take longer because they are less trusting than foreign women.
Rubber Nursey
10-28-02, 17:46
Terry,
"RN, how big a part of your life is prostitution activism? do u network much with other activists? what do you all do or propose to do? do u hold meetings, publish newsletters or other materials? belong 2 any formal organizations? anyone talking about challenging the law in court?
It IS my life (along with my kids, of course), and it has been for over two years now. I do all of the things that you mentioned, and more, every day. It's frustrating and heartbreaking and all-encompassing...but every now and then you see a subtle shift in a hardliner's attitude, and it makes you smile. And when a sex worker comes up to you and says that you somehow made a difference in her life, that makes it all worthwhile. :)
Darkseid,
"All women are like that but American women take longer because they are less trusting than foreign women."
Is it any wonder? You are suggesting that Terry should have a few girls as "spares"! If I found out the guy I was seeing was screwing five other women as "back-ups"...I would be gone in a flash! It's downright insulting. If American women are less trusting than others, maybe it's because too many American men are players...hmmm?
I do have to agree that she shouldn't be put on a pedestal or built up as "the one" before things are a little more certain, but I don't see anything wrong with Terry setting his sights on someone he wants and sticking to it. That's what love/lust/attraction/chemistry is all about. It can make you forget about everyone in the world except her...and I don't see anything wrong with that really.
Love and religion are two very dangerous, expensive, addictive drugs with horrible long-term side effects.
The "3 Fs" according to Dickhead:
Find
Fuck a couple of times
Remember Forever (but don't fall in love)
... but in both those cases the ravages of the addiction are only felt by those who are no longer immersed in the habit. If you can manage to stay in love or in belief, then things work pretty well. Unlike DH, I'd not advise anyone against love, and if religion works for them and they can manage not to feel they have to constantly tell the rest of us, then goody for them on that count as well. I'm in favor of whatever people can use to find happiness, as long as it's not directly causing the opposite in someone else.
The Virgin Terr
10-29-02, 01:41
thanks for the replies. i've tried often complimenting attractive women i meet, many don't appreciate it, and for those who do, what does one say next? it's not a particualrly effective tactic. jz, i know your advice is sound. regarding the comments of some others, it seems my original letters weren't read all that closely. i'm not seeking a sexual relationship with her, but sort of a soulmate relationship based on common interests and needs besides the erotic. i guess i'd like to convince her to become a mentor, and that if she does so i could become an effective advocate for her cause.
i'm lazy. in more detail, i dislike expending effort for unworthy objectives. i want to work at what something i'm passionate about, because if i'm not, i hate having to work. and i want to do it my way. but i don't feel i can do it alone, which is why it's very important to team up with others, both for moral and practical support. on the personal level, i also just need someone to share my mind with, someone i can relate to, which seems very hard to find.
RN, how many other people do u share your work passion with? r they all sexworkers, r they all women? do u know any clients who want to get involved?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN
Is it any wonder? You are suggesting that Terry should have a few girls as "spares"! If I found out the guy I was seeing was screwing five other women as "back-ups"...I would be gone in a flash! It's downright insulting. If American women are less trusting than others, maybe it's because too many American men are players...hmmm?
RN - surely you are not suggesting here that AW are not guilty of "having back-ups" are you? i think it is fairly understood that women "drive the bus" so to speak when it comes to who makes the final call in any sort of male/female connection.
i witness the double standard all the time among my single female friends (and i do wholeheartedly mean platonic). they sit around and talk about men being the dogs but they all, at one point or another, are out with a different man every few days. and when i question them on this and why is it good for the goose and not the gander they seem to all have it reasoned out in their collective minds that it is different for them.
well i don't know, perhaps it is. at least from a sexual standpoint. but i for one refuse to walk around in life apologizing for being a man and being made the way i was created. for goodness sake this is not some global male conspiracy to corrupt women and go-a-runnin. it's the drive in us plain and simple.
but having said that i will say that my female friends are all fairly promiscuous. they love to sit around talking about their sex and for some reason they include me in the conversation (just lucky i guess - and no i am not gay).
but i would also point to recent relevant facts that are coming out about women and fidelity. seems that they are at the 50% margin on women vs. men on infidelity. cheatin' just as much as their male counterparts....
-agl
Rubber Nursey
10-29-02, 04:04
agl,
Nope, I am certainly not saying that American women don't do it as well. Personally, I think it's pretty revolting for EITHER sex to do it. What I was really "attacking" was the fact that at the start of Darkseid's post he says to keep a few women hanging on until you work out which one you like best, and then he says that American women are untrusting. I just thought that was bizarre.
I think there is a BIG difference between sleeping around for fun (both men and women) and keeping a few partners on a string as 'spares'. It's simply dishonest, and downright cruel, to be telling four girls you love them in the hope that one of them may turn out to be your soul mate, and when/if that happens, to dispose of the rest of them.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with men at all...I have a problem with people who behave like assholes in relationships. If a woman had suggested having a few 'spare' men around until she found "The One", I would have jumped on her just as quickly. I don't see anything wrong with either men OR women screwing everything that moves, so long as everything they screw knows where it stands.
Originally posted by RN
agl,I don't see anything wrong with either men OR women screwing everything that moves, so long as everything they screw knows where it stands.
OK. I have now modified my philosophy from "if it moves, screw it; if it doesn't then eat it," to: "if it moves, screw it but let it know exactly where it ('she' in my case <:)) stands."
Shouldn't be too much of an adjustment. However, being fairly short, if I am screwing them they are probably not standing. Some of the more accomodating lasses may perhaps be squatting a bit. Just another reason I like Latin America, where I am relatively tall. And, another reason to adopt the metric system, since when I say I am 170 cm, I not only seem European but taller as well.
Anyhow, I am much taller when I am lying down!
Rubber Nursey
10-29-02, 04:19
Terry,
"RN, how many other people do u share your work passion with? r they all sexworkers, r they all women? do u know any clients who want to get involved?"
There are around 30 core members in three separate groups, (a handful of us belong to all three), but we also have the support of around 25-30 health/welfare/community agencies, some of which have a huge amount of clout in the public arena. And we have the backing from the national peak body for sex worker organisations. The majority of the members are women and many of them are ex/current sex workers, but not all of them. We have had no support from clients as yet (although, you never know!) It would be great for clients to get involved. We've found lately that because we've got so much media play with the "sex workers are people too" angle, the media are now starting to focus a little more on the "predators and perverts" that visit sex workers.
Rubber Nursey
10-29-02, 04:24
LMAO Dickhead! You're a funny bugger :)
You don't have to change your philosophy at all. "If it moves, screw it; if it doesn't then eat it", but be sure to tell it that you won't be back tomorrow. And don't tell it you love it unless you mean it and if you do mean it, then don't spin the same shit to other 'its' at the same time.
Now I've confused myself...
"i've tried often complimenting attractive women i meet, many don't appreciate it, and for those who do, what does one say next? it's not a particualrly effective tactic."
VT, the tactic isn't to get to the next step, it's to be comfortable with the first so that it becomes part of your overall makeup. And there are compliments and there are compliments -- I've never had a woman get upset or not appreciate it, for example, if I compliment her shoes :) or bracelet or somesuch. And actually, my approach isn't so much a direct compliment as an expression of interest, which is not only less confrontational but a compliment to her sense of style or taste, and for the most part women are more comfortable and happy to get that kind of compliment than "you're gorgeous" from a stranger. This approach also has the advantage of providing what to say next -- where did you get them/it, they look like they would also work with such and such an outfit, or are they as comfortable/uncomfortable as they look, blah blah blah. And she ends up talking to you, since you're asking her questions.
Just small talk is the aim, nothing else. Part of the trick is precisely not to in any way imply "my god you're gorgeous, I'd do you in a heartbeat, let's go find a room" or "you're the one I want to spend eternity with" because, well, if that's the aim, you want her to want to do you, which means you have to be interesting in some way. (Not that, to save Dickhead some time, the direct approach doesn't have its merits as well, of course.) Getting to the point where you're comfortable engaging attractive women in casual conversation without need of an immediate dive into "she could be the one" will simply translate into more confidence in talking with women and expressing the things you truly want to express.
And I'm basically giving advice that's worked for me -- I was painfully shy growing up, used to joke that I never actually spoke to a non-family-member until college unless it was in a classroom. I'm still not all that comfortable at social functions in small groups of people I don't know, but I'm told no one can tell or believes me when I say that any more, so I'm at least masking my fears, plus I regularly speak in front of large groups of people with complete ease. Now I have to reverse the process and relearn how to shut up and enjoy silence, and I've been working on that, just not on this forum :D although that's going to start happening starting Friday when I head to Thailand for the next few months and have to actually pay by connect time.
As far as the woman you're referring to, my advice is don't convince her to be a mentor, but just ask her to explain something about the cause. And then do it again. That is generally how mentoring relationships get formed, not through some formal agreement. Don't ask for the committment, pursue the knowledge you expect out of the process. Particularly for advocates, the work is the pole where the relationship is tethered.
Originally posted by RN
LMAO Dickhead! You're a funny bugger :)
You don't have to change your philosophy at all. "If it moves, screw it; if it doesn't then eat it", but be sure to tell it that you won't be back tomorrow. And don't tell it you love it unless you mean it and if you do mean it, then don't spin the same shit to other 'its' at the same time.
Now I've confused myself...
I never do ANY of that shit. I am an honest, straight forward, up front Dickhead. Well, I don't tell them I WON'T be back tomorrow but I sure don't tell them I WILL. Let 'em guess. And I have said "I love you" to three women in my life and I meant it every time. Now I am no longer looking for love as I am emotionally bankrupt. But I make a great one-night stand because not only can I eat pussy as if it were a taco combination plate, but I make the greatest breakfasts, ever, before I show you politely to the door.
And, I don't date more than one woman at a time unless it is in the very early stages. Nor do I screw married women, nor do I move in on another guy's girlfriend. It is too complicated and I am too lazy. I am a very overt Dickhead, not a lying, cheating, prevaricating Dickhead. I say, look, I'm a dickhead, here it is; take it or leave it. Mostly they leave it.
"Don't spin the same shit to other 'its' "; say it ten times fast without stopping. I bet it sounds better with an Aussie accent. Almost anything does.
But, yeah, I am hilariously funny. That is why the Irish always win even though they always lose. That and the fact that "quit" has no Gaelic translation (true fact).
It seems that the activist isn't returning his affection partly because she is married. And RN, what I meant by him seeing several women at once is that he should keep dating, maybe set up a several dates a week until he finds one that he like AND that returns his affection instead of pursuing one that isn't interested. I've been in that situation in high school and it is like banging your head against the wall because while you are extremely "sweet" or nice to her, she accuses you of being a stalker. If this is the case with VT in which the activist isn't interested in him then this isn't worth working for and he should work at someone else. Pursuing women that aren't interested in you only crushes your esteem. If you date as many women as you like, (or men in your case RN), then it avoids the disappointment of being alone because one of them would be interested in you. The one that shows the most affection should be chosen and worked on. The rest who show less affection or are dating you for alterior motives should be turned away.
And RN, I have been in many situations in which I dated WOMEN who dated several men at once and I felt like part of a lineup. Most of the times I get rejected because I am not tall or I have less money than the financial planner. I don't see these women complaining because they get what they want in a man without the disappointment of not being chosen. VT, you should date several at once and BE the choser not the one who has to be chosen. This does raise your esteem a lot and makes you feel wanted and appreciated even with AW.
The Virgin Terr
10-29-02, 16:29
laziness makes me a bit if a dickhead too. i think i'm lazy partly or wholely because so often effort seems so utterly pointless. for example, trying to reason with the religious about the absurdity of their beliefs. the sheer level of stupidity which is requisite to believe such nonsense in the first place is staggering. how can one combat it? unless we somehow evolve technology which allows for improving the critical thinking ability of the brain, logic and reason are impotent tools of persuasion with many people. but i'm going 2 try 2 begin making a greater effort here in this forum 2 expound on my thoughts, even though i hate expending effort at anything which does not yield at least the promise of a reward.
so i should expand on what i said earlier regarding the futility of complimenting women in mainstream society. clearly, the motive behind the compliment is sexual, if directed at the physicality of the complementee. since mainstream society trains women 2 react negatively 2 aggressive or assertive come-ons, and discourages men from engaging in such, they generally don't work unless one uses the subtle and very indirect approach advocated by jz, which isn't suited 2 my style. that's why i like prostitutes so much; they want and welcome the aggressive, no games no bullshit approach. society has a problem with this because it has always equated sex with commitment, and still does. the idea of using or engaging in sex for short term gain or fulfillment without commitment 2 one's partner is anethema 2 the mainstream, which is y prostitution is criminalized and stigmatized.
by the way jz, are you planning on enjoying the company of prostitutes while in thailand? stupid question, i know. wish i had the bucks to go there.
The Virgin Terr
10-29-02, 16:50
RN, 30 core activists is great, absolutely fantastic, but what's needed is an organization of thousands. somehow, someone needs to find a way to energize the masses of closeted and isolated individuals who participate in commercial sex with varying degrees of shame and get them 2 shed their negative feelings and despair and instead feel hopeful and empowered and angry about being perceived and treated like criminals and second class citizens. also what's needed is for clients and providers to work 2gether, and for clients 2 get out of the closet as well, so as not 2b so easily labeled and dismissed as "predators and perverts". my dream involves doing exactly that in a big way. 3 letters perhaps prevent me from doing so, the 3 letters which distuinguish 2 words with very different meanings: pathetic and sympathetic. i fear that having 2 pay for sex carries a huge stigma of being pathetic. if i was confident of being able 2 overcome that, i think i would do it.
It is not that you are lazy VT, but the religious people are stuck glued to their beliefs and would never change their ignorant ways of thinking and it is hopeless to argue with them. Any change to their beliefs is equated to eternal damnation to them (like that's going to happen). You CAN'T reason with the religious and they are always going to try to force their beleifs on everyone thinking they are servin God. This is why they change the American laws to fit their religious beliefs. The law is one way to force people to follow the ways of religion and abstinence from non-commitment sex! We do not choose to make prostitution illegal, heck, I never voted for criminalization of prostitution but I always rally for it and get locked up for a few days whenever I picket their for the rights of prostitution. This democracy is a joke in that matter and allows the prudes to get their ways and lets them impose their abstinence upon us. We are looked down upon by the religious and so are the AW. Maybe this is part of the reason AWs hate being complimented. They are being complimented on something that religious people who rule this country frown upon, their sexuality and sexual attractiveness. This makes compliments of this type offensive in this society of prudes so it makes them feel ashamed of themselves and makes them feel like "s****" (I hate that double standard word for women who love sex which exists only in this country and no where else. There is no Portugese word for it).
I know, this may seem like an unconventional way of putting this but it's true of this Puritanical society and I blame the prudeness of it for the reason AW are so bitchy. AWs feel that they need to compensate for these double standard by being money grubbers which is totally wrong. They think they need an equalizer to these double standards of shame so they demand other rights like divorce laws that favor them (alimony) or the right to have dinner and dates paid for. Sex is made so shameful in this society that AW think they are doing you a favor by having it with you.
VT, don't listen to those pathetic religious activists that call us names like "perverts". This ONLY happens in the United States and other such puriatn countries. These countries make up ony 20% of the world and that includes the US, Middle East, and India. The rest of the world which is 80% does not think the way we do and if you go to Brazil, it is normal to pay for sex and EVERYBODY has done it at least once in their lifetime and they don't get persecuted for it. Only in religious countries like the Middle East and the US do you get that stigma of being a pervert or loser for paying for sex. I don't think of myself as a loser but sometimes I need to get some tension out of me so I go to clubs or personals to find women to have sex with or if I find that they are scared of me because I come on too strong, I feel the need to let it out by going to a brothel or a prostitute then my chances of getting a non-pro increases because they feel less uneasy toward me and that I am not just trying to meet them for sex because I am no longer trying desperately to get some. Unfortunately, in NYC, cops and nosy body neighbors always shut the brothels down, even the private independent numbers so occasionally I go to Canada. Montreal Canada is a great place to release my sexual tension. I also seem to have higher batting averages in other countries because women aren't shamed by sex and therefore they don't feel cheap for it, unlike here in America.
Rubber Nursey
10-29-02, 17:48
Terry,
If you add up all the sex workers who are willing to give anonymous support, and the staff and associates of all the agencies affiliated with the activist groups, and the national sex worker body and the eight state organisations that work beneath it....we DO have a cast of thousands. We have an amazing network of people, which is an extremely valuable resource when it comes to finding someone who can get a particular job done. That said, and Joe may disagree with me on this, I personally believe that "too many cooks can spoil the broth". You can't have thousands of people running around uncoordinated. You can't have people speaking to the media on behalf of a group, without the group approving it first. Thousands of people gathering outside Parliament in solidarity may be heaps of fun, but in my opinion it's a complete waste of time. I rarely participate in anything like that.
Everything needs to be researched, planned and executed by people who know what they're doing and how to go about it. You don't change laws by storming the Minister's office (well, I don't believe you can anyway). You change laws by playing their game. Find loopholes in the law. Find ways to sabotage their proposals. Tie them up in red tape. Talk to their wallets and their egos, not their sensibilities. And while that's going on...talk to the public. Talk to the media, hold community forums, publish papers and attend every convention and conference that could possibly further your cause. All this stuff (that we're doing now) is done by a very small handful of very passionate people, who work very closely together to make sure everything is coordinated. When we need the numbers or some big names, we have people to call on. Like I said, Joe may disagree with me...and if you do Joe, I'd really love to hear your comments.
" i fear that having 2 pay for sex carries a huge stigma of being pathetic."
How humiliated do you think *I* am every time I address a conference as a self-confessed wh*re? If it really means something to you, you will swallow your pride and bite the bullet. The stigma is only there because people don't understand prostitution and the people involved in it. Talking about it in public gives the industry a human face. They need to begin to SEE us as people, before they will begin to TREAT us as people.
Rubber Nursey
10-29-02, 18:04
Darkseid,
Prostitution is illegal, (or at the very least, severely restricted), in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and most of Australia. And almost every religion in the world denies a woman's right to enjoy her sexuality, whether it's the Catholics, the Christians or some Middle Eastern belief. The majority of developed countries have traditional "rules" that women are supposed to abide by. Some are more relaxed than others, but in essence they are really the same. The pussy must be controlled at all costs.
In my humble opinion, if you want to blame anyone for the behaviour of American women (and Aussie women)...blame the Church, and the patriachy of old.
VilunyaChert
10-29-02, 19:00
RN> Tie them up in red tape.
Kinky!
RN -- I don't disagree with you on your main point, which is that clarity is necessary for an organization to be effective. That's the only aspect in which I really believe in the too many cooks equation -- rallies of thousands, while they do not make laws change, serve to underscore the points being made in private, and give weight to them. So they can still be an important aspect of the equation, and not a complete waste of time. They serve a similar function to bringing $$ into the equation -- they represent votes. I think the idea of one specific organization doing all the talking, which at times powerful and focussed, can also be a detriment, as opposed to multiple groups with similar but not the same messages. Political change comes about by a sense of popular support, and a crowd is by its nature an awkward beastie. I agree completely that coordination and focussed messages are important, as the powers that be need to hear the same thing over and over until it gets though, but I also think one must accept a bit of off-point messages and outbreaks from supporters as part of the process, and an important one as well. The nature of popular causes is that they have several variations of thought, and the mistake many activists make is spending too much time worrying about this or that person spouting off. The bottom line is that more noise, whether precisely on message or not, is usually a good thing (though obviously at times that can also end up not being true.)
And VT, the answer is yes, I will no doubt seek out Thai sex workers, since they're so available and inexpensive there and since I'm going to be there for ten weeks, but unlike some folks on the board that's not the main agenda for my trip, as I'm going to work and to explore a bit. Of course, that's rather like saying that dessert isn't the main reason for the meal -- it might be true, but it doesn't mean you're not going to have it.
The Virgin Terr
10-30-02, 01:26
RN, all the things u mentioned about how to change the laws by "playing their game" have some utility, but i think more boldness and defiance r required. something like someone breaking the law and flaunting it and making a firm moral stand, showing at least some people that the moral high ground is with freedom advocates, not the pious puritanical prohibitionists.
here in america as even folks in australia are probably aware of, we have alot of gun nuts, millions as a matter of fact. these gun nuts also belong in huge numbers to a lobbying group called the NRA. i believe they literally have over a million members, dues paying members. the washington lobbyists they pay for are extremely effective at stifling gun control legislation. that's what i'm talking about when i say an organization with numbers. an organization that supports it's leadership which in turn acts as an effective voice for their concerns. i don't expect anything near as big or effective as the NRA can be created on behalf of prostitution rights, but even 1/1,000 that much would be a great improvement to what there is now.
by the way, anything going on with that boy of yours?
joe, i hope u'll be able to continue checking in with us at least a couple of times a week while in sex client's paradise.
darkside, i am ashamed that i have to pay for sex. doing it as a matter of convenience i wouldn't be ashamed of, but having to do it is another story. i'm ashamed that i lack the charm or other qualities necessary 2 coax attractive lovely young lasses into bed without the impersonal lure of cash. this shame is something i must overcome by overcoming my social awkwardness, or by becoming more comfortable with the idea that money isn't the only reason some prostitutes work, and that being with me they get more of a reward than the money.
Joe,
One day, between other days of misbehaving bound to happen, we should maybe have a lenghthy, serious session of philosophical talks. I am not kidding really.
I like your views mostly - but there are of course grounds for quarrel too - at least a bit. Might at least be good exercise before the last standoff bound to happen with RN - tough but exciting one.
You choose the ground :-)
well, sometimes i pay for sex and sometimes i get it for free. if i got it for free more i would probably pay for it less, and if i got it for free less i would probably pay for it more. i have decent social skills and absolutely no sense of shame or shyness, but what i find as i get older is that there's not enough unattached women to go around who meet my minimal standards (not overweight, non-smoker, iq above body temperature, breathing). i could probably get laid more for free if i were willing to screw married women, but that is against my belief system (cheating and stealing, plus i might have to also lie at some point).
i don't go around telling the whole world that i like to chase hookers, but all my close friends are certainly aware that i do it. some, i can sense, do look down on me for it somewhat, but i don't care. sometimes i get a speech like, "come on, you could find a girlfriend if you tried harder, went out more, drove a nicer car," whatever. well, i don't really want a "girlfriend." that just hasn't worked out for me in the long run. women have a nasty habit of wanting to change and perfect their man. i have two problems with that. number one, if i need all this changing and perfecting, i become insecure that she even likes me to begin with. number two, it's never enough, and it never stops. oh yeah, and number three: when we first start going out and having a good time, it's "fun" to go out drinking. once i have a "girlfriend," then i "drink too much" and "we need to stay home and (insert least favorite activity here)." no, i drink the same amount as i did when we first started going out, which is the same amount i drank twenty years ago, which is a lot, so what's your point?
oh yeah and number four: i smoke weed and i've been doing it for 33 years and if you don't like it, the door is over there. that was "fun" too when we first started going out but now we have to get "serious" and what if "someone finds out"? hello?? that's why i fucking tell everyone straight out that i do it. i don't care if anyone finds out. they can't send me to jail for it in my state.
what if "someone finds out" that i use hookers from time to time? i don't care. i'm not running for president and if my employers find out and they fire me for that, i was looking for a job when i found this one. i don't do it where it's illegal anyway; they can send me to jail for that in my state. i've been in jail, and i didn't like it. there's no pussy or booze or dope (well there probably is after a while) in jail.
so to summarize: if there's a woman out there who isn"t fat, doesn't smoke and is halfway intelligent, aware, and interesting, and does like to fuck and suck almost every night and won't try to change me but likes me the way i am, i feel i have a lot to offer. if not, i can go to latin america and fuck ten women for the price of what it would cost me to have a "girlfriend" for six months. and, i can do what the fuck i want when the fuck i want.
so, what i'm basically saying is i'm a
dickhead
Traveller, I'm always up for a good pointless philosophical session, most especially if there are solid grounds for friendly quarrel -- no fun going at it if you both agree on everything, and it most certainly doesn't sharpen the mind or senses. I see you posted in the Cambodia area -- are you in SE Asia?
And of course we all know that men hopping on planes all over the world who read WSG are dreaming of being the one to have that standoff with RN. Just nobody local to her it seems, alack, alas, and alas :)
And VT, it appears I'm going to be needing to be online for a variety of purposes while I'm away (I've agreed, among a host of other strange and perhaps idiotic things, to correspond with a couple of grade school social studies classes while I'm in Asia, sending travelogues and digital photos and answering questions -- and, no, that will decidedly not include the sex trade, as that's a bit too much education for those kids) so I'll no doubt check in here as well. If nothing else I feel honor-bound to give back some field reports to the folks in the Thailand section who have been kind enough to help educate me as to what's currently what.
Of course, I say all that before I sink into the slow rhythm of things there, where there's no hurry to do much of anything, which is so much of why I'm going, to see if I can work well under such circumstance or whether I'll simply spend a few months watching, thinking, and perhaps less than occasionally being a misbehaviorist.
Rubber Nursey
10-30-02, 06:43
Joe in a stand-off with me? Nah, I don't wanna fight with Joe. I love debate. I learn something new from Joe practically every day, and his experience and wisdom are of great benefit to my work. I truly respect his opinion, even when I don't actually agree with what he says. And I respect the fact that he often disagrees with me too, rather than backing down and letting 'Lil Miss Nursey have her way. I see this sort of discussion as a way to expand our knowledge, rather than a battle that needs to be won. Good to see you back Traveller. :)
Terry,
Things with the cute boy have become quite "matey", but I don't really get the opportunity to see him for more than a few minutes at a time, and only a couple of days a week. He works somewhere that I visit often. BUT I'm starting to get the horrible feeling that he is, in fact...gay. It would be just my bloody luck! lol
Dickhead,
I don't fit your minimum requirements unfortunately, but I do agree entirely with your relationship comments. Especially the one about things that used to be fun becoming no longer acceptable. I have had heaps of trouble with men doing that too...in particular with the things that apparently made me "sexy" in the first place. He WAS attracted to my short skirts and snug-fitting jeans, but now they just look trashy. He used to like the way I played pool and drank beer with the boys, but now it makes me look like a flirt and a tramp. He used to like my independence, but now he's afraid I'll run off if he doesn't tie me down.
Although, I think the motivation is probably different between men and women. Women tend to take something that they see as not quite right...but that has potential...and try to mould it into something perfect. Men tend to take something perfect...then realise that other men might wanna steal it from them...so try to turn it into something not so good. (Then they complain that she's "let herself go". LOL)
OOooh I think you MUST be saying that you are a smoker. Can't see what else it could be given your previous statements. And, I interpret your use of the word "unfortunately" as saying you wish you were not a smoker. Well, tobacco (nicotine, primarily) is a drug and a danged strong one, which conflicts with your oft-stated "I don't do drugs." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you said you were slender and I do believe it is obvious your IQ hits triple digits (and then some).
Nevertheless, smoking doesn't affect me at all over the internet, so let me proceed to say that I agree with what you say about MANY men (although not me) not wanting their woman to "look sexy" once she is "their" woman.
I think here in the US, at least, couples in relationships breathe a huge sigh of relief at some point that they are now well locked into a relationship and can now proceed to get fat, dress like shit, fart in front of their partner, etc., etc. This complacency has occurred in all my relationships. My feeling is that I have surrendered somewhat less to this syndrome since I was not "putting on the act" to begin with. I mean, I'll never get fat and I dress like shit from day one. But, not putting on the act to begin with has perhaps limited my potential relationships. Although, I would argue it has only prevented relationships that wouldn't have worked out in the long run anyway.
I keep thinking that if I just act naturally, the right woman will eventually come along, but then I forget that in my case, acting naturally is being a
Dickhead
Rubber Nursey
10-30-02, 08:54
Guilty as charged. But I'm a hooker...isn't smoking part of the job description?? LOL I do actually want to give up...and I intend to soon enough...but right now I'm under too much stress to even contemplate it. Last time I tried giving up, I turned into a she-devil. (Even worse than usual!) I'm pretty sure I've said in the past that I've never used ILLICIT drugs, but if I didn't, then that's what I meant. I smoke and I drink, so yes I do drugs, but I don't use anything else...not even pot.
And I think your "be yourself" approach is great. :) I don't like fake people, and I wouldn't want to date someone who expected me to be something I'm not. If I have to pretend to be someone else in order to get someone to like me, then obviously we weren't ever compatible in the first place. Years ago I used to drink wine, giggle at inane jokes and "dumb down" whenever I was around a man I was attracted to. These days they get the REAL me...warts and all. If they don't like it, they can f*ck off. Of course they all DO f*ck off...so perhaps it's not such a good concept after all...
Weeeel, no RN, smoking is not in your job description and I would think it would reduce your potential client base. By this I mean that a smoking client would likely not care if he got a non-smoking hooker, but that a non-smoking potential client (such as myself) might care if he got a smoking hooker. Also, if you are an activist trying to fight stereotyping, wouldn't your "it's part of the job" position feed into these stereotypes?
I can relate exactly to your "If they don't like it they can all fuck off, but of course they all DO fuck off"! That would be my "here it is; take it or leave it and mostly they leave it."
We are getting nowhere fast here but I think I want to bring up the role of the media and the large corporations in getting impressionable young hookers addicted to tobacco. Let's carefully examine this statement of yours about drinking wine, giggling, and dumbing down. Is that not the exact role that the mainstream media and the heinous peddlers of the ADDICTIVE weed (marijuana is definitely not addictive in my opinion; I do not use it on a daily basis although I have been using it for a long time, and I often go for long periods without it and experience no "cravings." Also, I believe that the tobacco companies deliberately add additives to their product to make more addictive) want women to play? Compliant, suggestible, and subjugating themselves to the desires of the more economically and socially powerful?
I would like to raise people's consciousness about the inverse relationship between tobacco use and economic power, and the reasons that powerful yet slimy interests may have in perpetuating this. There is also an inverse relationship between tobacco use and educational level and one has to consider some possibilities related to this.
Give it some thought?
Rubber Nursey
10-30-02, 10:32
Awwww c'mon. You know I was joking about the "job description"!
I have to say though...Australia is really strict with tobacco advertising. For many years, they have not been allowed to advertise on TV, billboards or in magazines, nor sponsor sporting events. Our television programs have all but completely phased smokers out, and now the movies seem to be doing the same thing. Nobody smokes on Aussie TV...except the Americans. Today's kids think that cigarettes are revolting. As a teenager, I thought they were cool...like everyone did at that time. I didn't even LIKE smoking, but I still did it! Now, 13 years later, I DO want to give up. It's just a freakin' hard thing to do! When I regain control over my life, I will do my best to boot it. Until then...like any drug...it is my sanity.
What *I* find incredible is that Governments and Health authorities pour sooo much money and time and effort into trying to make people quit...and yet the tobacco companies keep producing cigarettes. Why don't they close them down? Why not make tobacco an illicit substance? And why not have taxpayer funded "rehab" for smokers? Nicotine patches would cost me over $100 per week...hypnotism is $180 per hour, and you need a few sessions...I can't AFFORD to give up! LOL Why won't they do anything about it? 'Coz they make so many billions of dollars in Tobacco Tax every year. I'm not stupid. I realise I'm being played. But knowing that doesn't make quitting any easier.
This is sooooo far off topic...
RN, about the illegalness of prostitution, yes, I do blame the church for it. The church is what fuels the prudity in America and other countries but the US and Italy takes the Catholic teachings into heart the most.
Italy and the US both have their cops shut down and raid brothels and makes sure there are no prostitutes left standing in the steets or in the yellow pages. Cops go to these places undercover, find out if these places are brothels (and some go for their services before shutting them down) then call their other homo cops to shut the places down.
The most arrests in the world for prostitution is in the US according to a statistician in Holland who did a survey in every country. He also did a survey for marijuana arrests and the US also came out on top.
The church brainwashes americans into being prudes then these prudes threaten the politicians to make sex, prostitution and porn illegal or else they won't vote them in. The politicains then advertise that they will eliminate prostitution as though they are doing something good and advertise that the other politician is lax on that policy. I vote for the one supporting sex, but unfortunately, the one against sex gets voted because this country is full of brainwashed zombie prudes that are influenced by the Church.
About the relationship part of the conversation in this post, I agree with DH that women do tend to try to change their man and they let themselves go.
When my ex-fiancee, Nury, turned American influenced by a feminist she met at school, she tried to stop me from going to clubs every Friday and Saurday night. She also wanted me to spend more time with her on weekdays also so she wanted me to only go to kung-fu class only once a week instead of 3 times a week. I constantly battled her over her trying to change my lifestyle because this is who I am.
I love training and having fun and I was not about to give that up for her. She seemed to have been supportive of me before she met Martha the feminist and became a lazy person that let herself go and became abusive. Perhaps she wanted to win my heart then turn around and change me. Since I didn't want to change, she didn't like it and even tried to assault me because I happen to go to class on days in which something trivial to everyone but herself happened. In fact, it was not even an anniversary or the day we first met or kissed, but she started making special days for every little event that happened and expected me to remember all of those days. When I got home from class, she gave me a dirty look when I got home and asked, "Do you remember what happened on this date? It was the date you bought me the first pair of shoes (or something of that sort). How can you have forgatton? Is kung-fu more important than I am?" After this, I forgot the date of another trivial event that happened like the first day we went shopping or something then she got mad and threw thing at me. I ran back out of the house and called the cops but all they did was file a report and didn't come to my house. I think she made up all those holidays to give me a hard time and to make me stay home with her. She also let herself go with the advice of Martha, the feminist, and stopped going with me to kung-fu classes and the gym.
It seems she wanted to live the lazy overweight life and wanted to drag me down with her and also turn me obese. Perhaps it is true that she was afraid of losing me like the reverse case that DH mentioned in which the guy didn't want the girl to wear sleazy outfits because he was a jealous neanderthal who was afraid of losing his girl. Then the girl lets herself go. Instead, my ex-fiancee was the jealous buffoon who was afraid of losing me because I was muscular and that some other better looking woman would take me away.
This problem always happens in exclusive 1 on 1 relationships and that is why I am into open relationships and I date several women at once. I strive to have at least 2 dates a month some of them are from the personal or from my night club goings. The jealousy factor is what makes the problems that DH mentions, which is about possessiveness. In a 1 on 1, one feels that he possesses the other and vice versa, and this causes more problems than open relationships which have problems caused by marriage laws or moral laws imposed by church. I really don't give a damn what the church or state says about polygamy and if it were legal, I would practice polygamy and allow my wives to marry other husbands as well. That way, women won't have to change their man and they can find a man that has one feature that another man lacks and have both of those men. The men can do the same with the women. No need to change anyone in this scenario and everyone can be who they are.
Darkseid, it sounds to me as if this is less about the 1 on 1 relationship structure and more about getting involved with women whose insecurities are allowed to run the relationship. Emotional abuse is no different from physical abuse in that it can only continue if one allows it to -- I've had relationships where people (and I'm speaking generally here, as I believe this extends beyond male-female close relationships) started playing those "your behaviour is a reflection on me" games and my response is, if that's how you feel then enjoy looking in the mirror, because that's all about you, not me, and I'm gone if this continues. And then I am if it does. (Let me be clear that I'm willing to stick around if they are willing to try to change, and work with them on that, but it's more work, as one constantly has to remind them of the line, that they're slipping back into old behaviors, etc.) If someone wants you around, not only do you need to be aware of their rules/needs, but they need to be aware of yours. In my long-standing relationship, both of us have our foibles and insecurities, but one of the reasons it's lasted as long as it has is because we both recognize that they're ours, not our partner's.
And RN, I understand what you're saying about stress, but I've got to tell you that anyone who smokes automatically moves to the back of my relationship list, unfortunately. And I've siblings, otherwise very bright, who do so, and it's no reflection on intelligence. Had a girlfriend one time who was a smoker, and I simply couldn't stand kissing her, despite that fact that she was simply brilliant and enthusiastic about that, let alone the whole cigarette after sex thing, where she'd be happily puffing away and I'd be choking. The stress you're putting on your body is nothing compared to the stress you feel, and I can't believe that you, as someone who's already had a cancer scare, can ignore the reality of the risk you're throwing at your kids (and since I don't know your smoking habits, here I'm not referring to second-hand smoke issues, but simply the heightened risk of you not being around for them because of the health risks.)
Originally posted by Dickhead
...
I feel I have a lot to offer. If not, I can go to Latin America and fuck ten women for the price of what it would cost me to have a "girlfriend" for six months. And, I can do what the fuck I want when the fuck I want.
Amen. I'm beginning to collect some pearls of wisdom here and there, have to say that some sections of the WSG are a great source.
On the subject of smoking, RN said it would cost too much for her to quit, due to the high cost of treatments, etc.
I think in fact the only way one can quit smoking is free and fast, cold turkey. I did that almost three years ago, after some 15 years of puffing, at the very same time that I was under strong psychological stress, being abused by someone.
I'm not a person of very strong will but I guess my motivation was to bring something under control (the smoking habit) while I couldn't be in control (or at least I tought so) of the other, bigger problem. Time has now passed and I never want to go back at smoking, I also succesfully passed the test of occasionally sampling cigarillos and some weed. I think my body has now lost any affinity with nicotine and tobacco aromatics, of course it took a while.
Now RN I think that given the fact that you have the will to (in no particular order) be an activist, write here on the board, don't give up on your kids and go ahead with your life, you can also add this extra challenge to your to-do list, wait for a motivating situation to begin it and give it a shot.
Chanches are you will succeed more easily than you think.
Exactly, Stoly. Congratulations. And RN, here's some more motivation: If you quit, I will look you up when I am there in the spring and give you a good long root. But if you don't, I won't.
Rubber Nursey
10-31-02, 09:27
Ohhhh me and my big mouth! Ok, yes I'm gonna give up...no I'm not going to right now. I know I would be setting myself up for failure, and that's only gonna make it harder for the quit attempt that follows. The last time I tried to quit was, as Joe mentioned, after the scare with the Big C. But I was under so much emotional strain at the time that the smokes were my "crutch", and removing the crutch made me fall over. I gave up for all of about three days.
Sometimes I feel like I could take or leave smoking, and I know in myself that I'm only doing it out of habit...and sometimes I feel like it's the only thing getting me through the day. Right now, I am having one of the latter moments. I don't think I could cope with the added stress of quitting. But I WILL...just gotta wait until things calm down. As soon as I start getting that 'take it or leave it' feeling again, I'll take advantage of it. Soooo hard though. All my friends smoke and most of my workmates smoke. "Have you got a light" is the world's best pick-up line. Beer just doesn't taste the same without a dash of tar and various deadly chemicals.
And if I DO give up...I have to have sex with a Dickhead!! LOL ;)
Actually, there are two things you HAVE to do: pay taxes and die. I was just offering my services in light of your current situation!
I wasn't aware that "Got a light?" was the world's best pick up line. I thought it was "I'm hard if you're wet!"
Joe. pointless philosophical discussions are my favourite pastime - I am lucky I have a colleague who has is the same way too. And bottom line - probably they are not at all pointless.....
I am not in SE Asia, been misbehaving a little in the land of smiles and Eastern Cina a couple of times. I just tend to read posts on several groups here, and I am a bit (er.. very) opinionated against political correctness, as opposed to common sense and being nice to your neighbour......
RN - hey catch the crooked smile in that one about the standoff. It's a given it would be a friendly one - and if you won't have one with Joe, then.....? :-)
And yes, I smoke like a chimney and it does not embarrass me. Stupid as h... but I still hold the misconception that we live in a free world (whenever did that occur??)
I'm with Dickhead... just say "no" to smokers. Besides the fact that smokers are killing me as well (in so many different ways... such as having to watch you have a lung removed due to cancer), smokers also taste like shit. I love to snack on pussy and smokers just don't taste the same (just as I'm told girls won't give blow jobs if a guy has been drinking coffee). As soon as I see a smoker I take 15 to 20 IQ points right off the top. Sorry RN... but saying that everyone else is doing it just makes you one of the Lemmings headed for the cliff.
Traveller... It's a free country for me too. Masturbation is offensive, thus you can't do it in public. Many people find smoking offensive (especially when I have to constantly wash otherwise clean clothes/myself just because they/I reek of smoke) as well... so why is it allowed in public?
To bring this back to topic... A hooker would have to be plenty hot for me to pick if I learnt she smoked.
The Virgin Terr
11-01-02, 00:57
traveller, i think u got that misconception the same place we all do: from public schools and from the mainstream establishment. some of us however eventually wise up to the truth.
dickhead, smooth move there with RN. so u've been a pothead for 33 years now? i was under the mistaken impression u weren't even that old, probably had u mixed up with fedup or someone. i didn't begin smoking until i was around 35, and didn't begin smoking regularly on a nearly daily basis until i turned 40, and discovered by accident on my own that weed is a good anti-depressant, and cure for insomnia. that was 4 years ago. i smoke no more now than i did then, which is only a little pinch once or twice a day, enough for my purposes, and thus a very affordable self-medication in spite of the outrageous black market price. learning the reality about pot has just been one more reason to distrust and hate the establishment.
RN, all guys are dickheads deepdown. won't be the first time u've screwed one.
fedup, when u say that masturbation is offensive, do u mean that from a personal viewpoint or are u just mouthing social convention? do u masturbate? feel ashamed? do u think others ought to? masturbation is probably the most common human sexual activity, engaged in by probably over 90% of adults. is it offensive period, or only if done publically. same question goes for partner sex, is it offensive in public? if so, why? i'm serious. i think humans the most perverse sexual beings in existence because of this phenomenon of shame and repression humans attach to it. do u think we should be ashamed of being sexual beings? if not, why make any effort to hide it by banning it in public?
The Virgin Terr
11-01-02, 01:21
i'm reading a new book about the evolutionary biology of sex, which some of u may also find interesting since we're all interested in sex and i imagine some of u are into science as well. evolutionary biology has to do with the study of how various species adapt and compete to pass on genes to succeeding generations, and explains for example why women favor successful mates while men prefer beauty. this book, DR. TATIANA'S SEX ADVICE TO ALL CREATION, is mostly about the extremely weird sexual adaptations to be found throughout much of the animal world. learning this field of science is helpful in understanding human sexual behavior and overcoming repressive socially conventional ideas such as those surrounding prostitution. there's one little anecdote from the book which is quite funny . a female chimpanzee that was raised in a human household masturbated to a copy of playgirl, looking at the centerfold of a naked guy with a big schlong. she'd be great fun to have at a party, don't u think?
I am 45, VT. I started drinking when I was ten and I started smoking pot when I was twelve. I have also taken LSD about 150-200 times. I don't smoke every day now because I can't afford it. When I run into something good I buy it and smoke it until it runs out, and then I stop for at least two weeks. Come to think of it, it's been about two weeks right now and I just got paid today. Getting paid once a month really sucks. But yeah, it's a good anti-depressant for many people although I've also heard the opposite. I liked it for the opposite reason; I'm pretty hyper. And yeah, it's great for insomnia, from which I suffer from time to time pretty badly, although it hasn't been too bad the last couple of years.
Rubber Nursey
11-01-02, 03:23
LOL Terry! Well ok, that's true. One more dickhead probably won't hurt... ;)
Ok everybody, stop with the smoking thing FFS!!! Fedup, I didn't say I was smoking 'coz everyone else was...I said it's hard to give up because everyone around me is still smoking. Guys, I find the smell of pot absolutely revolting, but I'm not telling any of you to give it up. Hell, I don't even care if you smoke it with me in the room! And enough with the IQ comments already...I always thought the correlation was between smoking and socio-economic status, not education level (but I guess they are often related anyway). But either way, I never said I was smart...in fact, the online IQ test I took a couple of months ago put me at pretty darn average!...but if smoking is making me even more of a moron, so be it. I WILL give up...probably sooner than later because I actually WANT to this time...but for now, can we quit with the quit lectures??
Traveller,
Is that a challenge, babe? Bring it on!! LOL Name your topic and I will sharpen my claws for you. ;) (Just make sure we don't agree on it!)
Dickhead,
I have met probably well over two thirds of my boyfriends/drinking partners by having either them or myself say "Have you got a light". Strange, but true. It's a great icebreaker...not offensive, not a come-on, not a proposition, and it doesn't look like the meeting was pre-concieved or well planned. It just gives you a reason to move over to where he/she is and talk to them. And once you've lit your smoke, you can just stay there without looking like a leach! If he/she talks to you...great. If not, you can just walk away because you haven't officially "met" anyway. If I'm gonna give up, I'm gonna have to develop a new system...
Fair enough, RN. And for what it's worth, I've got a sister with a 160+ IQ who's a smoker, and another couple sibs who aren't that far behind her, so intelligence isn't exactly a dividing line (depending, of course, on how you define that.) It's a terribly addicting drug, and let's just leave it at that. Regardless of what some online test shows, your intelligence shows through clearly in your posts, and it's decidedly not average.
And, um, hate to mention it, but regardless of past success or lack thereof, your system hasn't been producing much in the realm of desired results of late, has it? Might be time for a new approach, and there are other come-ons that don't result in that particular array of health risks.
Traveller, be careful -- rumor has it RN's quite distracting if she wears that PVC catsuit while arguing...
Rubber Nursey
11-01-02, 04:52
Shhhhh Joe! Don't go undermining my battle strategies!! :)
As for my 'system'...it obviously needs to be done in public to have any real effect. As I have not been out among the masses for quite a while now, you're right...it's certainly proving quite ineffective at present! Guess I'll have to go back to "I seem to have lost my phone number...can I have yours?" LOL (Or if all else fails, "Hey...great arse!" heh heh)
Just to get back on topic...according to my dictionary, sexual morality means "sexually virtuous; chaste". The definition of 'chaste' is "not having engaged in sexual intercourse; virginal". By my reasoning, that makes ALL sexual activity immoral...not just prostitution. If Governments are going to make laws to "protect public morality'...shouldn't we be banning sex altogether?
Ok, not altogether informative, but I wanted to get the conversation off smoking! LOL
The Virgin Terr
11-01-02, 05:05
lester grinspoon is an m.d. on the faculty of harvard i believe who has written extensively about the medical and therapeutic uses of marijuana. there are very many, u'd be surprised how many. his friend the famous astronomer carl sagan was a pothead who claimed that pot helped him think about the cosmos more creatively. and the greatest jazz musician of all time, louis armstrong, was also a bigtime head who thought pot was fucking fantastic.
one thing i've never done and really want to do is trip. someday.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.