The Morality of Prostitution

[Dickhead]

Yes, I'm familiar with Grinspoon. He actually went to undergrad with one of my former history profs, a brilliant guy by the name of well I can't say but we used to blaze up together before his class. I haven't tripped in about ten years because the recovery time is at least 48-72 hours and I don't have that many days left in my life. But, I wouldn't rule out doing it again. I believe it expanded my mental capacity. For example, even though I've always been good at math I could never understand calculus until I studied it while I was tripping. Then it made perfect sense. I also read the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon while I was on acid. I had read the Bible before, but not the others. This was when I was about 15 or so. This experience was instrumental in forming my deeply held belief that all religions suck equally. I am an equal opportunity Dickhead.

It is my belief that pot improves music, and food (I am a former professional cook), and sex, and in no way interferes with functioning. I have driven at least a quarter of a million stoned miles without incident. I took all my graduate and professional exams stoned. I was especially stoned when I took the GMAT and I scored in the 98th percentile. I smoked my way through college with a 3.99 and grad school with a 4.0 so I think my brain is intact.

Now, drinking will probably kill me; I just don't know WHEN, plus the death rate is one per capita in any case.

PS, RN, I don't smoke pot around people who don't like it. I have no problem with that. But, I do have a problem with women (it's always women) who say I shouldn't even smoke it when they're NOT around.

Anyway, this is not a dope board but pot is a great complement to PUSSY. I will say I think FU's IQ comment was a bit off base and I agree with JZ that it is more a case of cigarette smokers being junkies and not dummies.

[Fedup]

Dickhead/JZ - There's an established community base for support/treatment of nicotine addiction. When a person says they're quiting smoking they always get gobs of support. When you tell someone you're quiting crack they have a totally different view of you.

RN - Perhaps I was not that nice... sorry, but I'm rather militant when it comes to smokers... my grandfather died of lung cancer and gave my grandmother emphysema in the process.

VT - My monkey has been spanked more times than I can count. I meant public masturbation, not the type done in the privacy of your own home (where smoking should be done).

I too am a frequent smoker of the fine Herb. Alcohol is very damaging and I plan to be rid of it completely in the coming years. Pot makes everyday experiences come alive and certainly doesn't have the health consequences of alcohol. And sex on weed is second to none... it's like tantric +++. Without drugs Hollywood would not exist.

Back on topic... Any advice from you veterans on my coming trip to Cuba? I'm new to this sort of action (much different than the nudie bars back home). Yes... I know there's a Cuba board, but I do value the opinions of those who frequently write here.

[Dickhead]

Well, being an American I'm not FUCKING ALLOWED to go to Cuba, but have a great time.

[Traveller]

Dickhead - so much for living in a free society.... But anyway it seems you sorry US residents may still get to Cuba via most other countries - and I bet you won't think of asking uncle Sam's permission when thinking hard about it....

RN, haven't you noticed that in most parts of the world, more often than not, and throughout history, people indeed have done their best to ban sex in most forms and circumstances - sanctioning perpetrators with anything from jail to flogging, stoning, burning in hell, public scorn, whatever.... But for some reason it has in practice more often than not been directed at women having sex..... strange...

Joe, one of my other favourite pastimes is actually being seriously distracted - it would definately bring more fun to it :-)

[Dickhead]

Yes, I'm aware that I can go to Cuba from Méjico or The Bahamas or Canada or wherever but I deem it a risk not worth taking since prostitution is illegal there and I have yet to go so many other places like the Netherlands Antilles where it is legal. Actually, it is technically NOT illegal for US citizens to GO to Cuba; what is illegal is spending money there. Kinda rules out a lot of things.

[Traveller]

DH, I don't really get your point on that one. In most countries in the world, it's not technically "legal". In the countries that legalised it, it has little or no charm (don't know about the Antilles, though).

But nevertheless, in most countries it is tolerated. And except Sweden (no I don't live there thanks) only fundamentalist muslim countries actually mess up johns (sometimes).

What I guess is the risk in Cuba (or anywhere else) is the corrupt police thing - wanna make money? Girl screams I'm only 17, or that guy paid me for sex - seldom happens, because the "law" will most of the time set you back a few $$ and then jail the b*tch. Deservedly, if you did not treat her in any unfriendly way. So the girls won't pull a trick like that unless you were a big time stupido flashing money or treated her unfriendly. And if they don't - what is the cop gonna do?? The girl is not giving you away, and definately not telling you paid for sex (that would in most places put her in the slammer as a hooker) - you are lovers right??

[Dickhead]

Traveller, I seem to recall you are Belgian or German but let me assure you that prostitution is most definitely NOT tolerated in the US and they bust Johns all the time. In my area, they put your picture in the newspaper or on "John TV" if you are busted for solicitation. Not too good for one's career if one is a public employee as I am, and especially not if one is in my line of work.

Prostitution is completely legal in Costa Rica, for example, and I don't know what you mean by it therefore "holding little charm."

And as far as "what is the cop going to do?": in a Third World country with a repressive dictatorship, whatever they damn well please.

[Traveller]

DH - sorry, oops just let me get that foot out of my mouth first..... guess my comment was a bit without "nuances" - in addition to the muslim fundamentalist countries, and good old Sweden of course you also have the "land of the free" (John TV??? Yikes. I bet Italian or French TV makers would go to jail for making such stuff....)

Actually, I like a lot of things about the US, and I enjoy going there - although shopping for tail has not been on the "to do list" there. Comparing certain aspects of human freedom with fundamentalist regimes labelled by the powers that be as kingdoms of evil is not meant as an insult to the US as such - as I said it is in most aspects a wonderful place.

However, it comes to mind that the common denominator of the US and its most opposed adversaries these days - fundamentalist muslim countries - is that both seem to want to mix religion and government. And both exploit the "God with us" slogan made immortal by the Germans during WWII......

Point is, where lawmakers and the powers that be maintain this mix, rather than letting religiously motivated moral issues rest with the clergy, you get among other things anti-prostitution legislation. I have more sympathy for the Latin/catholic approach (your misbehaving is a matter between you and the clergyman in a confession :-)

I agree of course that in a repressive dictatorship, the cops may do whatever they want to you, and they don't even need an excuse. However, keeping clear of the real taboos of that dictatorship, your encounters with cops will be for money extortion purposes only. That can take a big toll on your bank account...... but for all sakes of course you have to steer clear of the real taboos (which, interestingly, only apply to ordinary people and those not under protection of the powers that be - similar to medeival Europe, when criminal law only applied (as a matter of law, not only as one of fact) to commoners - not to the nobility...)

And I appreciate that misbehaving in places where it's legal may well be nice - I was thinking mainly of the issue discussed here previously of the difference between "legalised" as in regulated and controlled, rather than "not criminalised" (and thus not subject to interference by authorities).

[Joe Zop]

But I think DH's point about Cuba is a very good one -- whether or not the foreigner is at risk in the trade, the locals and the workers definitely and substantially are, which is one of the reasons it's not on my list. Needing to find casas where the owners turn a blind eye and basically falsify things, women who seriously are at risk of being "re-educated" -- that's not someplace I want to risk/support, really, when there are other options. There are plenty of places, such as Thailand, where I've just arrived, that prostitution is simply less a risk for all involved.

That said, there's no question that some mongers really like the sense and risk of the illicit, and it goes without saying that Cuban women can be hot as hell :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Glad to hear you made it there safely, Joe. :)

[Traveller]

Joe, the sense and the love of the risk of the illicit is - no surprise - among the favourite pastimes too.

However, the whole world of mongering is one of chasing an illusion (and a tickle).

Your observations about the "Cuban problem" however bring about some thoughts - what you express is a concern for the local sweeties who have to bear the burden of all kinds of hassle and misfortune due to our lustful exploits.

I totally agree.

But this brings us all to the heart of this discussion group topic - in my mind "the morality of prostitution" has nothing to do with the "morality" of mongering as such, but with how we (johns) affect the lives and feelings of the girls we encounter.

I hate to think I could be the one who screws this girl who hates it and does not really want to be involved in the act at all - or is scared out of her mind that the cops will be at her later on. But also, trying to give the girls the "boyfriend experience" (why do everyone mention the girlfriend experience as it was a one-way thing), while knowing that it is going to end at 10 am in the morning, and worst case the girl will be crying and stuff -

Got to admit that I am doing my share of it and beyond - and might even sign up for a "heart of darkness" tour as well for the fun of it - but it all leaves you with question marks all over....

[The Virgin Terr]

more than 700,000 people are arrested in the u.s. each year for marijuana; more than the total arrested for all violent crimes combined! i'm unaware of the statistics for prostitution related arrests, but knowing how big city cops routinely go on "sweeps" in areas that streetwalkers work, i wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are in the 6 figures as well. america is a fascist country that somehow maintains a mythical image as a bastion of freedom in the world. travellers' comments were right on the mark. i also agree totally with him regarding the issue of decriminalization versus legalization. why would anyone want to be regulated by "authorities" who are both ignorant and hostile? that's what you have with legalization.

i've questions for our resident female, our "token" representative (i'm kidding!). RN, have you ever considered contacting former clients who were among your best sexual partners to satisfy your current desires? did you ever consider lowering or eliminating their fees when you were seeing them since they satisfied you sexually?

i have an intriguing idea for everyone's response. what do you think of clients who would pay a sexually responsive woman for "lessons" on how to pleasure a woman? i imagine there are more than a few men who would honestly do so. women sometimes complain about what lousy lovers we are. it seems to me this is an angle of prostitution worth exploring further. a way for more men and women to find more common ground and open communication with one another.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry,

"what do you think of clients who would pay a sexually responsive woman for "lessons" on how to pleasure a woman?"
They do. Lots of them. And don't just take my word for it...have a look at other mongering sites where men talk about why they visit sex workers. Lots of men suggest that one of the reasons is to learn new "tricks" and become a better lover. Where better to learn? We ARE the professionals! LOL You would be surprised how many virgins or inexperienced men come to hookers and actually SAY that they want to 'learn'. (And yes, we get paid to teach them :))

"have you ever considered contacting former clients who were among your best sexual partners to satisfy your current desires?"
No. I am a firm believer in the "Hooker's Code of Ethics"...I would NEVER contact a former client. It would be a massive invasion of privacy. For that matter, I couldn't anyway. I don't keep names or numbers or anything else that could identify them. I offer complete discretion (and expect the same in return). And I don't like to mix business with pleasure.

"did you ever consider lowering or eliminating their fees when you were seeing them since they satisfied you sexually?"
When I was working in a brothel, I was unable to mess with the fixed prices. However, my favourite clients would always receive "more for their money"...extras would be thrown in so that technically they were getting a discount. Now that I am working privately (occasionally), yes...I charge greatly reduced fees to those men that I like. And it really has nothing to do with sexual performance, etc. You could be great in bed but still be a total wanker! My discounts are given to men who I like hanging out with...those who's company I enjoy.

[Rubber Nursey]

Traveller,
This is similar to a discussion we had just a little while ago, about whether or not you would sleep with a street hooker if you knew that she was going to hand all her cash over to a pimp. I think most of us were swinging a little between yes and no...do we pay her and support her pimp, or do we not pay her and have her go without food or be beaten for losing the booking. (Except Dickhead, of course, who's plan left the pimp shitting out small change!)

I guess when it comes down to it though....is it really your problem? I know that sounds callous, especially coming from me, but it's true. How are you to know? Unless the woman is screaming "NOOOOO!!!" at the top of her lungs throughout the session, how do you know whether or not she really wants to be there? I mean, if some hairy weasel tries to sell you a frightened, bruised and battered 10 year old, you KNOW there's something wrong. (And I personally would do everything I could to help her). But if a woman agrees to the service, takes your money and has sex with you...can you really be held to blame if she cries after you leave?

Paedophiles are a VERY different story...anyone who would pay for sex with a CHILD is a sick f*ck who needs his dick cut off with a blunt knife...but otherwise, I don't think the fault lies with the client. If a girl hates her job but keeps doing it, it's her fault. If a man is forcing a woman to work against her will, it's his fault. Ultimately, it's also the Government's fault for either criminalisation (which encourages syndicates and underworld involvement) or poverty (if these women had other options open to them they would be able to quit the industry).

PS...What's a "Heart of Darkness" tour?

[Joe Zop]

Skinless, good to see you're still lurking, and RN, had his posts not unfortunately been deleted, you'd have been able to read his very truly Conrad-esque reports from the backroads, train-stations, and $3USD hotels off the beaten track in Thailand. From the romance of romance to the romance of anti-romance, eh, Skinless?

Traveler, I quite agree with your perspective, and here's one where I do disagree a bit with RN in that it is my problem to some extent. If I am furthering an immoral scenario then I don't see how I can't bear some culpability, on some level. That's like saying, to use an old example, that my buying Nike apparel despite the conditions their workers were facing has no bearing on things. I definitely vote with my dollars in terms of what I buy and don't, and my responses sent messages -- on some level -- to companies when it's combined with adverse publicity, etc.

For example, last night I was in one of the Bangkok bars, and was being come on to by a youngish worker there. Neither she nor the mamasan would get specific on her age or show me her ID card, (saying "old enough, old enough" which means nothing as far as I'm concerned, particularly in this cultural context) so I declined to pursue things. It was clearly no problem for her or for those who employed her, it was obvious that she was hardly new to the scene and that there were hardly any likely consequences in the event she was, say, seventeen as opposed to eighteen, but limits are limits and scruples are scruples. (We could reference here our long-ago discussion on the absurdity of this versus that number for legality, but to me it frankly has nothing to do with numbers per se -- it has to do with who is and who is not considered a consenting adult, which is the only category I'm at all interested in considering.)

To approach this whole issue from a completely selfish perspective -- my best and most natural :) way -- I'm after sexual companionship, but I do not want my needs/desires to have consequences for someone else, as that would have emotional consequences for me. Thus, reasonably safe sex is important, comfort of both parties is important, and some degree of basic human respect and care is important, in whatever way those involved define that, even though it's simply the care of two people interacting and not anything directed personally to me or her, as we may well not really know each other. In the case of the 'boyfriend experience' for me the key is simply the same thing -- be completely up-front about what is what. It's the experience, it's not the reality, and there's no reason why the two can't exist in those terms. I abhor the idea that I'm with someone who's an unwilling participant in any manner -- as much as I love, for example, the Thai soapies, I really dislike how it's done -- me picking someone anonymously from behind a glass lineup with the woman having no say in the equation. I know that all have signed up for the equation, but it still is something I personally still find problematic to some degree.

And VT, I can't possibly quantify how much I've learned from sex workers, but it's a pretty constant education from my perspective. I ask, they answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward since it's often 'here, or here' or 'this or this?' If I take someone with, say, RN's number of encounters, then I'd darn well expect that she'd be able to articulate clearly what does and doesn't work for her, and that, since this is an encounter with minimal emotional overtones, that she'll be reasonably honest and straightforward about those things, as there's no point in not doing so. And I've no problem doing the same about what does and doesn't for me...

[Traveller]

Joe, we seem to be mostly of the same mind on this topic. I don't agree about that age stuff (letting authorities determine what is "age of consent") - I actually prefer to make up my own mind about that - although that mind mostly decides that girls under 20 don't really have anything to do in the business if they value their mental health. But I am willing to accept that the sterotype don't work with all - I have met 25-year olds who could not cope with it and 17 year olds who most likely could if treated nicely. I think it is all about being a bit sensitive about what one is doing.

RN, the "Heart of Darkness" tour was the stuff Joe referred to in his last comment to Skinless - Skinless' epic story of his tour of the wild parts of Thailand. Great story - and great adventure too.

And, I have a feeling that your position on the matter of how we affect the girls' feelings may be reflecting that you are, as we have all observed from your posts, a well-minded, reflected and strong person with a clear idea of how you view the mysteries of the world - whether you consider yourself that way or not. Most of the girls we encounter in our misbehavings are not up to that standard.

[Joe Zop]

Agreed about the individual differences -- there are clearly those who emotionally will never do well in the life, and since "first do no harm" is pretty much my approach I tend to back away from whatever I find the least unsettling in these ways. I acknowledge your point on the authorities setting age thing, but I simply combine that line with the former as that keeps things simpler. I don't see it as my place to define for a culture other than my own how things should work, and I've ample opportunity to fight those and other battles in my own country. It's a big world; there are plenty of people to choose from generally, and if not, well, I'm not gonna die or anything for lack of having this or that sex worker. (If I am it's time to take a close look at something other than my dick. :D)

There's more to RN's position than simply the fact that she seems fairly grounded and secure, I think. The darker side of being responsible is sliding toward issues of control and asserting right behavior for sex workers, which is very much the kind of thing RN ends up fighting against in her work and political life. So a "hands off" position around client responsibility makes sense in terms of being politically consistent. I can acknowledge that, and defer to the woman's choices, but I still need to be who I am, and since I'm only after controlling my own behavior and levels of responsibility my effect is simply one of not patronizing offered services, which is always a potential customer's right in any scenario.

[Rubber Nursey]

You were right in your last comment about me Joe...about my position on issues of control and women's choices...but that's not actually where I was coming from in my last post.

What I was saying is that there is a difference between 'knowingly' exploiting someone or perpetuating their pain, and 'unknowingly' doing it. And I firmly do not believe that you can be to blame if you did not know. As you said Joe, if you were to feel uneasy about a situation, then you would avoid it. Obviously if that particular woman was giving you signals of some kind and you decided not to bring her any more grief, then I think that's commendable. But if she's NOT giving off those signals, and she performs the service with a smile even though her heart is actually breaking...can you really be held responsible?

I mean, the only way around that is to presume that ALL sex workers are exploited/abused/victimised, and avoid them ALL. It's the same as boycotting other products...do you refuse to buy ANY hand-woven rugs, just because you know SOME of them (but you're not sure which) are made by child slaves? And if you were to accidentally buy a rug from one of those companies that DO use child labour...do you feel directly (or indirectly) to blame for their suffering? I'm just not sure how you can blame yourselves for something that is totally out of your control.

And what if you look at it the other way? Let's say you assume that all sex workers are victims, and you are somehow perpetuating their abuse by patronising them. Are you going to be beating yourself up unnecessarily after a visit to someone like me? While you are crying into your glass of Scotch about how you my have just ruined my life, I may be bouncing around talking about how great the sex was, then heading off to pay an overdue bill with your money!

Yes, I believe if you know full well that a woman/child is suffering, then you are directly to blame for perpetuating that suffering if you have sex with her. But I do NOT believe that you can be blamed for something that you were unaware of.

[Rubber Nursey]

I am really at odds with myself on the subject of teen prostitution. CHILD prostitution makes my skin crawl, and I believe children must be protected from perverts at all costs. But teenagers...well, that's really hard for me.

My position as a sex worker activist does not sit well with my position as a mother. The 'mother' part of me says that teenagers should be protected from the 'seedier' side of human nature, and that there are many aspects of the industry which could ruin a young girl/boy's sense of self or sexuality. (I have said before that if it was practical, which of course it isn't, the legal age for sex work IMHO should be 21).

But the activist side of me says...who are we to tell a teenager who he/she can or can't have sex with? If he/she's 'legally' allowed to have sex (at whatever age that is in their particular country)...who are we to say that they shouldn't benefit from it financially? She's legally allowed to blow a 30 year old if she pleases, but she's not allowed to charge for it! And as Traveller mentioned, some people are emotionally better equipped for the industry at 17 than others are at 25. Would we prefer a drug-addicted 16 year old street girl to 'hock her ass' for drug money, or break into houses and snatch little old ladies handbags? Shouldn't they be congratulated for choosing a 'victimless' crime over a violent one?

Like I said, I am at odds with myself with this one...

[Darkseid]

sex with ****d children? yuck!!!! children are underdeveloped and don't even have the equipment that an adult has (i.e boobs). a teenager is questionable. i wouldn't have sex with anyone against their will and if i know the teenager is a runaway and paying all her money to a pimp i wouldn't want to support the pimp by using her services. but if she is in the industry independently and making money for herself, she is making a conscience decision of soliciting herself to me and she is above 16 (which is legal in some south american countries like brazil but not in america) then i have no problem with the teen prostitution. i wouldn't accept services from any girl under 16 years of age.
rn is right in that by criminalizing prostitution, the black market is involved and therefore pimps and prostitutes are stuck in that industry having criminal records themselves thus preventing them from getting legitimate jobs in the future and them relying on pimps for room and board or being subject to the hostile environment of street hooking without a pimp protecting them from serial killers. and if they try to work independently, they still get arrested. criminaliztaion of prostitution makes it more dangerous for underprivileged teenagers or runaway kids to earn a living through prostitution which is the only skill they are qualified to do without a high school diploma which would pay the rent. (a job flipping burgers would never make the rent.) i think the government should legalize prostitution even for teens.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by darkseid
Criminaliztaion of prostitution makes it more dangerous for underprivileged teenagers or runaway kids to earn a living through prostitution which is the only skill they are qualified to do without a High school diploma which would pay the rent. (A job flipping burgers would never make the rent.) I think the government should legalize prostitution even for teens.
With all due respect, this is a crock. I don't have a high school diploma and I paid my rent for 22 years before I got a college degree. And since I left home at 15, I guess you could say I was a runaway, although I never thought of it that way. Construction jobs, factory jobs, retail jobs, and waiting tables are all available to those without high school diplomas. I supported myself as a cook for years and years and even travelled and saved up money in the process. No, I didn't have designer clothes and no, I couldn't eat in fancy restaurants, but I paid rent and bills and bought beer and weed and had a vehicle most of the time.

There is no need to be a prostitute just because you don't have a high school diploma, at least not in the First World. Third World, I don't think it's quite the same but your theory still does not apply. When I was in Costa Rica, there were a whole bunch of college-educated Colombians selling their pussies so I think the education theory does not hold water.

[Darkseid]

Originally posted by Dickhead
With all due respect, this is a crock. I don't have a high school diploma and I paid my rent for 22 years before I got a college degree. And since I left home at 15, I guess you could say I was a runaway, although I never thought of it that way. Construction jobs, factory jobs, retail jobs, and waiting tables are all available to those without high school diplomas. I supported myself as a cook for years and years and even travelled and saved up money in the process. No, I didn't have designer clothes and no, I couldn't eat in fancy restaurants, but I paid rent and bills and bought beer and weed and had a vehicle most of the time.

There is no need to be a prostitute just because you don't have a high school diploma, at least not in the First World. Third World, I don't think it's quite the same but your theory still does not apply. When I was in Costa Rica, there were a whole bunch of college-educated Colombians selling their pussies so I think the education theory does not hold water.

Prostitution is an easier way out instead of working 2 jobs paying meager wages for ridiculously long hours (80+ hours a week). This to me is very inhumane and causes teens not to have a good life growing up. My mother did this as an alternative to prostitution and was just as miserable as a teen prostitute working for a pimp in the US black market. She had no good memories of her teenage years growing up because she worked 12 hours a day including weekends!!! in a sewing machine factory. That's 84 hours a week since she was 14 years old until she married my father at 26 years old. That's 12 years of hard labor dominating her childhood at less than minimum wage! Some women in Brazil would much rather be a prostitute than to work those crazy hours and I wouldn't blame them. They also eat luxury meals and wear designer clothes. My mother ate rice and sweet potatoes and wore clothes you would by at a 99c store. I don't think this is a good alternative to prostitution. Prostitution is so much easier that even the well educated do it when they can't find work after graduation like during the 1992 recession.
Some people are luckier than my mom and have skills already like musicians or chefs or business owners. I wish more people are like them but not everyone is as lucky as they are. I for one support LEGALIZED, (without pimp) prostitution even for teens (although I won't partake in teen prostitution). But if a teen wants to do it then she should be able to unless a loving foster home could be found for them. But even in a First world country like the US, there are still teens that fall through the cracks of this system and end up struggling through life and sometimes prostitution or a life of insanely hard labor are the only 2 options.

[Vampyr]

"Heart of Darkness Tour"!?!?! Where do I sign up? I've been waiting for something like this, the chance to explore a new frontier, a tour for the monger's monger.

[Joe Zop]

RN -- First of all, it's not about control, it's about knowledge. Obviously, it's impossible to know each and every nuance of exploitation in all scenarios around the world, but at the same time I can try to be a responsible shopper, as it were. Perhaps I would decide not to buy and handwoven rugs, and to buy another kind instead. If the industry as a whole sees an effect from that, generally changes will be made in order to improve marketability. But more likely, if I've heard that hand-woven rugs are being made by child labor I would seek to find out where that was the case, and boycott those particular rugs, or even rugs from that area.

No, I am not responsible for what I don't know about, but if I know that bad situations exist as a by-product of something I'm involved with (be it prostitution or rugs or whatever) then I do bear some responsibility for checking the situation out as opposed to willfully remaining ignorant. I'm not saying grill sex wokers or salespeople, but I am saying look at the label, the situation, and make an informed as opposed to intentionally uninformed choice. Simply saying, for example, "hey, I didn't know she was only 15" isn't a defense that will wash anywhere, and I think the same extends beyond that. Again, I'm hardly saying that it's my duty to probe into the private life of every sex worker I'm with, but yesterday, for example, I was driven past three brothels here in Chiang Mai where Burmese women (and girls) are basically kept as indentured slaves, sold off by their families and powerless to get away until they pay off their debt. Do I say, oh, my, I should go in there and help them pay things off, or find someone who stays there even after their debt is paid, of their own choice? Obviously not. I know that these particular places are evil incarnate, and I avoid them (and were it my city and culture I'd be making waves to get them shut down and the proprietors prosecuted.)

And Vampyr -- you miss the point somewhat on the Heart of Darkness tour. The trick is just to go, explore new terrain, see what you see. Don't need a guide, per se, just chutzpah.

[Darkseid]

In my previous message, I support INDEPENDENT escort ads in which the girl is making money for herself no matter what age but I am totally against places which have prostitute slaves or servant in which a family gives up the child to pay off a debt. These places are worser than pimps and I am already against pimps because they exploit prostitutes. If prostitution were legalized and understood by society we would have none of this black market type of pimp prostitution. I blame the prudes that make the rules in what is accepted in society AND the lawmakers that give in to them and fear that they would not be voted in by the prude majority in America if they don't do what the prudes say.

[Rubber Nursey]

I'm with Dickhead on this one. I have always said that prostitution is a great OPTION for uneducated women (especially considering the money that can be made), but I certainly don't think it's the ONLY option. Like Dickhead said, there are many college educated women, and even highly skilled professionals, working in the sex industry...be it for the money or the sex or just for the fun of it. It's highly likely that many of those women aren't doing it because they HAVE to.

To me, as a single (and uneducated) mother, sex work meant that I could earn a decent wage in shorter working hours...so that I could spend more time with my kids. That was a personal choice. I COULD have supported myself on a low-paying job...and I did for the first 18 months after my divorce, but I had less time with my children. I also had huge debts left over from my marriage, which I needed to pay off faster than a normal job would let me. Sex work was the best option for ME in MY circumstances. Millions of women in the same situation get through without hooking though. It was my choice.

By the way...it's also NOT the 'easy' way out. You think this job is easy? It may be FAST money, and it may be UNSKILLED work, but it sure as hell ain't EASY. There are the men with ego problems, erectile dysfunctions, bad breath, BO, and all-round bad attitudes. There are men who hate condoms, men who try to get more than they paid for, men who hate prostitutes and men who hate women in general. There are brothel owners ripping you off. There are secrets to keep from your family and friends. There's discrimination from landlords, banks, salespeople and anyone else who considers our "bad character" a liability. For many of us there is the constant fear of arrest, and for all of us...the constant fear of violence.

We are continually reminded by the media and the rest of the community that we are just worthless, lying, immoral WH*RES. Trust me...that's not 'easy'.

[Darkseid]

Actually, I have to agree with RN about prostitution being harder than it seems. There are always assholes for customers that you mentioned, RN. It still is shorter hours though instead of working in the factory but you have to deal with customers which I would personally hate because I deal with customers in my Verizon job. I HATE that aspect of my job and there are always customers that also try to get one over on you as well. I haven't thought about that in my previous statements so I change my mind on that aspect. The fact that landlords look at you as a bad person depends on the society which you live in. If you live in America as a prostitute, you are a criminal but if you live in Brazil or Holland, they turn the other way. Yes, some countries are harder to work as a prostitute than others and I agree with RN because of the negative association of prostitutes with laziness or criminals. There is always bad in any job you do but I think working 84 hours a week and having no life is the worst and I wouldn't wish what happened to my mother on my worst enemy. And prostitution is not even an option here in America because it is criminalized and persecuted by prudes. There was no easy way out for my mother and she couldn't afford college because she was paid so little that she couldn't save enough to even pay for it here. Her money went for food and rent and cheap clothing. There is a big difference between making a living and surviving and my mother was just surviving. Making a living is being able to afford the basic necessities and go to college and eat good once in a while at least but my mother NEVER could do anything with her meager wages. If she were in Holland where there is no negative feelings towards prostitution (except with the American tourists) then she would be better off working in the red light district temporarily to get money for college and live a better life after getting a degree . But instead she lived in a financial threadmill of poverty and work until my father got her off of it by marrying her.

[Traveller]

Vampyr - "Heart of Darkness" has to be understood in its context - it's not in any way about a trip of badness as such - and not in any way an organised one. In order to get the picture, you at least have to view the famous #1 rated (70's) movie "Apocalypse-now" and know it was based on a book titled "Heart of darkness"....... Which leads you to a weird world of the unknown and unexplored...mind-wise too.

RN, sometimes I wonder if you have had a sheltered life...... as a hooker I mean.

Yes, I appreciate that you know everything about unwanted, smelly, mindless johns. But still, as I understand it, apart from the fact that making money was the driver, you did have a choice to refuse the ones that were too appalling.

For two reasons; one, you could have another customer the next night (or hour) and still be ok. and two, you were probably not at the mercy of the "house" when it came to taking on customers.

What is bad and a reason for concern is bonded sex workers in brothels in the 3rd world - and equally bonded sex workers "imported" to Western Europe by mafia people (young girls from very poor eastern Europe countries who are deprived of their rights and their passports by the mafia.) They don't have those luxuries of choice.

These are girls who not necessarily have volunteered for "the trade" but rather been forced into it.

(An evening in town and a nightly follow-up in bed with a girl of the trade has never been something I have easily stayed away from :-)

I like to think I have been lucky, not running into one of these unfortunate girls. But I never know - of course the girls get very professional at hiding their misery too. And I honestly don't really know if I ever ran into one.

I know that this was discussed a while ago - and I agree and live by the stuff you say "know no evil" - meaning as long as the girl does not give any form of messages she is uncomfortable, it's ok.

But it also means I am more than a bit sensitive about girls who seem not to be comfortable - and no, it's not an option to pay more money, it's just to let them go........

[The Virgin Terr]

before you support a prohibitionist position on anything, remember this: you are supporting violence or the threat of violence to force others to do as you wish. you are no better than someone who forces someone into prostitution against their will. you're possibly even worse, because at least those individuals don't try to justify their coercion with the claim of acting in the best interest of the coercee. they don't claim moral superiority over those who disagree with their blatant bullying. they are honest in their assertion that "Might makes right".

[Traveller]

er- VT I didn't get your point kinda. Sober up and elaborate.......

[Rubber Nursey]

Traveller,

I'm not sure whether you are addressing the post where I wrote about "blaming" a client for exploitation, or where I said that the job wasn't "easy". But nowhere did I deny that those sorts of horrible things happen to sex workers!

What you said is exactly what *I* said in my original post...if you KNOW that the girl you are seeing is being exploited (eg. debt bondage, etc) and you still see her, then yes I believe you are contributing to her further exploitation. Joe mentioned it in his post too...when you know full well that a certain place is full of illegals/sex slaves/children, than you should avoid the place. Hit them where it hurts most...in their wallets...otherwise you are only perpetuating the problem.

My original post only said that if you are doing all the right things...checking out her 'mood', checking out the establishment, looking for signs of abuse, etc...and it seems to you that everything is ok, it simply can't be your 'fault' if it turns out you were wrong. Nowhere did I say you were NEVER to blame...only that if you didn't KNOW then you shouldn't be blamed for it. I just don't like the idea of you guys beating yourselves up over the fact that you MAY have caused someone some hurt, when it seems to me that you're doing everything in your power to avoid it.

[Joe Zop]

That's what I meant by due diligence. If I check age, I try to understand the situation I'm walking into in terms of the place, conditions, the amount of freedom each woman has in the process, etc., then I'm not going to spend an immense amount of time obsessing over things. If I'm not sure, or get a bad vibe, I walk. Now, if it turns out that I've been mistaken after the fact, then I'm going to feel bad about it and wish I had known so I could have acted differently, but I'm not going to sit around blaming myself for ruining someone's life or anything. Instead, I'm going to hope that I brought some degree of temporary care and kindness as a balm in a bad situation.

[The Virgin Terr]

traveller, i was sober when i wrote my last post, as i am now. elaborate?, ok. obviously, i'm referring only to prohibition involving consensual behavior. obviously i don't oppose legal prohibition of behavior involving non-consensual predatory behavior. but for victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drugs, proponents of these laws support the use of the overwhelming power of the state to terrorize individuals into refraining from engaging in behavior which harms no one or at least if harm is involved, it is with the consent of the individual. what's the difference between the person who uses violence to force someone into prostitution and the person who uses violence to force someone out of prostitution? i doubt if there's anyone more opposed to either than myself. on the other hand, in my view at least, prohibitionists are much more likely to be tolerant or supportive of forced prostitution, since they are supporters of coercive social relationships in general, and indeed forced prostitution itself is an outgrowth of prohibition and the prohibition mentality.

[Darkseid]

Forced prostitution thrives on prohibition because prohibition creates a black market with pimps which has forced prostitution. In the American prostitution scene, ALL of the prostitutes have pimps or work as a debt prosititute because they needed a loan from a mobster and then they couldn't pay it back so they sell their bodies as currency. They would have done this without a pimp or loan had the US legalized prostitution and let the girls sell their bodies independently to make that money and without being stuck with interest which keeps them working for the loaner pimp longer. Instead the prudish special interest groups and politicians that conform to them beat morality over our heads thinking that prohibition and abstinence is the best way. These are the same assholes that CAUSE teenage pregnancy by standing in front of condom isles barring teenagers from buying condoms and worse yet enacting a minimum age ID law of 18 to buy them. Thus teenagers can't buy condoms and they practice unsafe sex and teenage girls get knocked up. Look how pathetically backwards our laws are and for what: Morality? This country needs a facelift on our laws for it to truly be a free country.

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by darkseid
In the American prostitution scene, ALL of the prostitutes have pimps or work as a debt prosititute because they needed a loan from a mobster and then they couldn't pay it back so they sell their bodies as currency.

Umm, excuse me, but as much as I actually agree with your position in an overall way, this is complete and utter nonsense. ALL prostitutes in the US are either pimp or mob connected? That's absolute hokum, and I challenge you to back it up.

Even if it were 10% it would still be too much, and I think that number is still high, but it's probably a lot closer to the truth than your blanket statement.

No offense meant -- I just get cranky things like that are tossed out to strengthen an argument. They end up circulating and generating their own kind of life, and undoing "the common wisdom" can be an activist's worst nightmare.

[Darkseid]

In the US, if a woman even tries to do her services independently, she gets traced by cops and arrested. That iswhy the same girls aren't always in the sex ads. Sometimes they serve a short sentence then reappear a few months or years later but the law goes against her and discourages her business so she ends up having to get a loan from a pimp because she has a criminal record and can't get it from a bank and ends up working for the pimp just for room and board. They can start off independent BEFORE they get their first criminal record that ruins the rest of their lives and that is what I am getting at in my previous statement that the american prostitution scene is run by pimps or other black market influences. If the girl isn't part of it now, she will end up in it because of the draconian laws against them. There may be a few that get away with it and not end up with pimps though so I do see your point joe and I take back the word "ALL" and exchange it with "most".

[Traveller]

vt, i am sorry, the "sobriety" comment was a feeble attempt to be funny - although i can see it might be offensive too. no offense meant.

the us scene seems to be one very much accommodating us double standards - yes we like the concept of sex and we are so 21st century liberated - but doing it??????

back here i am wading through scripts from do-gooder feminists who try to define mongering as a menace - defining prostitution as a "problem". in my opinion prostitution as such is not a problem at all. yes, the badness showed e.g in the swedish movie lilja 4ever is happening. but as rn put it wisely as always - those things are prohibited by other laws already. forcing 15-year olds into the trade against their will is criminalised left right and center.

yoy simply don't need a specific law to protect anyone against this.

point is, feminists don't like the idea of men wanting to get it off with a girl just for the fun of it. or who knows - the same feminists claim that the main problem of porn (another favourite enemy) is that it is oriented towards men - because it focuses on "penetration" (and noone had the guts to call the these uglies by their right name - concrete lesbos???)

prostitution is not a problem in its own right. actually, it is a blessing to mankind, no matter what the rightous say.

it is a problem it seems to people of a religious or political bias.

nevertheless, there are a bundle of people (women) who seem to dedicate their lives to the "fight against prostitution" - "fight against **** sex in the far east (that is the 20yo's who at 5* blank and 90 lbs look small by western standards)" and "fight against man in general".

everyone now think i am in favour of the demure, thai girl ........

i am not. i am in favour of the strong, self-confident western girl who does something else than mess up her life in the feminist orgs......but rather beleives in herself enough to beleive she wants a man- and can handle him in a resonable way and still enjoy it.

[The Virgin Terr]

forget about it, traveller, i'm too sensitive and sometimes jump to conclusions about being criticized. fact is, i'm a drugged out pervert going by the standards of the american establishment. i thought you might be taking a potshot (pun accidental) about my marijuana use. i often am moderately stoned when posting here, like i am now. unlike the stereotypes in the media of stupid stoners, i find my mind to function better in some ways under a moderate influence, and the amount of impairment in others is manageable. as you can see, i'm still eloquent.

i disagree with the view that prostitution prohibition is primarily a passion of radical feminists. i think men are just as responsible, possibly more so. men after all dominate the legal profession, which includes politics. sexual restrictions probably have their origin in part from dominant social males seeking to control women and less powerful men. and i think religious factors outweigh gender in this debate also. if we could somehow dump religion, everything in society would loosen up.

wonder what happened to dickhead?

[Joe Zop]

Well, darkseid, if you still think it's "most" then I think you're using a pretty liberal definition of pimps and organized crime. To me, there's a big difference between someone who runs an escort service (which technically is "organized crime" and some of which probably have real connections to it, though far from all, and which also can be considered pimping under the law) and the classic "bad muthufucka on the street" type pimp or mobster. I've met large numbers of independents, ranging from women at clubs who do things on the side to those who advertise their services in a variety of ways. Tons of escort places are run by ex-sex workers who want out of the direct side of the business.

As far as not having the same girls as in the ads being an indicator, I respectfully disagree on your interpretation. Prostitution can be a fairly transient business for a variety of reasons, including women searching for greener fields, leaving the biz, moving up or down the food chain for a variety of reasons, and, yes, being arrested. The bottom line for a service is that if they're got a picture of a beautiful woman and it brings in business, they're going to keep it whether she works there or not. That's not anything more ominous that bait-and-switch marketing, since horny guys will usually say ok to the substitute who shows up at the door.

I've no disagreement whatsoever that being arrested, getting a record, etc., is horribly unfair and follows women the rest of their lives. I think it's ridiculous and criminal of society to do so. But I still find your leaps from the unfairness of the law and society's attitude into a direct underworld of eternal darkness to be a bit extreme. There are all kinds of levels of prostitution, and to assert that most of them have to do with organized crime requires a bit more than assertion, I think. Can you quote me any authority for that? Some crime task force or statistics or something?

I ask because for me it goes back to the earlier discussion regarding client culpability. I've no particular desire to support mobsters and those who enslave women physically or emotionally, so your assertions of a broad situation mean that either you're incorrect or I need to rethink my behavior or screening process.

[Rubber Nursey]

I've gotta say...I don't think I've ever heard of the "paying off loans to mobsters" theory (except for the trafficking/kidnapping type syndicates maybe, which are a very different scenario to the stereotypical "pimps"). In my understanding, the majority of girls who have those sorts of pimps, got them because a) he was originally her drug dealer, and she made an arrangement with him to have sex for drugs and/or work for him in exchange for cheap drugs or a ready supply of drugs, b) he is her S.O. (and a lazy piece of crap) who sent her off to work to support them both, or c) she CHOOSES to work for/with him for her personal safety and security. There are also those guys who callously and violently exploit teenage runaways, heroin addicts, homeless girls, etc...but I'm not sure that they would be the norm. From everything I've seen or read, there usually seems to be a "relationship", or at least a "partnership", between the girl and her pimp...even in violent or exploitative situations. A sex slavery/debt bondage/syndicate type situation is a very different thing and even in places where it is considered to be quite common, it certainly wouldn't make up a very significant percentage of the whole sex worker community.

There are two main stereotypes that people tend to use when discussing the "realities" of the sex industry...one is the homeless, drug addicted, victimised street worker, and the other is the flashy starlet wearing a fur coat and driving around in a sports-car with the top down. For every person spouting the "all hookers are victims at the mercy of pimps" line, there is another spouting the "brazen money-grabbing, husband-stealing hussy" line. For obvious reasons, you can't BOTH be right. What you are quoting Darkseid, is *A* reality of sex work...not *THE* reality.

[Darkseid]

I agree that prostitution is a very transient business done for various reasons. These reasons can change with various factors. For example, a girl doing it in the beginning for the thrill of having sex with different men can be driven to the alternative reasons by getting a criminal record and not being able to do anything else so she is stuck in that lifestyle just to pay the bills. She will most likely remain a private escort if she gets enough clients at a steady or fast pace. If business goes bad, however, she would join an escort service to advertise for her. They might post a younger picture of her and the horny guys call her and acept once she shows up and find out that she is an older woman or they might put a different picture altogether. Then there's the more extreme cases like the street pimps. If she gets no business at all, she works for the street pimp for room and board and provides her services for a much less than the escort services. Sometimes drugs can be involved if she takes them when she is depressed from her life falling apart from this criminal record and she does it for cheap drugs or to repay her tab.
I know this is the extreme, bad, hard-lucked case which happen to maybe 3 percent of them but it sometimes does. It may happen to a lesser degree. Not every freelanced escort that does it for the thrill of it or just for lots of money can get away with it. Those that do, I cheer them on and hope they NEVER get caught and get a criminal record for doing something that is not wrong in any sense. Some women do prostitution temporarily to get out of debt or to get out of a tight financial situation. I hope they never get caught either. Putting women in these situations in jeopardy by giving them a criminal record is flat out wrong and these laws are not always started by feminists but are also started by prude mayors like Rudoplh Guliani. His reputation was going down the tubes as a draconian mayor until that fuckhead Bin Laden blew up the World Trade Center and this event boosted the reputation of that draconian prude of a mayor. If it wasn't for 9/11, people would see this bastard for what he is. A homo with a stick up his ass that doesn't like men to have fun sex with women in any way. After all, he closed down most porn shops and made all strip joints topless only, clearly a homo! He also closes down all nightclubs that have strippers in them or requires them to fire the strippers or just make them topless.

[The Virgin Terr]

wearing my activist hat, i want to raise a new topic here: jury nullification. jury nullification is a legal right in the u.s. (i have no idea if it exists in oz, perhaps RN can enlighten us) of people serving on juries to vote according to their own conscience regarding guilt or innocence of the accused, so that for example in a victimless crime prosecution, a technically guilty person can be acquitted by a juror who disagrees with the particular application of law in this case. it's a right rarely exercised however, as the perverse establishment is opposed to power to the people, and most of the people are perversely dedicated to obeying authority, no matter how twisted that authority may be. most people on juries aren't even aware of this legal right. jury nullification is perhaps the best way common people have to fight oppressive laws, for if it were widely practiced, victimless "crimes" such as prostitution could be effectively abolished. i have a couple websites you can check out for more on this subject: commonsensejustice.us and fija.org (fija stands for fully informed jurors association). fight for your rights!

[Dickhead]

I'm still here, vt, but what's jury nullification got to do with pussy? I don't give a rat's ass about jury nullification. And I already said everthing I have to say about pimps. Find a pimp, stick a chisel in his ear, and tap the chisel firmly with a hammer.

[The Virgin Terr]

don't be dumb, dickhead. jury nullification is about activism, activism is about freedom, and freedom is about getting more pussy! comprender?

[Joe Zop]

Hmm, by that logic, tree frogs or discarded used tires are about the environment, the environment is about activism, etc., etc., viola, more pussy. Generic activism strategies are a bit of a stretch for the morality of prostitution, don't you think?

[Dickhead]

Actually there is a clear connection between pussy and discarded used tires, as the latter are used to make those industrial strength condoms the window girls use in Amsterdam.

[Traveller]

Aww... that explains it. In eastern Russia the chicks carried around some that looked and felt like lengths of bicycle tube with a knot in one end - recycling without the scientific fuss? Better bring your own.....

[Manofkosice]

Surely the point about the juries is, if people called for jury service refuse to convict girls and their clients then the law is effectively abolished.

[Joe Zop]

Quite so, but that's true of any victimless crime as well, and is something that's been tried and failed repeatedly in other instances as an activist strategy. There are also dozens of other activist approaches available for use, but that doesn't really mean that throwing them out advances this topic. I always appreciate VT's take on things and contributions, but this one seems more of a stretch in terms of topic than most.

[The Virgin Terr]

most of what we discuss here is unrelated to "the morality of prostitution" because it's a given we all support it, so we ought to discuss how we can more effectively combat those who are against us. jury nullification could be one effective tool if more people were aware of it, and i for one am always interested in civics lessons which broaden my knowledge and outlook, such as can be found at fija.org/jury.pdf which discusses at length the theory behind jury duty in the first place: to empower common citizens to check the power of their governments. that, afterall, is the broad principle behind victimless crime legislation: too much governmental power.

anyone know of any john's organizations present or past? this seems the obvious place to begin. if there isn't one now nor has there ever been one, then the obvious question is what if anything can be done, what kind of message will it take to mobilize those among us inclined to organize and become more socially active? perhaps a creative and inspired challenge to the morality of the law itself? a message which causes a little light to go on inside our heads which says "i have nothing to be ashamed of and i'm sick of hiding what i do and having to fear negative consequences for doing it"? not to mention of course the fact that prohibition makes prostitution more difficult to engage in, more expensive to engage in, and less satisfying.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry,

If you're going to venture into prostitution activism, there's one very important factor that you have to remember...
This is all about morality. (And in my opinion it's also about the oppression of women, but that's another story). It doesn't matter whether precedents have been set or covenants have been signed or civil rights have been violated. In "Christian" countries like yours and mine, you will find almost ALL our legal protections/rights can be overturned, ignored and abused in the name of protecting the "moral order".

For example...according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to "Freedom of Movement" (except criminals who are incarcerated or on bail). AND YET a "morality and public order" clause was put into that covenant, specifically to ensure that countries had the right to "control" and restrict the movement of street prostitutes. Another example...it is LEGAL to do sex work in your own home in my state. BUT, the local councils not only have the right to, but are EXPECTED to, refuse a business permit on the basis that the business is "immoral or offensive". So even though it is legal to work in your own home according to the Criminal Code, it is illegal to work without a business permit under council by-laws.

As I said, a majority of our laws are based on the common perception of "morality". Ultimately, the only way to change the laws will be to ALTER the public's perception of morality. That's a slow process, and as much as jury decisions, test cases and the use of loopholes can be effective in gaining ground, it will take a complete shift in the mindset of the voting public to really give it wings. Activism is not about quick fixes...it's about passion, persistence and using your "sphere of influence" to the best of your ability. :)

[Joe Zop]

Well said on all counts, RN. Any activist fight is essentially an appeal to the conscience of the public, and the battle is to articulate the moral struggle to the degree that the public has no question what side they're on (and, if you really want to win, it had better be yours.) And the truth is, frankly, that at this point the case has not yet been made in a manner irresistible to that portion of the public unlikely to have anything to do with prostitution. Those are the hearts and minds that must be won, and the tongues that must be engaged in speaking. Hearing it from sex workers or customers isn't going to do it -- both are too easy to pigeon-hole as having a personal stake in the matter, which renders their perspectives automatically partisan.

Terry, I give in for a small while, since you're clearly not going to let this one rest until we go for it. I disagree with you, however, that everyone here has the same attitude about the morality of prostitution -- I think there are many variations and nuance, and that is still for me the most viable discussion area, as opposed to turning this into an activism strategizing thread. That might make for an interesting discussion thread to have in place, but to my mind it is still quite distinct from this stated topic.

There's no question that the courts are a prime area of general activist activity, with lawsuits and legal challenges to laws being to areas of choice in most instances. For what it's worth, the only really viable and successful jury nillification strategies I'm aware of have been lawyer-driven, as they are the ones who need to make the case in the courtroom, and mostly related to race. So a proper activist strategy in this regard would be to first articulate the reasons why jury nullification is the only proper moral response (and your level of thundering hyperbolic howls about an unjust society aren't going to do it in this case -- you're not going to get anywhere asking most citizens to pull their houses down. That may have worked to some extent in racial cases, but here the degree of emotional appeal is different) a good citizen can have, pull that together with some kind of support structure that gives lawyers a leg to stand on legally and morally, and then work to educate lawyers about this strategy. Finally, it would take some kind of promotional/educational campaign to direct those in legal trouble to sympathetic jurors and a low-key success campaign in the media (stories such as "X number of juries over the last X number of months have done this...") to sow the seeds that there is a shift in conscience.

To my mind, though, that's still very much cart-before-the-horse and an unlikely way to truly affect change. A generic case for victimless crimes is less likely to truly sway the hearts and minds of people than a clear number of cases that demonstrate adequately what the impact of the current situation is. People cannot comprehend 40,000 people being killed in a Chinese earthquake, say, but they can be deeply affected by the picure of an individual child from such a disaster left a shaken orphan. Prostitution activists have yet to define that kind of picture, which sends a clear message without even needing to say anything, in such a way that the public itself demands change. And that latter situation is the way effective change will happen.

People speaking out and marches in the street may help signal the sentiment exists, but they won't really do anything in the absence of clear evidence of a position's broad appeal, unless those people speaking out somehow become that picture for the public that tells the unavoidable truth of the matter. As much as I personally support decriminalization, I've seen nothing in terms of articulated positions that would convince my neighbors or friends -- and that's not even to get into the issue of explaining why decriminalization is different from legalization, and what regulation has to do with societal branding, etc., all of which are complex issues. Right now the basic public image of sex workers is still either one of forced indenture and human trafficing, immoral harlots who will steal anyone's husbands for a buck, or disease-carrying societal rats. Effectively replacing those pictures in the mind of the common person with new ones of equal power is, to my mind, the true area of activist battle.

[Rubber Nursey]

Ohhhhh Joe...*swoon*...come sit by me and whisper political strategy in my ear... *cheeky grin*

"Hearing it from sex workers or customers isn't going to do it"
I just wanted to make two comments regarding that statement, (one from the 'negative' camp, and one from the 'positive').

I've found that a majority of the anti-prostitution brigade can NOT see past what a sex worker does for a living, and in turn, what sort of person she is because of that job. That means that regardless of what you say or how well you say it, everything you do say is coming from "the mouth of a wh*re". I could stand up in front of a group of those sorts of people and talk about something "worthy"...for example, demanding more money for schools and hospitals ...and they would still not listen to a word I said. This group of people needs to hear the story from someone that they respect. (And yes, it makes me angry to say that). It is for these people that you need the support of doctors, lawyers, police, politicians and other "respectable" people, who can recite exactly the same message but from a position of authority.

On the flip side though, I have had some incredible responses from many people who thought they "knew" what a prostitute was until they saw me speak. These people aren't usually from the hardcore "it's immoral" camp, but instead have a negative view of prostitution because of what the media has lead them to believe is the reality. When they meet a real, live prostitute, it forces them to re-evaluate their position. When I stand before them in a suit, quoting legislation and civil liberties violations and demanding a right to be heard in the public arena, their image of the uneducated, victimised and downtrodden hooker is compromised. When they talk to me face to face after the lecture, they see a woman with children just trying to earn a living...they see me as "one of them". That can make a real difference to how they perceive the legislation. If the laws are there to control drug-affected, diseased criminals, then who cares how harsh they are. But if those archaic laws are being used on ordinary, everyday, hardworking women...then they are suddenly completely unjust.

[Joe Zop]

Oh, I don't disagree at all, RN, that personal testimony is critical to the process, and I believe wholeheartedly that demystifying and conveying the people behind the image is absolutely important. But that's something that generally can only be done on a small scale, and as you note, unless you make real inroads in your scheduling it can be difficult to make it happen in places where you really need to work hard to make change happen -- the "it's immoral" camp. And regardless of how personally charismatic you or others might be, I think it's still works best if it also is accompanied by strong voices who can be termed disinterested observers as opposed to those with an economic or lifestyle stake in the issue. This latter point is simply that making impacts from two or more sources is likely to strengthen the impression -- you've given it a human face, and getting backup from external sources for the facts you quote only reinforces the impression you've made

And I agree it's unfair that certain groups need to hear from someone in authority, but I'd caution that it's not just because epithets can be hurled at sex workers (though of course that's also part of it) because it's something most political activist campaigns have faced. Blacks in the USA wanting equal rights were "uppity," people concerned about environmental issues are "long-haired tree-huggers," people who don't want urbansprawl are "anit-progress" and so forth. (We could talk about the emotionality and irrational fears that aboriginal struggles have produced in OZ, as well.) But when any of these groups is successful in many ways it is because they manage to convey a more primal message of justice than what is involved in passing this or that piece of legislation. And part of my point was that I don't see where the prostitution lobby has managed yet to articulate that -- it's there, but it's still underneath, and it can't touch those who take the "it's immoral" perspective who are your most vehement opposition. To make it work, and touch them, I think it needs to be something where someone who sits outside of the scene can imagine themselves being part of it and feeling the injustice. And the majority of people are going to have trouble imagining themselves, for example, having multiple thousands of sexual partners -- that's the image that will still overwhelm them, not the message you're trying to convey. In truth, from a practical political perspective, you don't need to change the minds of the "it's immoral" set, you simply need to sow enough doubt in their minds that their opposition becomes lessened.

On one level I think the whole external authority thing is because people want support when they change the way they think -- especially if it flies in the face of the way they were raised and what they have always "known" and having authorities convinces that they're not making a foolish choice. Just human nature, I guess.

And, sorry, sometimes it's hard to take my activist hat off since I've worn it for so long :) And it's particularly tough when I'm wandering around, as now in Thailand, in a culture that's not my own, where the differences strike me continuously and force me to question my own precepts, and where it is far from my place to criticize or make change, but only to better understand.

[Rubber Nursey]

"to make it work, and touch them, i think it needs to be something where someone who sits outside of the scene can imagine themselves being part of it and feeling the injustice."

see, that's where the whole struggle gets very difficult. the sex industry is so diverse and so multi-faceted that it's impossible to create one standard "picture" of what is wrong and what needs to be done. there's brothel/private workers who are fighting for better oh&s protection, there's street based workers being beaten, raped and arrested, there's asian women being held captive under debt-bondage agreements, etc, etc. every time you stand up for one sector of the industry, you are shouted down by people who are talking about another side of the industry. (like when we say "there needs to be industrial protection for brothel workers", people say "we can't legalise prostitution because we don't want street workers in our neighbourhoods". very frustrating). the only thing we really have in common is that we all have sex for money..and of course, that is the very thing that the opposition finds so abhorrent, so we can't use that angle at all!

to hold up a picture of a stereotypical street-based worker only reinforces the "victim" image, which casts a shadow over the entire industry. but to fight for oh&s protection and industrial rights almost trivialises, or completely denies, the plight of those women who are being victimised or exploited. (decriminalisation is the only model that can fix both problems at the same time. but like you said, it's just so hard to get people to understand how).

basically what we do is target individual groups with tailor-made relevant information. we educate doctors about the health implications of prohibition, we inform residents in street worker areas about the benefits of designated zones and safehouses, we tell feminist groups how the laws favour the client over the sex worker, and so on. (in short, we tell 'em what they wanna hear :)). each group, regardless of their opinion on the actual sale of sex for money, then adds our cause to their own agenda. so for example the health dept, who couldn't care less about sex worker's rights, will stand up and say that sex workers' health is suffering under the current legislation. there is no room for moral arguments...it is a fact from a health authority.

now if only we could find a hooker loving catholic priest who would be willing to speak to his flock!! lol

[Joe Zop]

Not so different from many sectors, really. I think I mentioned here before one of my favorite cartoons -- a firing squad formed as a circle. That's my impression of so many advocacy movements; they spend more time fighting each other than those they ought to be. Reminds me of a book fair in NYC in the 70s where there were three branches different of the American communist movement. They ended up in an actual physical brawl over who was the "true" communist party. Needless to say, no one came anywhere near that part of the room for the three days of the fair. I felt really sorry for the folks sitting near them.

Your political strategy is the classic legislative approach of forming temporary alliances based on narrowly defined common interests. It's how libraries and conservative-book-burning religious zealots can sometimes be on the same side of an issue. Still, the lack of a true concerted message means you'll only be able to win some of the battles and not the big war for the public heart.

Seems to me that it should at least be posed as something like "common people doing uncommon work facing uncommon obstacles" or something like that, which does cover all those in the equation (though since the implications of common are problematic this would need to be wordsmithed -- and normal doesn't work, either -- this is off the top of my head as opposed to really working it) to stress the normal nature of those involved and paint things as something that your neighbor could reasonably be doing, or which is at least connected somehow to something they do. That would at least get everyone under the same umbrella and give an opportunity to have one primary message regarding the sector as a whole as opposed to this or that particular issue. There's always plenty of room and opportunity for the latter, but if it can be used to reinforce a greater common message then the effect multiplies.

Damn, VT, you got me doing it after all...

[Joe Zop]

BTW, did you see where in England they're preparing to overhaul all their laws regarding sex crimes? One of the things in sort of the footnotes was a mention that Blair's guys were studying the issue of how to do away with criminal issues regarding prostitution, which sounds like decriminalization to me...

[Traveller]

Dear Joe and RN,

Firstly, apologies about my in's and out's here - i live up to my nick.

It apparently is very hard to argue with anyone of you, mainly because what you say makes sense and I agree - and then how to argue?? The "stand-off" thus has to rest for a while I guess...

You would both be the kind of people I wold like to see getting voted into Parliament. With real opinions, common-sense-based, rather than opinions directed at getting the most votes.

And that is, alas, also the reason none of you never will be.

"Real" politicians have only one concern - getting votes. Meaning, expressing views which easily catch with as much people as possible, whether dumb or smart.

What we are about here is justifying something that for a number of right and wrong reasons has been put in the "wrong" basket for at least 5000 years.....

However much we agree on this... how on this earth do we expect that the dull, sleepy "man in the street" (or his wife(!!!!)) who are basically non-risk taking people who get worried if the TV program changes unexpectedly..... can understand and accept that some other people may want to do other stuff, like having sex with someone they really don't know at all and see what happens - jump outta an airplane or go to a place in the world which is on the local authorities "warning list"?? - can vote for someone who advocates that this is actually great fun and the real meaning of life???????

[Joe Zop]

> You would both be the kind of people I wold like to see getting voted into Parliament.

Ah, far too many skeletons in these closets, I fear -- and every intention of collecting many more! But thanks for the compliment.

But to take a shot at your question -- I actually have a pretty high view of the overall good sense of the man and woman in the street, and I generally trust in their hearts. It's their understanding of complex issues that's the problem -- the average person is fighting hard to make their own life work, and so are not likely to spend the time necessary to really understand the nuances of most situations that don't effect them truly directly. So to get anywhere, one has to find a way to universalize the problem, to convince the average person that this is not just a problem about these other people, but about the averae person's lives. This is obviously a major struggle that plays out in different and often confusing ways -- such as, for example, the US's Republican party's hammering at the "family" theme and their ability by doing so to gather support, in spite of the fact that they really have a pretty abysmal record on social programs aimed at the family. It's a way of spinning things that works, however.

That's been my point here -- one can win this or that legislative battle by marshalling forces and making coalitions, but to truly change public perception takes a long-term effort to explain how a particular issue is about exactly the same things as is going on in the man or woman in the street's lives. In this case that's doubly difficult because prostitute is still an epithet, so one must tread carefully when you draw the comparison, lest the common person says, "You're saying I'm like what?" :)

[Traveller]

Joe, I've got those bones rattling outta the closet too - make no mistake about it...:)

However, I am not too conviced about your faith in the "man in the street".

Said man has biases all over. Not the guy you meet in the bar somewhere, but the average voter guy who drives past the bar on his way home to the missy.

His wife has even more of them...

Some of these biases are based on religion. The curse of the world - anything from American dual-morality ways via European lawmaking to Iranian or Afghan (or Somali) men being dead scared of the fact that there is anything in existence like female sexuality. And they all blame it on God why it is forbidden and bad and whatever.

A newspaper in Nigeria said that if Mohammed lived today, he would consider the Miss World participants as potential wiwes - probably true, but some uneducated, blind followers of a faith designed by man burned down the newspaper offices the day after....

[The Virgin Terr]

i wasn't aware of that development in breat britain, joe, how did u hear of it? i keep up well with international news relating to the "drug war" and those seeking 2 reform via a comprehensive weekly online newsletter, but there is 2 my knowledge nothing similar regarding prostitution. great 2 hear if in fact true, and in keeping with similar developments happening in many countries seeking liberation from american style prohibition of illicit drugs. i apologize if it offends anyone that i mix the 2 issues freely, but they are absolutely the same to me; that being who controls our bodies; ourselves, or the fucking government? anyways, if u are privy 2 a particular information outlet specializing in reform of prostitution laws, let us all know of it.

i've been away for a few days and see i've stimulated some discussion. it's a start. i'm under no illusions that social change is easy or fast, my purpose here is simply to test the waters to see how much interest or potential enthusiasm can be generated. it appears that among the very few of us here, quite alot, but what about our millions of colleagues involved to some extent personally in prostitution? if we could get just one percent of them involved, we could have an organization of quite significant proportion. one measly percent, that's only one out of every hundred people! surely one out of every hundred of us can be prodded into an organization dedicated to advocacy, don't you think?

[The Virgin Terr]

since i failed 2 address some of your comments regarding morality and nuances thereof, i will briefly. the morality issue is simple or complex as u choose 2 make it; i prefer keeping it simple, and again, analogous to drug prohibition. prohibition doesn't work and causes far more harm than it prevents. the question properly put and 2 best advantage is 2 make it an issue of personal freedom from tyrannical social (governmental) control. at the most basic level, i suppose the argument revolves around one's philosophical view of human nature, or put another way, whether one views said nature from a rational viewpoint or an irrational (religious) one. the irrational religious viewpoint argues that human nature is "fallen" or "sinful"; the rational viewpoint makes no such negative moral judgement, and therefore is not inclined 2 reflexive condemnation.

as for "nuances", again, one can make that as simple or complex as one prefers. i distrust those who gravitate towards complexity; it's an effective tactic for paralysis, for endless debate. all actions entail some degree of risk and uncertainty. if u want 2 eliminate risk and uncertainty, commit suicide, because life is inherently "dangerous". if, on the other hand, one chooses the risk of life, and rejects the religious or negative moral view which denies human freedom by condemning human nature, morality is simplified to the poiint that it all boils down to one simple thing: free choice. freedom from coercion and deceit. so long as there's no deceit or coercion involved, all activities may be regarded as morally positive.

[Joe Zop]

VT -- the thing on Britain I saw in two places: on Yahoo, via Rauters, as a kind of footnote/afterthought to the bigger story of the general overhaul of the sex laws and in one of the English Thai papers I picked up (sorry, I forget which one it was, and I've already recycled.)

Traveller, I agree that the man (or woman) in the street has biases and baggage, cultural and religious programming, etc. But I still think it's possible to appeal to broad moral issues and couch things in such a way that they become harmonious with that programming. Just look at the civil rights process, something that helped shift attitudes prevalent for most of US history. No, it didn't get everyone, and no, it didn't finish the job to this point, but there's little question that the general man in the street's attitude is markedly different than, say, forty years ago. So it's possible -- it's just not easy or fast, but that's no surprise, given the nature of how a society works.

And for what it's worth, the whole thing in Nigeria, though unfortunate, was clearly pretty predictable. Miss World organizers were absolutely nuts for choosing to hold their festival there in the first place -- on the one side you've got a sizable fundamentalist Muslim population who thinks the whole thing promotes promiscuity and is basically immoral, and on the other you've got contestants boycotting because a number of women who have conceived out of wedlock have been sentenced to death. I've got a friend who lives there, and even he thinks his country is nuts. But you don't change people's minds by having a newspaper reinterpret religious dogma and taking to task those who follow it -- gee, they get angry, what a surprise -- you do it by making things smaller in scale, down to a person or two, and portray those stories in such a way that they become universal and sympathy is engendered. It's the lesson of the famous National Geographic photograph of the Afghan girl with those haunting eyes...

[Rubber Nursey]

The West Australian newspaper 21/11/02
Sex workers cane Labor laws revamp
By Ben Harvey


AUSTRALIA'S most influential prostitutes will tell the Gallop Government today that its overhaul of WA's sex industry is unworkable.

About 40 members of the Scarlet Alliance, the national peak body of sex workers, converged on Perth on Wednesday to discuss the Government's plans to overhaul WA's prostitution laws.

Principles for Model Sex Industry Legislation, to be announced today, was put together by the alliance's executive as well as delegates from each State and Territory.

It is understood the sex worker-endorsed legislative model is very different from that championed by Police Minister Michelle Roberts two months ago.

A spokesman for Mrs Roberts said sex workers would be licensed in a bid to protect the health of clients and prevent unlawful Australian entrants from working.

"There are no controls, it's rampant out there," he said.

Scarlet Alliance national president Maria McMahon said the proposed laws discriminated against sex workers by making them carry identification.

"The proposed legislation, with a combination of registration and licensing will discriminate against sex workers as the only people in Australia required to carry ID cards by the State," Ms McMahon said.

"The proposed laws will create a cycle of arrest and imprisonment for those unable to enter into the registration system, leaving sex workers open to corruption, abuse and violence."

Adult industry consultant Alison Arnot-Bradshaw said sex workers were already marginalised and stigmatised.

"Any law reform must aim to reduce this marginalisation and stigmatisation," she said. "From the research I have conducted with sex workers in Victoria it has been shown it is these two issues that have the greatest negative impact on their working and private lives."

Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union assistant secretary Carolyn Smith said she was disappointed Labor opposed the Prostitution Act 2000 in Opposition but was not taking the opportunity to replace it.

United Nations Association of Australia (WA division) president Nancy Hudson-Rodd claimed the Prostitution Act 2000 violated 10 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to movement, fair trial, safety, employment and privacy.

"The Scarlet Alliance's model for sex industry law reform document indicates that there are better ways to move forward on this issue," she said.

[Rubber Nursey]

The West Australian newspaper 23/11/02
Prostitute IDs spark warning
By Steve Butler and Daniel Cleary

PROSTITUTION will be pushed further underground in WA if the State Government introduces compulsory individual registration, according to a Perth sex worker.

The claim came yesterday as the Scarlet Alliance, the national peak body of sex workers, completed a three-day forum in Perth. Several groups involved with the sex industry will make separate submissions to the State Government.

They were angry the Government had not consulted more before drafting legislation to overhaul WA's prostitution laws.

But the Police Minister Michelle Roberts defended the Government's handling of the matter yesterday, saying that all interested parties would have three months to comment on the draft laws. "Three months...is probably the greatest amount of consultation that people have been given on any Bill in recent times", Mrs Roberts said.

A 28-year-old single Perth mother, who did not want to be identified, told The West Australian yesterday that no WA sex workers wanted to comply with individual registration, which would include carrying an identification card.

The woman, who has worked in the WA industry for six years, said the community's stigma against prostitutes would make it impossible for them to accept public registration.

Sex workers would face discrimination in a range of areas including housing, finance and even Family Court matters such as custody issues. "We're not being defiant. There's just no incentive for us to do it", the woman said.

"As much as we would love to be a part of a legal system and not have to risk prosecution, it's just not worth losing our anonymity and so much of our lives".

Mrs Roberts refused to respond to claims that registration of individual workers would drive the industry underground, accusing sex workers of criticising legislation they had yet to see.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...So much of our lives?" Aside from this rather strangely compressed version of the aspects of our lives that we are at risk of losing, and aside from the fact that it should have said we want to work in a "legitimate industry" rather than "legal system"...this guy didn't do too badly. ;)

PS. She's accusing us of "criticising legislation we have yet to see"??? She's been spouting off in the media about what's included in the proposed laws for over a year! And note that after months of lies and pacifying (and patronising) statements in response to sex worker activists comment, she's suddenly just "refusing to respond". I do believe we're really starting to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) her off!! LOL

[The Virgin Terr]

after reading your latest posts, if you are in fact a 300 lb. trucker from ohio, you're going to extraordinary lengths to fool us, RN.

regarding those posts, the articles you site demonstrate the unworkability of allowing law enforcement officials an influential hand in drafting prostitution legislation. you might as well have the catholic church or muslim clerics involved. they're prohibitionists at heart, and any legalization scheme they'll deign to approve will reflect that bias.

p.s. now that we're "senior members" of this forum, what does that mean exactly? will less "senior" contributors stand in awe of our experience and credentials? :-)

[Rubber Nursey]

LOL Terry...hopefully that has put an end to that nasty rumour, once and for all!

I wanted to clarify just in case, (because of our different political systems), about the Police Minister. She is not actually a law enforcement officer...in fact, she has absolutely no power over the police force at all. She is simply the politician who deals with the "law and order" portfolio. The Police Commissioner is the dude in charge of law enforcement authorities...the Police Minister is a pathetic little housewife who knows nothing about law and order, and is only feigning interest in the subject long enough to earn her political superannuation package.

That said, you are absolutely correct in saying that the Police Minister should not be drafting this legislation. The two-faced cow has said many, many times that "prostitution should be a health matter, not a police matter". So why the hell isn't the Minister for Health writing the draft??? And...why then are they ADDING criminal penalties to the proposed legislation, rather than decriminalising it?

It's blatantly obvious to me that they DON'T see it as a "health matter", otherwise they would have washed their hands of this unpopular and controversial Bill long ago, and passed it off onto the Health Dept.

PS...Rather than "standing in awe" in front of me, I think I'd prefer it if the less senior members were to KNEEL in awe in front of me. ;) While you're down there boys.....

[Joe Zop]

So in essence she is the same as an Attorney General in the states, a politician who runs general things related to the area and sets policy. But it's good to see that you're not making this at all personal, and are keeping the big picture view :)

(And are we now so heirarchical that no one else gets to kneel but junior members? C'mon, RN, you know we high and mighty senior officials very much need to be put in our places as well...)

Seriously though -- is this draft ever actually going to be released and made available for comment, or is this simply political theatre at this point by both sides?

[Rubber Nursey]

Awww c'mon Joe. I keep always maintain a "big picture" view during working hours...but sometimes a girl's gotta vent!!

The draft...well, considering we have been promised the thing since July 2001, it sometimes seems as though it will never amount to anything. And yes, we were just told yet again that it will be out in "around two weeks". She did a radio interview yesterday and seemed to try VERY hard to distance herself from the draft...she seems more and more reluctant to defend it. However, could she really just drop it after all this build-up? She would look pretty darn stupid. Surely she couldn't risk just abandoning the whole thing...

All I can say...in all honesty...is that she seems to be very uncomfortable about it right now. I'm pretty sure they did NOT expect a fight from sex workers at all, and that they were going to be able to get this done with very little community resistance. heh heh Guess again Michelle. ;)

[Rubber Nursey]

And hey, don't feel left out Joe. You're free to get down on your knees and worship me any time you like. Maybe I'll even introduce a "Seniors Discount Card" system for our more "distinguished" posters? ;)

[Joe Zop]

A "Frequent Kneeler's Card" huh? :)

My guess would be that she'll study the draft the SA has put out, pull in a few feathers to give it a friendly gloss, and then go ahead and put something out. Politically, she probably needs it out, even (or especially) as a complete failure, since she's been yapping about it for so long. A good question, of course, is why it's taking so long since she's not seeking any advance input from those in the sector, and who else she might in fact be getting such impact from.

[Rubber Nursey]

Actually, you may find that document that the newspaper article mentioned rather interesting, Joe. If you want to have a look, go to www.afao.org.au, click on "Policy and Legal" in the column on the left, then go to "Sex workers". The Principles for Sex Industry Law Reform pdf is available there. It goes a long way to explaining the benefits of decriminalisation for sex workers, and ultimately, the community.

So you're planning on kneeling "frequently" then, huh? Perhaps I'll introduce a "buy nine, get the tenth one free" deal as well? ;)

[Dickhead]

The most superior sexual practice is 68.

[Rubber Nursey]

I totally agree Dickhead.
So how about you kneel before me now, and I'll owe you one.
(I'll even give you a Seniors Discount...)

[Traveller]

RN, first let's kill all the politicians (Shakespeare rewritten...he had lawyers in mind...)

Secondly, I'll never post a response to you again if you offer a "Senior's discount" - for hecks sake it sounds like the offer given by public transport to 65-year olds with health problems of all kinds all over.......

Grr :-)

[Dickhead]

65 year olds with health problems need affordable pussy too, I think. I'll let you know in 19 more years.

[Rubber Nursey]

Fine...you can all pay full price then, Traveller! :p LOL

[Organicgrowth]

Dickhead, RN, Traveller et al.,

Very entertaining thread here, discounts! Excellent, roll on retirement! Please refer to my post on “68” at (11-17-02) WSG Forum > Special Interests > Jokes & Humorous Stories. LOL.

Regards,

Havanaman

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe --- she did it.
All hell broke loose this afternoon.
It's worse than we could have ever imagined...much worse than we were prepared for.
As an activist I'm furious....and as a worker, I'm absolutely terrified.

I don't think I've really taken it all in yet. I'm waiting for it to hit me. We've been fighting this sooooo long already, and I guess somewhere in my heart I had hoped that we could stop it before it happened. But now it's happened, and I just don't know what the fuck to do....

[Traveller]

Havanaman, went to that page, not been there before, I caught on RN's hilarious "mate's rules" - she is in the know.......

[Traveller]

And RN, can you give some info on that government horror story?

[Joe Zop]

How is it worse, RN? And in political terms, does it actually have a chance of happening, or is it dead in the water? It sounds, without reading it, as if unfortunately now your best bet may be for a continuation of the status quo, and a political fight for a more receptive government.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe...

How does photographs, finger printing and palm printing sound (as a general requirement of licensing)?
How about one years imprisonment if an independent has ANYBODY else on the premises with her (to PROTECT her) while she works?
How about locking up CHILDREN if they are caught soliciting a prostitute, or acting as a prostitute?
How about no right to remain silent, a presumption of guilt, the retention of the right of police to enter, search, sieze and detain without a warrant...even on LEGAL premises!
How about DENYING sex workers licenses if they have ever been charged for drug dealing, assault, extortion, blackmail, public indecency or "similar" offences???
How about a Prostitution Control Board that has NO sex industry representation?
How about enforcement of STI testing, with the Board having the right to order testing be done (as "regularly" as they deem to be necessary) and medical reports to be handed over to THEM??

That's just a start. It's horrific...

The draft is available on the net. Go to www.ministers.wa.gov.au , click on "Michelle Roberts Police Minister" and the Bill can be downloaded as a pdf under "Features" on the right hand side of the page. Check out my site as well.

I just don't know what the chances are Joe. I mean, there seems to be a lot of "disposable" stuff in this draft that they could throw out if necessary, but the entire ESSENCE of the thing is just so WRONG...no matter how much they cut, it will still be horrendous.

And this IS the more liberal Government. The other party is MORE conservative!!!!

[Traveller]

rn, horror indeed......

i read the stuff.

the first thought was this couldn't even happen in america.....but of course it could.

the whole thing gives an impression of being implemented in afghanistan during taliban rule (guess they forgot to put in the stoning and lashing, but that could be fixed later..) the legislation seems more extensive in volume and detail than the entire corporate law of a modern country......

so the mandatory pick-up line is gonna be "hey lemme see your licence" - lest i subsidise the aussie government with $6000?

and if i pick up a girl in a bar who fancies the fact that i can take her on an expensive holiday and buy her clothes ("consideration doesn't need to be money") - a) we both get fined massively for hooking up, and b) later on we both gotta rid ourselves of $6000 for making out without a rubber...

they forgot to put in a 14 year prison sentence for leaving the lights on....(or maybe not - some kids could see ya if they peeked in)

what they are saying is thay want to make this as awkward, humiliating and unattractive as absolutely possible. which is probably very intended. and they don't believe they will lose a lot of voters or their voting wives by doing so. politicians don't give a damn about any kind of common sense or human rights or anything on its own - they calculate only the impact of their acts on the polls and votes. and on this one they consider it low-risk.

let's buy ourselves an attractive, free-spirited deserted island with good climate and easily built infrastructure to get away from this. (and introduce rocks as the currency - as the lizards, i will grab a big rock and attract the cuties:-)

(oops - that last idea was grabbed by some englishmen looking for a place to put prisoners in the 1700's.......)

[Rubber Nursey]

Traveller,

You are right...this is Afghanistan for women, or Nazi Germany for the Jews. This is the complete exclusion of sex workers from the community. And yes, the entire draft was written with an obvious abolitionist approach. One of the functions of the board is described as "to develop strategies to deter persons from becoming prostitutes, and to advise prostitutes wishing to cease prostitution;". I mean, that's what it comes down to, doesn't it. They want to make it so impossible for us to work legally that we will just stop working all together. How STUPID are they???

It is just so dehumansing. They have gone out of their way to reinforce the idea that sex workers are the lowest of the low, and not capable of doing anything right unless it's legislated. FFS...there's a crime of "Misbehaving" in there, that says it's an offence to insult a member of the Board!!! The terminology alone says it all...the word "prostitute" is rarely used here, even in the media. The term "sex worker" is used. But this legislation seeks to "put us back in our place" by re-introducing insulting references to sex workers. And then there are the completely pointless offences...things that are already an offence in general society, but sex industry members would get higher penalties for doing the same things under this legislation. For example, it will be an offence for a brothel owner to "sell or supply illicit drugs to a prostitute". WTF??? Isn't it already an offence for ANYONE to sell or supply illicit drugs to ANYONE???

Local people need to understand just how far-reaching this legislation is too. The community doesn't seem to give a damn because it's "prostitution legislation". But don't they realise what the suspension of natural justice and the principles of administrative law for one part of the community does to the WHOLE community?? They are the laws that stop innocent people being charged with crimes they didn't commit!! You don't HAVE to be a prostitute to have these laws used on you! If only they would open their bloody eyes and LOOK at the draft!

Ohhhh sorry. I'm ranting again. I am just so hurt and angry and frustrated...this legislation (literally in some parts) says "You are a wh*re, and as such, you don't deserve to be treated like other people". I thought we had come further than that in our community. We HAD come further than that. But this Government is sending us straight back to the Dark Ages.

PS. Did you notice what it said on the Ministers page about the lego? "made in liaison with ...representatives of the the sex industry". I'm sure you've all seen me complaining for long enough about the lack of consultation, to know that that is UTTER BULLSHIT. But that is what she is telling the media. That and "this legislation aims at improving the health and safety of sex workers". It just hurts so much....

[Traveller]

If anyone wonders what can make RN so upset about this, I assure, after reading the stuff, that there is no reason to wonder about it whatsoever.

In the starter of the official document, (Named the "Prostitution CONTROL bill") it is made very clear what is going on - and it is not decriminalisation (rather the opposite) - and not worthy of the name "legalisation" in any sensible way either. Just some extracts frrom the overview;

"Reason for enacting this act"

- "....the policy of CONTAINING prostitution has proven to be inadequate"

- "...there is a need for the CONTROL of prostitution to be regulated by law."

- "...it is INAPPROPRIATE for the CONTROL of persons involved in prostitution to be subject to the normal principles of administrative law." (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

What this is really saying is they would gladly lock up anyone related to the business, whether as SW's or johns (oh, yes, lots of stuff providing an opening to the slammer for us too), or go to the football stadium and watch them be stoned the Afghan way.

I might maybe be ranting too here..... but as a lawyer, with an awareness for what I thought was a modern society's concern for human rights and women's rights, this is horrendous.

It seems, however, that the world is going this way. The freedom gained in the 70's when people and government were liberal and relaxed in respect of sex and freedom of the individual seems to be over.

In the US they are seriously passing bills that will allow Big Brother government complete access to, and control over, all kinds of communication between people world-wide. Europe is following most probably.

We who venture in this group do not approve - rather we are mostly horrified of this "world of total control by someone in government". At least we are aware of it - probably lots of others would disapprove loudly too if they just got the magnitude of it...

People who love excitement, freedom and thrillseeking seem to be an endangered species - get a job in the government and survive??????

Hell, no.............

[Rubber Nursey]

Thank you Traveller. A couple of people have suggested to me that I may be "over-reacting" because I have a "personal stake" in prostitution law reform. It's good to see that I am not the only one who sees it for what it is.

It is just so frightening. (Joe...I think I've discovered their "trump card" that we were discussing before, when you asked how they could possibly get this through even if nobody wanted it). The answer lies in the "regulations". From what I can gather, they only need to get a tiny bit of this legislation passed in order to get what they want... The Prostitution Control Board. The Board has been given such absolute power, that they are basically untouchable by the law and unanswerable to anyone. And the Board has been given the liberty of creating "regulations" at it's discretion.

What I guess that means, is that even if half of this Bill thrown out during the community consultation period, the Board can just write those things back IN as regulations. Those regulations will not be subject to the scrutiny of the public, and will not be subject to normal "administrative law".

So basically...no matter WHAT the community says about the Pro Control Bill, if the Board gets through (which I think is about the only thing that has support from those who don't know a f*ckin' thing about the industry) we are royally screwed.

Traveller... www.iinet.net.au/~ashkara

[Joe Zop]

RN -- I've been on the road without much net access, so I'm just kind of catching up here for a moment. I'll probably not be able to take a look at the text for a few days, but it truly does sound like a nightmare, and your fingering of the control board as the real agenda sounds pretty well dead on. If everything else is thrown out and they get that, which sounds "reasonable" to those who don't really look at it, then they can get whatever they want anyway.

This means you're going to need to battle on several fronts and with a couple potential strategies. First, you're going to need to either completely block passage, if that's possible. Second, you're going to need to work to get the various ridiculous parts taken out. Finally, if you can do the second but not the first, you're going to need to work to defang the control board by working to not actually give them control of anything. A very tough, tough battle when something like this comes from the more liberal party, to say the least.

[Traveller]

RN,

(sorry this will be pretty technical but I guess maybe useful)

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:-

Article 11.1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Article 12. No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to protection of law against such interference or attacks.

The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political rights:-

Article 2.3.1. To ensure that any person, whose rights or freedoms are herein recognised are violated, shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity, to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authority...

Australia as a country and a UN member must have ratified these conventions, and laws (made by regions) which are in contravention of the conventions will be unconstitutional.

There are several more interesting provisions in the a/m conventions, and in genereal the stuff contained in the "control bill" seems to a large degree to be in contravention of the UN conventions.

Best bet - find a human rights lawyer who also knows constitutional law who is willing to support, and challenge the stuff as being in breach of national constitution. Should work on several of the major problem areas.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by Traveller
RN,

(sorry this will be pretty technical but I guess maybe useful)

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:-

Article 11.1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.



Anybody who's relying on that should stay out of Méjico or any other UN member country that follows the Napoleonic code = "guilty until proven innocent."

[Rubber Nursey]

Traveller,

Here's an interesting little fact about the "Lucky Country": Australia has no 'people's' Constitution and no Bill of Rights (the so-called Constitution we do have describes Parliamentary processes, etc). That says it all really.

I have gone through all the UN declarations and covenants I can get my hands on, to the point of quoting legislation in my sleep. What I have discovered is that there were several "loopholes" created in those documents, to allow individual countries to fiddle with them. The biggest gap left open was the "morality clause" (my words, not theirs). This was apparently done so that UN laws/recommendations could be applied to every signatory, regardless of the country's different cultures and faiths...they were given scope to interpret what "protecting public morals or public order (ordre public)" meant.

For example, everybody has the right to Freedom of Movement UNLESS you are a prisoner and/or on bail, and UNLESS the Government considers that you are a threat to public order or morals. This little "clause" was specifically created to give individual Governments the right to restrict the freedom of movement of street-based sex workers. Basically what I'm saying is that our Government has the ability to deny us our basic human rights, and get around any declarations we may be a signatory to, because our occupation is "immoral".

There are also problems with using Article 12 here...
a) the local definition of "public place" was broadened, to the point where it's pretty much impossible to claim that prostitution happened in a private place.
b) calling someone a criminal when they ARE a criminal doesn't amount to damaging reputation (and hooking is criminal), BUT if prostitution is made legal and they publicly announce that you are a hooker, they are simply stating your legal occupation so it is also not considered an attack (even though that announcement could destroy your honour and reputation...what do they care).c) in the case of sole-operators, they ARE allowed to interfere in your "home" because it is considered your workplace...
The list goes on.

As far as being able to "invoke principles of administrative law", which this draft seeks to deny us, you could be right about that one. We have huge legal teams preparing submissions about that sort of thing, as we speak. Same with the Privacy legislation, as well as Trade Practices.

But our biggest problem is that damn Board.

[Traveller]

RN,

sorry if I appeared to be "educational". It seems you have your act together, with legal teams and all.

This is really about moral majority (?) against common sense and (most importantly) international law as decided by the UN???

Moral majority tends to win all the time.

The wiwes just don't want to have a possibility for the man in the house to fool around with girls of the night - and I guess that is all there is to it.

So - kill it.

[Rubber Nursey]

"sorry if I appeared to be "educational"

No, not at all! I have absolutely no legal training (as a matter of fact, I didn't even complete high school!!!), so I am more than happy for people to give me hints or try and push me in the right direction. I can understand "legalese" to a certain degree...enough to understand what it means and how the laws can be used in practice, but not necessarily enough to tear the laws themselves to pieces. Outside help of any kind is more than welcome. Especially from someone with a legal background. :)

The moral majority...that's so annoying. It doesn't exist!! Only this week, they did another poll to find out how people felt about prostitution, drugs, gay and lesbian issues, etc. According to the data, more people supported "legal" prostitution (78%) than any of the other things, including homosexual equality! However, the question was rigged in my opinion. People do not understand the meaning of "legalisation", so the data was not necessarily representative of true public opinion.

I looked into making an official complaint to the UN...it can apparently take 2 - 4 years for anything to happen. :( Even then, the UN can only give "recommendations", not tell the Government what to do. Best we could hope for would be the WA Government being internationally embarrassed. I've decided to send a copy of the Green Bill to everyone around the entire globe who may be even remotely interested. Can't hurt, right? Worst case scenario, nobody gives a damn. Best case...someone with clout gets irate enough to make a fool of the Police Minister in front of the whole world.

[Traveller]

RN,

The law is a strange thing which is a bit lodged between a rock and a hard place.

Most people think the law has a life of its own, being there to regulate the relations between people, and between people and their government, and if there is a "wrong" the law will put it right.

Some times it will. But "the law" has flaws - of several kinds. Someone wise said it is like the Ritz hotel in London - open to everyone (who can pay, that is).

Also, the law lives in a kind of symbiosis with politics (power). Judges look to what is "politically correct" at any given time and place and tend to bend their decisions in that direction when deciding matters. The opinion of the political establishment weighs heavily in this respect. Those who say that law is not influenced by politics lie.

That said, the law, and international pressure backing it, sometimes works. Western world governments (including Australia for anything but geography), are to some degree vulnerable to this.

On the matter of international and UN law in general, I do not think it can any way be used to force a legalisation of prostitution. But I think that to some degree it can work to fend off the worst excesses intended by your government in the process of doing so - including the "camouflaged" introduction of "martial law" through a Board who can decide anything without being answerable to noone.

There - got a bit educational again, then :-)

BTW, saw your site - keep up the good work, you.

[Ct1]

RN

I have been reading a bit.
You say you didn't complete high school. BUT you are well sopken and i have gained a great deal of knowledge from you ... Thank you

With the bill you presented a girl out for a good time good be looked at as an un licensed professional. After alll most men when wining and dining are after a reward ... if the lady offers such does that make her working with out a licence?

I believe the board is afraid of having a sex worker on it as they feel they may be exposed to haveing hired a profesional. BUT with out a sex worker represented how can there be fairness?

I believe Japan at one time had leaglized prostatution and made it illeagal to the pressure of the U.S. all it did was force it underground

One cannot legislate morality.

For those who want to proclaim the Bible . Were is it mentioned that any brothels were destroled .. i have read were tables were Tables overturned at the temple... I am not saying religion is right or wrong just over zelous. They want to pass laws to protect them selves from what they precieve to be evil. When was the last time some one was expelled from the church for some thing..

Well i just wanted to add my 2 cents. good luck.

[Rubber Nursey]

ct 1,

Thank you so much! That was really sweet. :)
The "No sex worker on the Board" thing has caused much debate, even within the wider community. People are being led to believe...by outright lies that the Police Minister is telling in the media...that this legislation is being introduced to "protect" sex workers. However, eyebrows have been raised at the mention of there being no sex worker representation on the Board. People are asking "How can this really be in the best interest of workers, if there aren't even any workers having input"? People are not as stupid as the Police Minister thinks they are, I guess.

She has said that the "community member" on the Board will be an advertised position, and that there is "nothing to say that a sex worker couldn't apply". But when it comes down to it, it's impossible for a sex worker to be on the Board anyway. There is a part that says that Board members can't vote/decide on anything if they have an "interest" in the matter being decided. I presume a sex worker rep would be classed as having an interest, and excluded from the discussion.

And you're right. The Church...an organisation that has, for many hundreds of years, slaughtered hundreds of thousands in the name of God, forced people to surrender all their "worldly goods" to the Church as donations, and covered up phenomenal amounts of sexual abuse of small children by it's clergy. And they have the nerve to call US immoral??!!!

[Rubber Nursey]

Traveller,

Thanks hun. :) My site is an absolute mess at the moment...I really have to sit down and organise it, but I just haven't had the time. Plus, you guys may not realise this but it's BOILING HOT HERE!!! It's so very hard to concentrate on text when you're melting into your chair! LOL I'll be working on it tonight though...got heaps of stuff to put up there.

"I do not think it can any way be used to force a legalisation of prostitution"

I certainly wouldn't want that anyway!! I am strictly opposed to legalisation (even in it's true form...and this current proposal is a long way from 'true' legalisation). Decriminalisation is the only way. What drives me crazy is that in so many countries, (and even our OWN country!) decriminalisation has been proven effective. AND legalisation has been proven all over the world to cause many more problems than it solves! What terrifies me most is that all the things they claim they want to "deter"...organised crime involvement, health and safety problems, exploitation, etc...will dramatically INCREASE under this type of legislation! They MAY eventually realise what they've done and change their minds...but how many girls are going to DIE before that happens??!! How many of us will have our lives completely destroyed, before they realise why we NEED to remain anonymous? Why we NEED to work as "sub-contractors", not employees? Why we NEED to remove the police from the sex industry?

Yeah I know...I'm preaching to the choir. LOL Sorry, just venting again. :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe...are you ok hun?
I trust you are either having a great time and forgot about us, or you haven't had access to the net. Either way, I hope you're alright... you know how I worry. :) (Just call me Mother Hen).

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, for what it's worth, i think you could be enormously more effective as an activist if you felt you didn't need anonymity. do you fear being targeted by the police if you went public? do you fear family rejection, or having your children being made into targets of derision? how old are your kids by the way, if that's not too personal?

trade you some cold for your heat. the northeastern u.s. has been below freezing most of the time for several weeks now.

[Joe Zop]

RN, I've been on the road bouncing from place to place for the past week or so, and net access has generally been either unavailable, unreliable, or both. I've kept up a bit, but have only posted a couple of short things in the Thailand area.

I'm heading back north tomorrow, and will probably be back on my own computer sometime next week, where I can bore everyone to death once again :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,
Glad to hear you're ok, babe. Hope you're having a wonderful time...and if "being back on your own computer next week" means you're going home, then have a safe trip. :)

Terry,
I'm not sure I agree with that actually. I mean, yes...letting people meet a "real, live prostitute" can help to alter people's perceptions of who sex workers really are. BUT, (as much as it kills me to say this), a service provider who has contact with thousands of different sex workers, is apparently considered more "credible" than an actual sex worker is! Don't get me wrong...when I present at conferences, etc, I always HINT that I am a sex worker. In fact, sometimes I dob myself in by accident by saying "We" instead of "They", or something like that. But I like to think that people are listening to what I'm saying as a professional. If, by chance, they happen to leave the conference wondering whether I may have in fact been a sex worker...then great! Not only have I (hopefully!) managed to prove to them that a sex worker can be articulate, intelligent and politically aware, but by not mentioning my "other" work, I just may have proved to them that there is more to me than just my job. That sex work itself is not the issue.

When you disclose your status as a sex worker to a group of people, the discussion becomes very personal. You are forced to spend time justifying your choices, and talking about pimps, madams, drugs, violence, whatever. That is not what's important in the current discussion...violations of human and civil rights is. As a professional providing services to sex workers, I can keep the discussion on the matter at hand.

My choice to not disclose is not related to the police. Prostitution itself is not a crime. Unless you solicit on the streets, etc, they can't charge you with anything. (Although, they can and do harrass us). My main reason is my children. They are old enough to understand what prostitution is, and I have brought them up to be accepting of everyone's personal choices so I don't think they would have a major problem with it. But of course, OTHER children are not so tolerant...I won't have my kids targeted because of my actions. There are hundreds of other reasons though. You would be shocked and amazed to find out the ways that sex workers can be discriminated against if their occupation is discovered. Lives are destroyed. Plus, like I said above, it suits my purposes at the moment to be considered a "professional"...not a "pro". lol

[The Virgin Terr]

since this conversation has gone moribund, i have an idea to add to it. doctors and lawyers are among professionals seen as generally greedy, particularly lawyers, and sometimes unethical. however, in both instances there are notable exceptions, particularly with doctors donating their services to the poor. my point is this: what about prostitutes? there are certainly many people in this world who are sexually deprived, and one of the reasons sited by some prostitutes for job satisfaction is giving pleasure to their customers. do you suppose that in a different world in which prostitution wasn't illegal or "immoral", there would be some prostitutes who would donate their services to needy customers, such as disabled veterans? servicing need, instead of satisfying greed?

[Traveller]

VT, I have sometimes been greedy, sometimes unethical (in particular for the client's benefit), but without doubt, the real satisfaction is with a job well done - meaning the client is satisfied. Sometimes I have indeed compared my job to that of a prostitute - you get paid to satisfy your client's needs as well as possible (and when it is really successful it is rewarding in its own right too).

The times I have met sw's who think likewise, I have had a great time....the soulmate experience......I do not want people to understand this, not even accept it -but in my opinion it proves that the mind of the mind and the mind of the flesh somethimes may work the same way..I don't really think that there is such a difference between a great SW and a good legal mind - in any sense.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hmmm...Terry, I'm gonna be predictable and assume my "defensive hooker" stance on this one. I have two very big problems with what your posts suggests.

a). I object to your basic assuption that sex workers are "greedy". Who says??? Are kitchen hands greedy? Are waitresses greedy? Why is nobody else who is simply working a job to make money, considered greedy? Why do people assume that a taxi driver works out of financial necessity, but a hooker works out of greed?

b). We are talking about a JOB. Yes, many sex workers get personal satisfaction out of seeing a client happy. I am one of them. But why on earth does that mean I should give it away for free??? Would you encourage a baker who enjoys seeing happy customers, to hand out free loaves of bread? Better still...would he do it?!

Sex work is an occupation...it is not just sex. Regardless of whether we enjoy the job or not, we are having the sex for money...not out of the goodness of our hearts. If we are NOT getting money for the job, then we ARE having sex. And outside of sex work, I do not have indiscriminate sex with strangers!! If I was to have sex with people I was not attracted to, did not get paid for and did not WANT to have sex with...I would be simply allowing myself to be USED as a sex toy. What you are suggesting would be soul destroying after a while...think about it. I either have sex for money, or sex for fun. I will not have sex with someone out of pity.

[Joe Zop]

So, VT, is this your new organization -- "Mercy F*ck, Inc.?" With a slogan something like -- "It's time to stop screwing the poor and start screwing the poor?"

I think the "greedy hooker" thing is a bit off point, as the original perspective posited doctors and lawyers as also fitting into the stereotype. I think defining things more along the lines of "successful professionals who decide to donate their services for social good" might be a somewhat more positive spin to put on the whole concept and one that makes it a bit less hot-button.

And, RN, though I absolutely understand your defensive take on things, and personally think it's a more than abstruse and problematic idea, being a doctor or lawyer is also a job, and the point is that those folks also donate their services. I've done so myself many times, even though what I do is how I eat, same as a prostitute, kitchen hand or whomever.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe-- I also think the assumption that lawyers and doctors, etc, are "greedy", is just as rude a stereotype as the greedy hooker concept is. I think it's unfair to assume that if someone is making the big bucks, they are obviously motivated by greed...regardless of what their job is.

I can see your point about other professionals donating their time, but I just can't see it as the same. I'm not even sure how to begin to explain why, either! Surely sex has just gotta be different. To put it quite bluntly, the money is the difference between a sl*t and a wh*re! The money serves as an emotional barrier...it separates our personal lives from our working lives and, most importantly I think, it separates a commercial sex encounter from an affair. We (both sex workers and clients) BUY our way out of emotional involvement, and giving/receiving money sets clear boundaries.

Can you honestly say that a lawyer sitting at a desk giving legal advice for free, is similar to a sex worker shagging a disabled man for free? For starters, our job carries the risk of catching life-threatening diseases! Then we have the risk of the client becoming emotionally involved, because we had sex with him "out of the goodness of our hearts".... Ohhhh I don't know what to say, or how the hell to say it. I just don't think it's right. It's already difficult enough to distinguish your private life from your working life, without doing guys for free at work as well. I NEED the money to be there, for my own emotional safety. I have always dropped prices or thrown in extras for older/disabled/broke men, but I would still never do it for free. The whole idea just creeps me out.

I guess what that means is that "giving pleasure to my customers" is not in itself what makes me feel good...knowing I did my job well is. A prostitute, by definition, is a woman who has sex in exchange for money. If she's doing it for free, she is no longer a prostitute. Then what does she become? To me, for some reason, that makes all the difference.

[Traveller]

rn-i didn't mean to compare professions in all their respects - only in the sense that doing a job well can be as rewarding - or more - than the "greed" content.

when it comes to the emotional stuff - i can see your point, and i appreciate that a sw has more problems with this than most - however it does exist in the other "professions of greed" too - i know of a lawyer who is defending a man who raped and killed a very young girl - his stepdaughter - who was a classmate of his own kid......and greedy doctors who are begged to "turn off the machine" for terminally ill people who are suffering badly....

there is always bundles of tough emotional stuff around. being with a sw of course i pay, even overpay mostly (hey you didn't hear that) so the pay part is taken well care of. but i also do my very best to treat them as gf's and "regular girls" and expose them to the risk of getting emotional (or really try my best to). sometimes it really "works" - more often before, (the age thingy) but still...... as i read you getting the girls emotional is really a bad thing (and i have no problem seeing why)....but at the same time that is what most of us want....as discussed at length before here.

[MeatMan]

Hey RN,looking at one of you're posts,it looks like you have a LOVEJONES for blackmen....welllllllllllllll I'm gonna look you up oneday if I happen to be in "the land from down under":p

[Dickhead]

While there are certain similarities between lawyers and hookers, lawyers usually only screw you once but it lasts a long time. Whereas, a hooker will try to screw you as many times as possible in a short period of time. Normally, getting screwed by a lawyer costs about 1000 times as much as getting screwed by a hooker. Also, when you get screwed by a hooker, typically you know it right away.

These are the basics.

[The Virgin Terr]

didn't mean to get you so riled up, RN. i think my attitudes are just way ahead of my time regarding anything having to do with sex or other personal freedom issues. if the screwed up human species wasn't so fucking ballistically restrictive about sex in general, i don't think my idea would be considered at all radical. in my world prostitution would be government subsidized. there would be plenty of money for it with the elimination of military expenditures and the end of violence as a remedy for social conflict. providing sexual pleasure for free would earn you some kind of positive recognition. perhaps we could include a new category of nobel peace prize.

"stop screwing the poor and start screwing the poor"? i like it, joe! you have a job awaiting you in public relations in my imaginary alternative universe.

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm going to really stir the pot up now with these next comments. if shit is going to change regarding the criminalization and stigmatization of sex activity in general, it's going to have to come from men, not women. first of all, i think men are the source of sexual repression, not women. it's mainly men who have created the religious, legal, and ideological basis for the repression.

that said, the price of sex is outrageous, and it gives women involved in sexwork incentive to see the current corrupt system remain in place. as it currently stands, sexworkers can make 10 times as much per hour as many professionals whose work is more skilled and demanding, such as school teachers. how can this be? a job that takes no special skill or training and isn't unpleasant or boring pays 10 times as much as one which requires a great deal of training, is more difficult, and has more social value?

frankly, i don't think sexwork should be more valued than most mainstream occupations, or pay more. i'm sure there's a great deal of resentment by many sex industry consumers over the outrageous price satisfying this most basic need entails. and we consumers or johns or whatever greatly outnumber the mostly female sexworker population, so it's up to us to make change happen, not them, and it's us who will benefit the most.

[Joe Zop]

rn, first, i obviously think stereotypes are problematic regardless of profession -- i was just making the point that the issue itself is rather beside the main issue. i don't at all disagree that sex work is different than being a lawyer (a doctor may be closer, as there are varying degrees of physical intimacy) but that brings up two things, to me -- first, where does one draw such a line? is it just sex where the line would be drawn, as opposed to such things as nurses do, or masseuses, or physical therapists, etc., all of which can be highly personal and intimate? and, if usch a line is to be drawn, doesn't that call into question the oft-repeated demand that prostitution be treated just as any other job or profession? it seems tough to make the argument defining it as different and then to ask socially for it to be treated the same. :)

vt, i don't absolutely disagree with your point regarding men needing to change, as men still clearly control the vast engines of society, by and large. but i'm not convinced that it's as one-sided as you purport -- clearly women have much at stake in monogamous society as those so often bearing primary responsibilities for raising family. as far as the whole price issue, well, market forces are market forces, and when supply outstrips demand the price goes down.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,
I believe sex work should be TREATED like any other job...but I don't believe the work ITSELF is like any other job. As far as working hours, taxes, professionalism and all that goes, I can't see why it should be regarded as anything but a legitimate occupation. But the sex itself...well, I just don't see it in the same way as the other "intimate" services you mentioned. For starters, our customers actually *enter* our bodies!! (By the way...I'm not saying that any other working girl would necessarily agree with me. These are strictly my personal feelings on the subject).

"It seems tough to make the argument defining it as different and then to ask socially for it to be treated the same."
I have to admit Joe, I just don't follow that logic. If the work itself is proven to be "different", it makes the entire industry illegitimate? Take a look at people who work in slaughterhouses and morgues. In most people's books, their jobs would not be considered "normal", and the issues that they face are probably very different to the average job... in particular the emotional aspects and the stigma (sounds familiar). BUT, everyone still recognises those careers as legitimate.

Terry,
Ahh yes. I had a feeling that's where this was headed. 1st post..."free sex for war vets". 2nd post..."government subsidised prostitution". 3rd post..."let's take back the sex that is rightfully ours, by lowering the prices of commercial sex".

I'm sorry Terry, but I am not going to be party to a price debate. Free sex is not a man's "right". I have said it many times already, and I will say it again...if men want free sex, there are plenty of overweight/older/too thin/too fat/too clever/too dumb/shy/desperate women out there, wishing someone would shag them. If men want sex for less dollars, they can find a street based worker who will do them for 20 bucks. But if ageing, overweight, balding men want a no strings liaison with a 19 year old, slim, busty, sex goddess...they are gonna need to pay for it!! Sex may be a "necessity" to a certain extent, but sex with a porn star who is half your age, is not.

Yes that's callous, and I'm sure there will be plenty of people shouting expletives at me for it. I don't care. I don't whine when the baker charges me money for something that I could have quite easily baked myself.

PS. Meatman,
Hell yeahhhhhh!!! ;)

[Traveller]

VT, your comment that men are the source of sexual repression, I fully agree, this is in my opinion not even worthy of debate. Sexual repression is mainly created by men in order to control women - by religion, law, social stigma or whatever.

But I beg to differ indeed otherwise. In my opinion, sexwork is (or "should be considered as") different from other work - in the sense that those who do it admittedly take on the risk of getting emotional problems of all kinds - it is a service directed at emotions more than anything else - and of course a lot of them do.

We (the johns) try to distance ourselves from this problem - and at the same time we want the newfound friend to get emotional immediately (the ultimate GF experience) - and then we know we will never see her again. If we succeed in our desires in the emotional sense - we are instantly breaking another heart.

If we meet someone who appears "professional" and keeping her distance on the emotional level (hey, she doesn't even kiss for real...) we complain that the "GF experience" was not there. For sure. I know, cause I think exactly that way myself.

Confession made, then.

Chuckling my head off over Dickhead's comparisons between lawyers and hookers, I would like to carry that one a bit further -
you may compare the backyard divorce lawyer (or ambulance chaser) with the kind of hookers that VT wants to give freebies to the needy - heck, government employed poor girls who are supposed to be "obliged" to give away themselves (or at least their body) to anyone??? (I agree that the ambulance chaser should really be on a (low) government salary and sometimes give away his stuff for free too, but he doesn't - so why should she??) There is no reason at all that guy should make a dime more....

Then compare the lawyer who advises a large corporation to the effect that they make zillions - with the killer GF experience "once in a lifetime" sw. Sure the lawyer will make more (he has a substantially richer client) but the girl is well worth of her talents, and should be free to charge accordingly. It is still cheaper than a comparable girlfriend - she will want a sports car too.

Actually, thinking of it, I would probably want (much) more money per hour to shag an ugly, sex-starved, emotionally unstable woman 10 - 15 years older than me who was not of my choice (?) than for any kind of legal work. (That is, if I'd ever do it.)

Am I then, going out there to complain that a drop-dead cutie at 19 claims a bundle if she is to screw, be happy and friendly to, and otherwise fool around with a 50-year old???

The whole thing is about getting something that for some reason or another (in this case disproportionate sexual attractiveness, whether caused by looks, age, shyness or whatever), is out of range in the first place, and may become in-range by the introduction of money.

The times I have met with this situation, and experienced a young, beautiful, GF-type girl, I have considered that paying even way more than she has expected has been the thing to do. In my mind, "overpaying" only applies to those lousy mishap experiences. And the good ones deserve what they can get.

[Rubber Nursey]

Ok, after having my little rant, I'd like to take this opportunity to say MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL!!! :) I'm going away tomorrow and I'll be offline for a week, so I thought I'd better send you all some early kisses for Christmas.

Thank you for your company again this year, and thank you oh so much for arguing with me (y'all know a good fight turns me on!! LOL). PLEASE be careful over Christmas. Take care of yourselves, stay safe and I'll see you in a week. *mwahhh*

[Rubber Nursey]

"DH - While there are certain similarities between lawyers and hookers, lawyers usually only screw you once but it lasts a long time. Whereas, a hooker will try to screw you as many times as possible in a short period of time. Normally, getting screwed by a lawyer costs about 1000 times as much as getting screwed by a hooker. Also, when you get screwed by a hooker, typically you know it right away."

And a hooker will at least stop screwing you once you're dead. ;)

[The Virgin Terr]

i think i've made very similar arguments in the past in this forum, so i apologize for repeating myself, and RN, i imagine i probably pissed you off alot more than you indicated. if that be the case, thanks for being gentle in your rebuke. btw, atheists celebrate the solstice, not christmas, so merry solstice to all.

america's inner cities are islands of poverty amidst general wealth, with the exception of those involved in the illicit drug trade, who have money to burn. these aren't the folks who should have the most money, but that's what prohibition creates, a class of dangerous and undeservedly wealthy daredevils. if marijuana were decriminalized, instead of costing over $100/ ounce, people would be giving it away in the streets. to some extent the same would hold true with sex and prostitution, although for as long as humans exist in our present form, there will always exist a financial market for beautiful young girls. it would just be one hell of alot cheaper. sexwork doesn't necessarily include penetration, it's up to the individual what boundaries are set, so if you don't wish to be penetrated, you don't have to. alot of sexworkers make a living just showing themselves, providing fantasy for masturbation. likewise, if you don't like having little choice in your clientele, work independently only with those you approve of. i've never advocated and never will advocate that any particular sexworker should be required to satisfy any particular customer. if a customer is too much of a jerk or unhygeinic, go ahead and tell him to fuck off instead of fucking him. same goes for unsafe sex. there are some things no amount of money is worth, and what those are should be up to the individual. got it? please don't accuse me in the future of making coercive suggestions, because that isn't accurate and i resent it.

[Joe Zop]

Since we're doing the holiday greeting thing, I'll toss mine in as well, though here in Thailand the main indication and effect of Christmas is that meals and rooms for the day are basically tripled in price to make tourists feel at home. :) Enjoy yourself on the beach, RN, and try to remember that those rays can do damage, especially in the heat you've been having down there!

RN, again, those professions you mention could (and have) all donated services in various situations. People have worked as butchers in charitable situations, and morgue workers or undertakers have most definitely done the same -- I've a friend who's an undertaker who has donated his work in times of great disaster and in places in the world where there is abject poverty. Actors and actresses, pretending to be people they are not and doing things they personally would not do, also do things for charity -- even adult film performers, whose jobs involve sex. We can propose a scenario in almost any other job where someone could conceivably donate their services, but prostitution is where the line is being drawn. Is it strictly an issue of penetration, then, and thereby a nod to the feminist perspective that the experiences of a woman in this way are fundamentally and indescribably different? Receiving, as it were, rather than, as is the case with a doctor, an undertaker (something where there can be great emotional hazard not to mention clear physical contact in a dramatic way) giving? Hmmm.

Again, let me make clear what I said in the beginning, which is that I basically agree with you on this issue. It's just the logic of the argument I find a bit troublesome -- in that the other "abnormal" jobs wouldn't make the statement that because of the very nature of their jobs it's impossible to conceive of them being done for charity, not only because of the nature of the work, but because by definition doing so would remove the actuality of the work (i.e. if you're not being paid, you're not being a prostitute.) And if the work itself requires this kind of special-case scenario, where essentially every other job that exists could potentially have a charitable (and thereby public sector) benefit except for prostitution, then I do think a broad line of difference is being drawn, as the argument then is that the only potential social benefit is entertwined tightly and inescapably with the act of parting men from their money for sex. And I think you know that I've no issue or argument whatsoever with prostitution being recognized and treated as a profession -- this thread is about discussing the, ahem, ins and outs of the issue.

VT -- your "giving it away in the streets" assertions boggle me. While there may be a place or two in the world where people give dope or sex away in the streets because it's decriminalized, that has a lot more to do with those particular cultures and their values (such as for religious reasons) than it does legality or supply and demand. People gave marijuana away to their friends during the 60s because they were growing it, it didn't cost them anything, and they wanted their friends to have a good time, and people give sex to their friends as well, but that's a very different thing than a free-flowing river of drugs and women for everyone just because the chains of legal oppression have been lifted. In places where prostitution is legal, women do not simply "give it away in the streets" as they bottom line is still that they are businesswomen trying to make a living, and they will charge as much for their services as the market will bear, same as any other businessperson. And if it's cheaper in those places, it's generally because they are places where poverty rules, and people are desperate for money. Not exactly a great manifestation of utopian ideals...

[The Virgin Terr]

jz and rn, we're not communicating very well because i think you guys are being more realistic and i'm being idealistic. i'm not talking mere legalization, or even decrim in a society which continues to stigmatize certain instances of consensual sex. i'm talking about a world in which kids aren't traumatized by threats and fear-based misinfirmation about sex by their parents, teachers, government officials, and many of their own peers. in a world which didn't resort to such tactics, and which accepted sex for the natural and wonderful thing it is, it would be so much more available that a true free-market based cost of sex would be established. i believe that the number of women willing to engage in acts of prostitution would increase exponentially. i believe that most women would at some time engage in flagrant prostitution. conversely, demand would actually decrease as there would be fewer men feeling chronically sexually unfulfilled. based on laws of supply and demand, obviously prices would have to be dramatically lower. scoff at me for being an unrealistic dreamer if you like.

as for rn's argument that getting penetrated makes a prostitute's job categorically different than all other occupations, bullshit! the casual ease with which most prostitutes go about screwing their customers belies the notion that penetration is traumatic. if it were, then regardless of financial need women would not choose to engage in it. just like any other job, it's only traumatic if a client is abusive. i've been with way too many prostitutes to buy this. what she's basically saying with this argument is agreeing with radical feminists who claim sexwork is inherently demeaning. bullshit. she is correct that even with condoms, there is danger of std transmission, which has to be taken into account. there are other ways for satisfying sex too occur that don't involve penetration. they can be utilized for lower-priced encounters, or forgive me, charitable "mercy sex".

i also don't buy the argument that sexwork and sex for pleasure must be distinctly different things. most women i'd pay to have sex with, and of these, one factor determining how much i'd pay would definitely be how attractive the woman is to me. some i'd do only for free or if they paid me, and how much i'd charge would depend on how unattractive she is. in other words, the cost or price of sex with me depends on the partner. i don't know why the same shouldn't hold true for women. you're telling me that your price shouldn't change regardless of how attractive or unattractive your prospective partner is? makes no sense to me. i think how much you charge or are willing to pay to have sex with any particular person should depend on the degree of attractiveness or lack thereof. it makes no sense to have sex for free with one guy, and to charge the same price of another who is only a shade less attractive as you would for somebody you find very unattractive. that's like having one price fits all for jobs of differing difficulty.

[Joe Zop]

You're right, VT, that we're talking about different worlds. If I wanted to postulate an idealistic world I'd just go for the Star Trek kind of perspective where nobody needs any money, you can simply replicate anything you need or want, pretty much everyone is good-looking, and if a woman/man doesn't want to sleep with you, there's a functional android who does. I like mine grounded at least withing shouting distance of reality, so I can seek ways to affect actual positive change.

I don't go as far (or anywhere nearly as harshly -- what gives?) as you on the penetration thing. And I don't at all see what someone taking advantage of someone else has to do with the issue of penetration at all -- there are bad service providers in all professions, just as there are good ones. While I also don't agree with the radical feminist perspective, that doesn't mean sexwork can't and often isn't traumatic -- many women feel themselves forced into it by circumstances, supporting their families at the cost of all societal status. I've talked with far too many who feel that way not to know it's true, and it's that kind of stigmatization groups like RN's properly fight against, to leaven the negative effects.

And I completely don't get your last concept, which seems to be a sliding scale for services based on the "attraction" of the provider to the client and vice-versa. While it may be true that women with characteristics most find desireable (age, looks, etc.) can command more money, and that someone who's radically attracted to this or that person is probably willing to pay more to be with them, I don't see how that at all translates to a provider giving a "hunkiness" discount or tax, and, moreover, how such an idea at all squares with your "sex for the poor" idea. While it might be true that providers may charge more if they're radically unattracted to someone, that's usually either a way to try to say no or to compensate for perceived risk or difficulty (as in dealing with someone radically obese or old) as opposed to anything at all revolving around sexual attraction. Lack of physical attraction, except in extreme cases, isn't really a degree of difficulty in the way that you describe it. In order to be a sex worker in the first place, I think you've got to cultivate that degree of distance RN has written about in order to distance what you're foing with your body from your heart and mind and, in many, many cases, your libido. I think for many women workers it can be as difficult to have sex with someone you're attracted to as not, as you can then look at what is not happening in your real life. Personally, paying to sleep with the ideal person of my sexual dreams isn't exactly what I want -- I want that person as an equal, a partner, not as a provider or customer.

[The Virgin Terr]

sometimes one can't or shouldn't express negative things directly, in which case they may be expressed later towards a third party. perhaps such is the case here if u feel i've been harsh. this kind of forum is good for that i think. let off steam.

my idealistic world ISN'T hopelessly make believe, as u seem to indicate. i'm not talking about a world where everyone is beautiful and healthy and have what they want whenever they want it. the fact is, the real world could be alot better given a radical alteration in morals and values, and how people choose to relate with one another. hunger, poverty, and to a great extent loneliness can be eliminated. this is well within the realm of possibility, but would require radical changes in society, which given the entrenched backwardness and oppessiveness of current policies, will be difficult to achieve. i just take issue with those who sabotage such positive thinking with negativity. there is no practical reason why we must live with oppression and it's deprivations. we don't need androids if only humans will begin living up to their potential. there are plenty of attractive people who are going to waste.

female genitalia are designed for penetration. why make penetration out to be special? it's routine.

i don't know why u can't get the logic of sliding scale rates for sex based on attraction. i've already made my position on this crystal clear, so we'll leave it at that. sex should be beneficial for both parties, so if one can't derive pleasure from it because their partner doesn't turn them on, that's where money can compensate. this concept has nothing to do with charitable sex, and i don't see why you thought i was making a connection there.

[Joe Zop]

Perhaps you misunderstood, VT -- it's not that I don't understand your idea regarding sliding scale, it's that I believe it's based on a false premise, which is that attraction really factors into the female sex worker's equation the same way it does in a male customer's. I think that is simply hooey, and if that does not factor in, then your entire equation is flawed.

As far as your version of utopia being somehow more real than my crack about Star Trek, I beg to differ. First of all, you focus on my comment about all the beautiful people there, which was more a snide critique of the unreality of the presentation via TV. Then you completely overlook the fact that that version of the future embodies precisely the things you call for -- a "radical alteration in morals and values, and how people choose to relate with one another. hunger, poverty, and to a great extent loneliness can be eliminated. this is well within the realm of possibility, but would require radical changes in society." I fail to see why your vision is more or less make-believe than the one I offered, frankly. I'm not terribly convinced yours is more desireable.

Your version of "positive thinking" contains a peculiarly sexist view of the world, in my opinion, in that you consistently put forward the proposition that given money and a loosening of law and stigma, most women will immediately start having sex with whole scores of people, and that the money side of the equation is important because all women are essentially prostitutes at heart and if things change most of them will thereby indulge. You have proposed in the past your perfect relationship as one where you pay money for intimacy, both physical and emotional, but where you basically choose the parameters of the relationship and can simply end it with no strings at any point, regardless of the degree of emotional closeness you require from your paid partner. I find that not only insulting to the women involved, but also male sexual dreamland.

"there are plenty of attractive people who are going to waste"

Yes, what a tragedy, when they could be re-engineered for your sexual pleasure instead, never mind their own wants and needs. I honestly don't know why you object to the idea of androids -- your concept of people is pretty close to that, really, it seems to me.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, as I don't mean it to be, but frankly your version of the future isn't one I find myself particularly attracted to, and that's not because I am bound down by the chains of current society, it's because the way you present it atyiculates a particularly ego-centric model all based on your own needs, wants, insecurities, and desires, where the rest of the people involved are somehow to be molded to that, regardless of their own motivations or tendencies. Not my vision, thank you.

[The Virgin Terr]

you must not like prostitutes, joe, since you go ballistic at the idea that potentially everyone could become one. i smell a reactionary hypocrite who likes his prostitution under the existing status quo, ghettoized, stigmatized, outside the social mainstream.

you love to twist what i say. i believe you could feel right at home in a cult.

btw, i'm not a fan of star trek or sci fi in general. i'm sure if there was any real correlation between my idealism and whatever supposed idealism there is in the various star trek series, i'd like the show. from the little i've watched, the shows strike me as puerile morality plays set in a make believe future.

[Joe Zop]

It's not at all that I don't like prostitutes (talk about twisting something someone says!) it's that I don't agree with the position, which you've repeatedly stated, that most women essentially are prostitutes who don't indulge because of fear of social stigma etc., as I find it terribly insulting to women in general -- that their essential core motivation is rooted in money, that by extension they've little true interest in love, family, relationships, etc., and, as that you've said again and again, it's only big bad society that's keeping them all from dropping their panties at the sight of your wallet. If you don't like the fact that I don't like or agree with that, well whoopdedo.

I've no problem with women making choices to use their bodies in whatever way they see fit, and if every woman wants to become a prostitute that's up to them -- it's the generalizing reimagining of morality to suit your desires I object to, and since you want to pay for sex and have control over the relationship in that way, you're happy to posit that's the underlying nature of things as opposed to the relationship model, with no real basis for that other than your own wishes. Tell me, how exactly do you remotely prove that to be the fact of things short of your massive reworking of society? Any decent examples from the past or present, and psychological studies, anything at all other than your gauzy rhapsodizing that might at all support your premises?

I'm sure if I wanted to be in a cult, you'd be more than happy to provide one, as you seem to have a great yearning to be this misty visionary whom everyone follows, as long as you don't actually have to get specific or do anything. You're awfully testy just because I say I'm not particularly a fan of your particular vision of the future, and it's a classic diversionary tactic in discussion/argument to dismiss the critic as opposed to look at the criticism. If you want to talk hypocrites, sitting on the top of the mountain is someone who posits a utopian world where the benefit accrues primarily to them, and then whines because people don't fall in line. You want to hurl the dreaded "reactionary" epithet at me? Fine -- here's one back -- sometimes revolutionaries are just idiots who want to blow everything up because no one's paying enough attention to them.

As far as Star Trek, sci-fi, etc. -- a truly excellent missing of the point about the issue of society undergoing massive change, regardless of the specifics involved.

So I take it you didn't get your perfect woman all wrapped up under your tree? Sheesh.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hi boys!! :) Ok, there's a little too much been said for my holiday-addled brain to take in, so I think I'll stick with comments from the most recent posts.

Terry..."as for RN's argument that getting penetrated makes a prostitute's job categorically different than all other occupations, bullshit! the casual ease with which most prostitutes go about screwing their customers belies the notion that penetration is traumatic."

Firstly, I never said that penetration was in any way "traumatic". Joe compared sex work with other "intimate" services, and I said that to *me* (and not necessarily anyone else), penetration made it DIFFERENT. I just find it difficult to compare, for example, a nurse giving an old man a free sponge bath, with me giving an old man a free blow job. Secondly, if we wanna talk bullshit...your "casual ease" comment wins hands down. I can't even begin to explain just how angry that statement made me. ALMOST as angry as the "female genitalia are designed for penetration. why make penetration out to be special? it's routine" one did. I'm sorry honey, but I'm starting to agree with Joe on this one...you're skating very close to misogyny with some of your more recent comments.

Once again, you seem to be blurring the concepts of "normal" sex and commercial sex. There ARE women who will sleep around indiscriminately...but they are not prostitutes. Sex workers work for the money. Yes, there are many of us that get physical enjoyment out of our jobs at the same time, but that is just not the same thing as being a sex-starved nympho who screws around for fun. The blurred lines are also visible when you talk about price differences based on attractiveness. Sex workers couldn't care LESS what you look like. We are simply not being paid to ENJOY sex with you...we are being paid to GIVE sex to you. If we happen to also enjoy it, then it's a bonus for us. If we feel desperately ill at the thought of having sex with you (or more likely, if we feel you are dangerous), then perhaps we will "price walk" you for our own emotional wellbeing. But ultimately, we are providing a SERVICE to you. Why should we care what you look like? "i also don't buy the argument that sexwork and sex for pleasure must be distinctly different things." That's my point! If it's sex for pleasure and not for money, then by definition, it's NOT prostitution! They are two very different things.

Now don't get me wrong...as a left-wing pagan, I too would love to see an end to the reign of the Moral Majority and be able to live in a society where people were not punished for expressing their sexuality. But I really don't see how the advent of this sort of society would somehow lead to prostitutes giving it way for free, and regular women becoming prostitutes! There are already places around the world where people are totally open about sexuality and sex work is completely accepted...why is it then that in those places, prostitution still exists???

[Rubber Nursey]

Now, to go back a while to the subject of hookers doing a "community service" for free ...I've got a comment I wanted to make. Why does my community service have to be about actual sex? Couldn't I donate my time and expertise in another way, just as a lawyer may give away free legal advice but not actually represent people in court?

Let's see. As a sex worker, I have...
1) Informed my clients about STI transmission and the correct use of condoms,
2) "Diagnosed" visible STIs on clients, told them where to seek treatment and what it entails, and explained the importance of informing their regular partners about it.
3) "Counselled" clients with sexual dysfunctions, marital problems, social problems, grief and self-esteem issues,
4) "Trained" clients in the art of lovemaking
5) Done all of the above with friends, family and members of the public, including "donating" more than a year of my time to answering questions about sex and STIs on this very board.

That's just for starters. Sure, some of that stuff is part of my job description (well, for a girl who would like to be considered a "courtesan" rather than just a "hooker" it is). But does every working girl do it? Are you really paying me for anything more than the right to stick your dick in me for an hour? And why do you think I spend so much time answering questions about health, etc, on this board? I don't get anything out of it, other than knowing that I've helped someone out. And I do believe that ultimately the community benefits from sexual health education of sex workers and their clients. I know the community can't physically SEE any social benefits, like they would if a doctor donated his services in a third world country, but it doesn't mean it's not happening.

[Paddy]

Holiday Greetings,

I seldom look on this thread because I think that utilizing terms like "morality" in reference to anything is a bit absurd. Morality is an intensly fluid term or concept that changes with the culture, historical context and the persons involved. At best, it's judgemental and egocentric nonsense. Therefore, I usually bypass this thread.

However, I hit this thread by mistake when looking at "American Women" and read, to my utter disbelief, that people are actually suggesting that working girls should be giving it away for free??? Do people out there believe that a SW should let some guy penetrate her and do it for nothing??? I suspect that this is a pretty big step for many women to begin with - better yet do it for free??? My God, they have bills to pay and they have to eat too. For those of you who are advocating this, would you do your job and expect not to get paid??? Really???

At 54 year of age nothing really surprises me anymore but this "concept" did. Our economies and standard of living are based pay for services and prostitution (or whatever you want to call it) is NO different.

Thanks for indulging a sexy old man.

[The Virgin Terr]

actually, what i've been meaning to say all along is that i'm an out of touch with reality sexist pig who wants women to act like robotic androids so i can get my sexual needs met. i just couldn't find the right words. thanks, joe, for helping me out there.

paddy, it's just outragous how some lawyers work pro bono for what they consider good causes rather than selling themselves only to the highest bidder all the time. there should be a law against it, don't you think? i can't stand professional people who go through all the difficulty and expense of becoming licensed professionals only to become do-gooders. sickens me. anyone who isn't straight out for profit shouldn't be in business!

RN, we're all "donating" our time here. anyone who wishes to cease doing so may stop at any time. if thinking that prostitution is an easy gig for someone who likes sex in the first place and doesn't tire of it easily (or rather it would be if having to operate under black or grey market conditions didn't introduce unnecessary dangers and difficulties) makes me a "misogynist", well, i'm a misogynist then. i guess that's another thing i was trying to say, only i couldn't think of the right word until you came along. i guess disagreeing with you or mocking you is just further proof of my misogynistic personality. like this concept of combining business with pleasure. if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, i don't see why you can't have an orgasm and get paid for it. it's what customers actually prefer, most of us. it's called "girl friend experience". unfortunately it's a catch-22 situation, since the more pleasure the prostitute experiences, the less (s)he can justify charging the customer for providing his/her pleasure. under real free market conditions, i think this would be another factor to drive down prices, as prostitutes who best combine business and pleasure would corner the market, and would charge less while giving more. prostitutes who think it's only about money and providing "professional" service can't compete with others who bring real passion into the deal. call me a misogynist, but i happen to think that it's possible for a woman to seek getting pleasure and financial benefit simultaneously. i think it happens all the time concerning "amateur" dating. why not "professional" also? can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

finally, there are no places in this world which even come close to providing their citizens with victimless crime free societies. (that is, societies where people can actually live and let live, free from meddling "moralists".) that you think there are testifies to the huge difference in opinion we share regarding what freedom is.

[The Virgin Terr]

one more thing, RN. of course i'm only doing this because i'm a misogynist, but i disagree vehemently with your claim that some "amateurs" are actually less sexually discriminating than working girls. i don't know any who will have dozens of different partners. well, might occasiuonally find that at a swing club, but any woman who loves sex that much, if she's relatively attractive, is awfully stupid to indiscriminately give out what so many are happy to pay for. that's why there aren't any doing it.

and before you claim i'm contradicting myself paddy, there's a huge difference between indiscriminately donating service to anyone and discriminately donating to worthy individuals/causes. ain't no reason why prostitutes can't do that, if lawyers can. assuming of course that prostitutes are capable of feeling empathy for the less fortunate, and are also capable of deriving satisfaction from altruism.

[Rubber Nursey]

No Terry. Saying that a prostitute might enjoy sex does not make you a misogynist. Saying that women are "made for penetration..it's not special, it's routine" and suggesting that all women would behave like prostitutes given half a chance, are the comments that I think are sailing pretty close. That's what I said. And mocking me or disagreeing with me is not misogyny...it's the nature of this board. Feel free.

"I don't see why you can't have an orgasm and get paid for it."
I have been paid to have incredible, passionate, animalistic sex with many men, and received thousands of mind-blowing orgasms in the process...in other jobs, that's known as a "fringe benefit" ;)

"it's what customers actually prefer, most of us. it's called "girl friend experience"."
Some of you may disagree with me, but I don't believe that orgasm has a lot to do with the GFE. Almost every woman's body will react to clitoral stimulation, whether she wants it to or not. (Same as if a fat, old, ugly chick pulled your dick...it would still feel good, right?) But if I wanted to, I could lay there like a cold fish, look away from you and cum quietly without you realising. Does that constitute a GFE? Sure, throwing your head back in ecstasy and panting like a dog when you cum (for real) certainly would improve the experience, but the GFE is the whole package...affection, stimulation, humour, conversation, passion, everything you would receive from a woman who loves you. But we don't love you, because we don't KNOW you. So the GFE takes skill to perform. It's not about being genuinely attracted to every client that walks in, or even about enjoying sex...it's about being good at a job.

"since the more pleasure the prostitute experiences, the less (s)he can justify charging the customer for providing his/her pleasure"
Pfffttttt! Apply that concept to any other job. The more pleasure a doctor gets out of healing someone, the less he should charge. The more pleasure a lawyer gets out of winning a case, the less he should charge.

"as prostitutes who best combine business and pleasure would corner the market, and would charge less while giving more"
Those sex workers already exist, and they are very popular, but they will never "corner the market". That's because there will always be men willing to pay a gorgeous young thing with no brains and no skill in bed, just so they can say they have bedded a gorgeous young thing. There will always be men willing to pay a street worker to do it in a car. It's a buyers market. No one woman has an advantage over another, because every client wants something different.

I have never contested that sex workers can get pleasure out of their work. Where we differ in opinion, is that I consider prostitution to be "work" and you consider it to be "sex". Laying down with a client is not even remotely similar to laying down with a partner in "real life". The mechanics may seem the same, but the emotions involved and the motivations behind it could not be more different. Sex work can be fun, but it's sure as hell NOT "easy". And it's not "just sex".

[The Virgin Terr]

other than the fact that it's illegal and someone's wife/girlfriend might want to kick the shit out of you, there's no reason why you can't go to your favorite social establishment/bar/whatever, and announce to all present: "guys, i'm horny as hell, and i'm going to scratch that itch because i'm sure many of you want to scratch it for me, but unlike you, i have to worry more about things like std's and pregnancy, plus i already have other mouths to feed from previous sexual encounters, so here's the deal: make me an offer i can't refuse, and i won't". you'd be killing 2 birds with one stone, and being a woman with the benefit of greater sexual endurance than guys in general, you could do it with several different guys. i know pleasure and money are like apples and oranges, but it would be up to you at that moment whether you want more apples or more oranges. you could have it either way: go strictly with the highest bidders, or go more for "chemistry" and anticipated "scratch relief". in either case however, you could seek and receive both simultaneously.

i think you're just dithering with some of your arguments, like whether or not having an orgasm is "gfe". that's beside the point, which is how open are you and willing to have one? from my point of view, "gfe" is about being open and desirous of experiencing pleasure, so it's not just about getting paid. if pleasure is merely an unsought "fringe benefit", that doesn't qualify as gfe. that's just an involuntary body response. gfe is about transcending "professionalism" by allowing both yourself and your customer the privilege of being a sexual animal.

[The Virgin Terr]

always keeping in mind that i'm an out of touch with reality sexist pig who prefers female androids over real women, i don't see why most women couldn't do what i just suggested RN could. any woman, or most any woman, could have sex for both pleasure and profit, because most men want to have mutually pleasurable sex with them and are willing to pay a reasonable price to compensate for inherent gender differences which naturally makes sex for women a more complicated matter. the only reason it doesn't happen is repression. so instead of everybody's needs being met, both sexual and material, we have stupid laws and stupid games resulting in many people's needs being frustrated. let's not forget also, that this concept of heterosexuality being prostitutional in nature is a misogynistic one, since it means all heterosexual women possess an inclination towards prostitution, and apparently it's hateful of women to think of them as prostitutes. it's apparently much more loving to think of them as madonnas who only have sex out of love of their partners, with no regard for their own needs.

[The Virgin Terr]

joe, i'm not reading your posts anymore. i think it's because of jealousy. i can't stand it when someone smarter than me takes what i say and summarizes it so accurately and effectively that i can only respond: that's how i should have said it in the first place! but by all means feel free to continue clarifying my ideas for the benefit of others who may be confused by my irrational ramblings, clouded by my predatory misogynistic instincts. i just wish i had your brilliant mind and sensitivity towards women.

[Joe Zop]

VT, I'm sorry that I offended you so much, as that was not my intention -- your posts were not something I agreed with, included things I found personally troubling, and I stated why. As far as reading or not reading my posts, well, that's obviously entirely up to you.

RN, hope you had a nice vacation. First, I completely agree that an orgasm is not the defining issue of the GFE -- it's an overall level of attention, demonstrated (if still bogus) affection, and quality of experience. Having a sex worker have an orgasm is great from my perspective, but it's not what adds the GFE label.

I think your list of donation of services makes a great deal of sense, is of immense service to the community, and your comments are certainly a valuable contribution to this board. That said, it still does rather beg the question, doesn't it? Lawyers also do donate time in court, anyone with a psychology degree could argue they are providing a service here, etc. I think it comes down completely to the issue of definition of the core nature of a job -- if, as you say, the only important definition of a prostitute is someone who takes money in return for providing sexual gratification, then the core service provided is that gratification. (Let me note that I'm not absolutely convinced that's the proper definition, btw.) If that's the case, then if sexual gratification is not the donated service, then it's a completely off-center donation, which would be akin to a lawyer donating use of his car, library of law books, or office. The core aspect of the lawyer is legal assistance, so there are various avenues that can manifest itself.

Perhaps, since penetration is the core issue of things, perhaps a frottage service corps could be arranged :D And, again, let me be clear that I'm not necessarily in favor of the whole idea here, but I think it presents an issue that goes right to the title of this thread, as it's about looking at prostitution within the overall societal structure and making comparisons.

[Darkseid]

Hi guys,

I haven't been on this thread for a while but looking at what has been said about prostitutes giving their services away for free is kind of absurd. Besides, prostitutes in the poorer neighborhoods charge less than prostitutes in higher classed neighborhoods who dub themselves as "escorts". They are more affordable to the poor also. The lower class prostitutes are most of the time lower quality and not as good looking but at least a poor person could afford her. I have driven around the poor areas just to find out the black market prostitution scene there but not to get involved because of the cops circling the neighborhood like sharks and because I don't trust them but I asked the prices of one of them and she said $15 for a BJ, $50 for full service. An escort in midtown Manhattan would charge $300 for an average looking girl to $1000 for a supermodel looking gal. For the poor folks who need sex, they should go to the cheaper but not as good looking girl who is willing to charge less and there are those types out there. The biggest thing preventing them from doing so is the draconian anti-freedom American laws against prostitution. But I'm sure there are bargain prostitutes for the poor even in other countries. In Brazil, I found such a place that is frequented by the unemployed and lower class locals called Terma de Copacabana versus the high class and expensive Terma Centaurro. All prostitutes make money with this profession otherwise they wouldn't be prostitutes by dictionary definition if they gave away their services for free. I would just consider them the normal girl who has pity sex with the less fortunate instead of a prostitute.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

Darkseid hit it on the head with his comment "...they wouldn't be prostitutes by dictionary definition if they gave away their services for free. I would just consider them the normal girl who has pity sex with the less fortunate instead of a prostitute. That's basically my feeling on the whole "screwing for charity" stuff. I guess maybe it comes down to public perceptions of sex workers, the stigma surrounding women who are "promiscuous", and even the importance that is placed on sex itself. Whatever it is, I just can't see past the fact that if I am NOT doing it for money, then I am NOT a prostitute. *In my mind*, I would just be a "sl*t". I know that probably makes no sense at all to you...I don't really know how to articulate it. Somehow in my head it comes back to the fact that if it is not "sex work", then it is just "sex". And I just don't want to have "sex", with someone I am not remotely attracted to (or even perhaps repulsed by!)

This is going to sound even more bizarre to you, but when I tried to really think about doing it for "charity", the feeling I got could be likened to that of a sex slave! I mean...hookers do it for cash, "regular" girls do it for love and/or lust, but who other than a sex slave just lays back and "takes it " for nothing? Yes, you may be left with that wonderful feeling of helping someone less fortunate than you...but I just don't think that would compensate for the (to steals Z's term) "sperm receptacle" feeling that I imagine I would have about myself eventually. Like I've said though, this is just my feeling on the matter, and there may be plenty of girls out there who are willing to give free sex to the "needy". I'm just not one of them. I can't really explain it myself, because I've always been one to give discounts to seniors and go out of my way to accomodate disabled clients, but I just couldn't go the whole way and "donate" it.

[Dickhead]

It seems as though mere discounting should satisfy vt's rather inchoate requirements. What about some type of discount card for frequent fuckers? Blow four loads, get the fifth one free? Something like that? Laundromats and fast food chains do it so why not savvy, marketing-oriented hookers?

Oh, wait a minute. The absolute last thing I need is for hookers to be more marketing-oriented. Forget I said that.

I am not making sense right now due to TSB. But let me state that conventional economic laws cannot be ascribed to pussy because it is the only natural resource where you can give it away but still have it. This skews the whole supply and demand thing. Pussy has no marginal cost. If you follow conventional economic theory, total revenue is maximized when you supply pussy or anything else up to the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Thus, you would indeed have to give pussy away to maximize its utility (works for me!).

Perhaps this is what vt was getting at, although I rather doubt it. Anyway, I leave for Buenos Aires in nine days and perhaps that will allow me further research. I will negotiate my best price, and then see if I can get a discount for being ugly. Wish me luck (but not too much).

DH

[Rubber Nursey]

Well, well...hiya Z. :) Before I start my tirade, let's get the smalltalk out of the way shall we? Hell yeah I've got a Gamecube!! Got it for Christmas. Up until half an hour ago I was snowboarding down city streets in SSX Tricky, and yesterday Mr Starfox and I were hanging out killing badguys on Dinosaur Island. Haven't got much of a game collection going yet, but it shouldn't take long! Damn fine machine...

Ok, now to the yelling and screaming and stuff. lol

Firstly, I don't think guys who pay for sex are losers. The fact that they could "do it themselves" doesn't make the service obsolete. I can cook, cut my own hair and change my car's oil myself too... but every now and then I go to a restaurant, visit a hairdresser and take my car to a mechanic. It's convenient and they can do it better than I can. Plus, it makes me feel like I'm spoiling myself a bit.

Secondly..."emotional satisfaction"?? I didn't say that clients were coming for emotional satisfaction. Actually, to quote my last post, I said "But we don't love you, because we don't KNOW you."

Thirdly...you and I had the "sex is not something special" debate way back, and from memory, we were on the same side! I don't believe that sex is sacred or special or any of that other crap. BUT, I do think that sex is an excellent source of stress release, terrific exercise, and a hell of a lot of fun! (Lots more fun that pulling your own, right?) That's why there is a demand for hookers...no matter how f*cked up you think we are, we are only here because men WANT us to be. Sex may not be as "sacred" as the Moral Minority make it out to be...but it's not as nasty as you are making it out to be either, babe.

And finally...a wh*re is a wh*re is a wh*re. I don't think I'm any better or worse or even any different to any other hooker around the world. Sex is sex. If you're charging for it...you're a hooker. Why would I see myself as any different to other girls?

[Dickhead]

Please subscribe to Z's newsletter, "The Attack of the Troglodyte."

[Joe Zop]

Hey, Z, have you truly given it all up? Perhaps Thailand is affecting you in a slightly different way -- next thing you know you'll have my haircut and be wearing a saffron robe!

I don't have any disagreement with you regarding looking for emotional satisfaction with prostitutes, but there's also no question that it's a pure pleasure to be held, to be physically close to a woman, and intimacy extends far beyond just screwing. I think the issue is this -- as a customer, how much do you want/need to believe the experience is "real" as opposed to make-believe? If you truly need reality, and you're using prostitutes to substitute for real relationships, then you're dead meat. But that doesn't mean things need to be mechanical, unemotional, etc. During my time here in Chiang Mai, when I've seen a woman it's basically been the same one I hooked up with when I first got here two months ago (I know, a gross violation of your principles, but those are yours, not mine) and that means things are naturally different when we get together now than when we first did, as we're both familiar with what the other likes, she's a hell of a lot better at pushing my physical buttons, there are patterns, past conversations, etc. I'm still leaving in a week or so and things will completely end, but I can still like her, be interested in what goes on in her life, and have a wider-spectrum experience without falling in love with her, sending her money from overseas, or believing that this is something other than a very nice client-provider relationship.

And hey, Dickhead -- is this the really long stay you were looking to arrange somewhere, or just a quick trip?

[Dickhead]

Just a 10-dayer, JZ. I had thought I would be unemployed at this juncture but instead I have work through May. That is kind of a good news/bad news situation as this gig is getting dangerously close to a real job, and I haven't had one of those in a long time. But I do enjoy it and I should have time to roam in the summer.

"When Irish eyes are smiling,
All the world 'tis bright and gay;

When Irish eyes are horny
'Tis off to Argentina for a lay!"

[Darkseid]

I have to disagree with you Z on people seeing prostitutes being losers. In fact most of their clients are like myself who see them for pure sexual pleasure. I only have conversations with them just to assure that they are not a blowup doll and that they are people. I also use them for sex practice so I can be great at the real thing. I usually ask them for their honest opinion after sex if I was good and I explain the situation and also add that that is why I am paying them. Most of them are honest especially the first ones that said I needed work and they gladly helped me on my techniques and showed me the right way of pleasuring a woman. And their techniques work on the non-pro women I date. The non-pros would definitely let you know if they liked it or not. In fact, if my dad did not pay for a prostitute before I met my first girlfriend in Brazil, I would have totally sucked at sexing her. The first prositute taught me a lot about technique and I stayed with her for 2 hours which my dad paid for. I considered it more of a sex class than a session.

[Rubber Nursey]

Awwww crap! I just wrote a great big response to Z, then dropped a battery (get your minds out of the gutter!) onto the keyboard, which hit some button obviously of utmost importance, which deleted everything I wrote! And in my attempt to find the button of importance, I not only sent my toolbar into oblivion, but managed to log myself out of the WSG. So...I will not be spewing forth a full page of babble that would take anyone else three sentences to say (thank the God In Which Dickhead And I Do Not Believe for small blessings), but instead will ask Z one simple question...what is your definition of "emotional satisfaction"? Are you talking about TREATING a hooker like a girlfriend, or actually CONSIDERING a hooker to be your girlfriend? And if both parties know that the "relationship" is just a game...where's the harm in enjoying it for what it is? (Ok, that's more than one question).

And Z...Mario Sunshine, which I loved, was the very first game I played on the Gamecube (along with Luigi's Mansion, which was utter shite!) Eternal Darkness is already on my wishlist... I went shopping the other day and tossed up between that and Lost Kingdoms, and unfortunately chose Lost Kingdoms. Not a bad game, decent graphics, but gameplay's a bit monotonous. If there's a new Starfox coming in March (which of course probably means June Down Under), I'll certainly be getting my hands on it. The one I'm playing now is awesome...the next one can only be better.

You know, we have to stop talking Nintendo like this...people may start to think we actually like each other! ;)

[Rubber Nursey]

Oh, and DH...take care on your trip, honey.
And to all of you...HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
one simple question...what is your definition of "emotional satisfaction"?

If that is a "simple" question, out of curiosity, Rubbie, what would be your definition of a "complex" question? :)

Then plus I'm trying to think of ANY plausible reason to be holding a battery directly above one's keyboard that does NOT involve reloading a "Pocket Rocket" or similar device. I don't recall seeing any battery operated monitors over in Oz.

Perhaps you got carried away with said device to the point where the screen SEEMED to go blank?

[Rubber Nursey]

LMAO! Ok smarty-pants...there's a very "clean" explanation as to how a battery could land on my keyboard. I had a packet of them sitting on top of my computer desk, and when I reached up to grab a tissue from the tissue box that also resides up there, one of the batteries rolled off the edge, bounced off the top of the monitor and landed on the keyboard. See? Simple.

As to WHY I have batteries on top of my computer desk...which happens to be right next to my bed...you'll just have to use your imagination. ;)

[Dickhead]

Now I am suspicious as to why you needed a tissue at the exact moment your vibrator was making the screen go blank ... oh, wait a minute, that's a guy thing.

[Dickhead]

My New Year's wish is permanent eternal darkness for Z E L D A. What a germ. Put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, you misfit misanthrope.

DICKHEAD GETS HIS NEW YEAR'S WISH! Z has been banned (again). It's guys like that who make Americans unwelcome at times.

[Rubber Nursey]

Z...

Mario Sunshine was heaps of fun, but Starfox is 1000 times better. The graphics are incredible, the gameplay is awesome...it's kinda like Z elda crossed with Croc and Spyro, with a bit of Asteroid thrown in, between levels. Very cool.

There's nothing wrong with your attitude to paid sex, Z. Using a working girl for a quick 'release' is perfectly normal. But other guys want more than that in order to be satisfied. Some want more intimacy, some want lovemaking 'lessons', and some want a month or more of comfortable, friendly sex with the same girl. I think that's perfectly normal as well. It's not wrong...just different.

PS. Good luck with your Masters degree. And don't panic...I didn't think for a second that you actually "liked" me. LOL

[Darkseid]

Z and RN, I am also a video game fanatic. I have a Playstation2 and I love Grand Theft Auto Vice City and Dead to Rights. Video games do help me take my mind off of sex between vacations being that I can't get any in New York City due to the lack of available women and the fact that prostitution is illegal. And I think it is possibly because of all the complaints of the husbands these prostitutes are married to. The brothel services I used to go to that were shut down by mayor Guliani had more than half of their prostitutes that were married. Almost all of the women of NYC are married. This shows how much control American women have over their men here in the big city. American women have their men on a leash here and if the men bite free, they lose more than half of their income so that is why they stay married and not get divorced.
I guess I am lucky I am not tied down to an American woman. I can stay up all night playing games without someone bitching that I am keeping her up all night.

[Rubber Nursey]

Please bear with me...I'm about to do some serious venting.

Guys, do not...I repeat, do NOT...EVER cross the boundaries with a working girl. The money is there for a reason. Many of us don't kiss, we don't do oral, we don't do whatever it is that makes the session "real" for us. We do that for a reason, too. All the rules and boundaries serve a very important purpose...do not cross them!!! She is a woman that you paid to have sex with...nothing more and nothing less! She is not your girlfriend. She is not a sex slave. She is not even necessarily your mate.

To any working girls who may be lurking out there reading this...never, NEVER forget that this is a business! Do NOT drop prices, give "extras" and bend over backwards to make yourself available for a client, for the wrong reasons. Do not drop your guard. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU LIKE HIM...HE IS STILL A CLIENT. Don't forget that!!!

Fuck...that feels better. LOL

Yes, I just had a very bad experience with a client that got a little too hot to handle...and may get worse still. The night is still young. FFS I'm an idiot.

Z...I wanna be a member of your club. Where do I sign up?!

[Traveller]

Happy new year everyone!!

RN, these issues have been discussed at length here before... and as always you are dern right from a common sense point of view. (Grr I want to disagree with you but how??)

BUT, I am unfortunately not politically correct in any way - and I guess neither are most other guys here. So I will be chasing that GFE 18-year old who gets it all wrong by your standards - and I will keep doing my best to make her lose her wits.....

I know it's bad and wrong and all - and yea, sometimes it gives a bad concience too - but that is what it is all about.

[Rubber Nursey]

Yeah well...I just got it all wrong by "my standards", and managed to cock everything up big-time. No I didn't fall in love or do any of that other bullshit...but it seems my caring, loving "courtesan" act works too well for it's own good. I really liked the guy...really enjoyed his company...and all of a sudden I get strips ripped off me because I DARED to put another client before him! How does he know this? Because he talks to the other client via email of course (f'kn small city, this one). Mind you, I should say "potential" client, because when my original client sent him an email spouting off heaps of crap about me...the "potential" client cancelled. Not only that, but then HE ripped strips off me in an email as well!

I'm too old for this shit.

I am NOT a dishonest person. I pride myself on the fact that I take my job seriously and treat every client with the respect they deserve. I never meant to hurt this guy...how was I to know he was even gonna find out? And as I tried to explain to both of them...to no avail...all I was doing was trying to "protect" two clients from each other. Trying to make them both think they were the "only one". That's part of the business, for crying out loud!! You don't say to one client "Sorry, but I can't see you today 'coz I'm gonna be f*cking someone else!!" So instead, I lied. Made out to one of the guys that I wasn't available until tomorrow. Oh, the shame of it all...what a cruel hearttless b*tch I am. Pfffffttt!

And not only have I lost that one potential client, but by the end of the weekend I will have lost a lot more thanks to the gossip. There are a whole heap of them who are in email contact. I can see it now...this story is just gonna grow and grow. I should never have let my guard down, and let my heart and my circumstances get the better of my common sense. What a f'kn idiot I am.

[Dickhead]

Well, personally, I would have no problem if a hooker told me she couldn't see me because she was seeing someone else. She could leave out the "fucking" part, I reckon, but I would not be imagining or convincing myself that she was having tea with the guy. I think you should just be straight up about it. But, of course, I'm a dickhead and I was born at night but not last night and I have no illusions about this shit after all these years.

I do believe it was thirty years ago this month that I had my first prostitute. Maybe these chaps just don't have enough life experience.

It'll blow over in no time, I bet.

[Darkseid]

Actually this client has no right to feel the way he does because he should already know you are doing it as a business and you have many other people on line for your services. Some guys need the caring act to take their mind off of the fact that they are alone and aging without a mate so that is part of the service. Besides if you have a large clientele, they have to schedule appointments because you can't be at 2 places at once. That client has to accept that. Sometimes I had to schedule with the busiest escort to see her because of the demand. You are also entitled to what you want to do with a client and what you don't want to do. In my reviews, I include the statement that services may vary to individuals. Some clients are clean like myself so you might give some extra serivices because I took the time to clean myself and have good hygiene and some stink so you wouldn't want to give oral to them stinking nuts or if they have bad breath, you won't kiss them in the mouth.

[Dickhead]

Any guy who goes to see a hooker without showering, flossing and brushing, shampooing, and putting on clean clothes should get NOTHING. However, standards may have to be relaxed in the Third World due to practical considerations (no water).

Dickhead Douches Daily

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by Dickhead
It'll blow over in no time, I bet.

I wish that were true. Things have taken a rather dramatic turn today. The email I just got looks a lot like a blackmail attempt to me. Now I'm really fucked.

[Dickhead]

Very sorry to hear that, Rubbie. Blackmail as in trying to "out" you, or as in trying for money? If the former, I recommend you go to an attorney (barrister? solicitor?). If the latter, might have to consider going to the coppers.

Or could you round up some mates and have a friendly chat with these lads? Any guy who gets jealous in a situation like that definitely needs some counseling.

DH

[The Virgin Terr]

at the risk of strengthening my negative reputation on this forum among it's most avid contributors, once again i'm the politically incorrect cad who dares to criticize RN, who we all appreciate as the only regular female contributor for providing welcome diversity. it seems to me however that perhaps because others are grateful for her participation, or perhaps out of chivalry, you other guys treat her like she's above criticism.

my favorite prostitute was a mexican girl who made love to me as sweetly and soulfully as any real girlfriend would. she was fantastic, my favorite regular for a couple years prior to my moving away. there was never a jealousy problem between us, even though i sometimes chose someone else when she was available, or occasionally she would be preoccupied working a sugar daddy when i wanted to be with her. i think the reason our relationship was so mutually satisfying was because neither of us was hung up on the idea that real love is possessive love. perhaps we didn't have real love, but our sessions were as great as real lovers from my perspective because there were no intimacy barriers between us that i could detect. the point i want to make is that a sexworker can really only satisfy me as a client if she can provide an authentic gfe, and in my opinion she can't do that if she's inclined to associate real intimacy with possessiveness. someone like you, RN, a self admitted extremely jealous type, could never cut the mustard with me because you can't keep intimacy and jealousy apart. i doubt you'd have problems with clients like the one you've just described if this weren't the case, because like attracts like, and i imagine any client you'd take a shine to will naturally be another jealous type. also, if you didn't feel a need to "protect" this client's feelings by misleading him regarding your relationships with other clients, he wouldn't get the idea that he's like your one and only client. i know you're probably going to go ballistic, but that's my opinion: jealous individuals make lousy clients and workers alike. only non-jealous individuals can combine intimacy and promiscuity, which is what makes both good clients and workers.

[Rubber Nursey]

Firstly Terry, EVERYONE here has criticised my opinion...more than once. If I was just a token female, I would have been laughed off the board long ago (and I've been here a VERY long time). I thrive on disagreement...that's why I'm here. When you disagree, you hear someone else's point of view, and you learn something. This section of the board is for "Opinions", and I would think it would get very boring if all of our opinions were the same. Always feel free to haggle with me. :)

But to the matter at hand...I was not in love with this client, and the "relationship" was NOT "mutually satisfying". It was an act. He just got carried away. I never led him to believe that it was anything other than a business relationship. We got along really well as friends as well, but he was still a client. I TOLD him I was planning to see other clients...I didn't mislead him about that. All I did was say I wasn't available that particular day because I was going to be "busy". He talked to the other guy, found out the reason I was "busy" was because I was seeing another client, and got pissed off. He wasn't pissed off that I was seeing someone else...he was pissed off because I saw someone else WITHOUT OFFERING IT TO HIM FIRST! He expected precedence over any other client. He DEMANDED it actually. I got angry and decided that after that BS display, I wasn't going to offer him any time at ALL. Then the shit hit the fan. I was originally trying to "protect" him by not flaunting other clients right in his face, but that's not what got him pissed off.

Jealousy has nothing to do with it Terry...not on my part anyway. I couldn't care less what clients do. I've even set regular clients up with friends of mine for some variety! I've never had any feelings of "real intimacy" with a client. There are great clients that I adore spending time with and have amazing sex with, but there is no "real intimacy". REAL intimacy is for the one you love. It's what separates work from sex.

[Joe Zop]

RN -- very sorry to hear about your problem, and I don't see where you've got a thing to feel you did remotely in the wrong. This guy obviously got possessive and made presumptions, and somehow feels justified in doing so.

Loathe though I am to suggest this, if this whole scene keeps escalating it might be time to fight fire with fire. I would hope it won't come to that, and I think if you continue to just be straightforward about everything with your clients/potential clients in the long run you'll be ok. I don't know about Dickhead's collection of lads approach, but I think his lawyer/cop suggestion is a pretty good one. I know you have solid scruples about client privacy, but if this lout is willing to ignore yours, you may want to do the same in reverse, or at least mention this as an option (the threat being stronger than the execution.) The last thing an employer, for example, would want to hear is that one of his workers is obsessing over and abusing a sex worker. All of this, of course, depends greatly on who you're dealing with, and it doesn't sound as though he's someone with both oars dipped very deeply. And it sounds, at this point, as though he's just engaging in juvenile acting out because he's been cut off after being a jerk. Not that this makes it any easier for you, especially as it's easy to use email to do such things.

The question I have is this -- how is it these guys are all in email contact? Are they all referrals of each other, or do you send a newsletter to a list of names or what? :)

[Rubber Nursey]

A newsletter...what a brilliant idea, Joe! LOL Nah...it was a local message board. The guy I was going to see said he got my addy from a "friend" a few months back...turns out the friend was my regular client. As with most message boards, they all exchange emails in private. And...as with most message boards...he not only has the power to screw with my life privately, but he can also write a negative "review" and screw any further business opportunities.

And while we are on the subject of people on message boards speaking privately...I'd just like to say thank you to a certain someone (who shall remain anonymous, unless he chooses otherwise) for being there to support me this afternoon. I can't talk about this sort of situation to people in the "real world"...thank you so very much for giving me someone to share it with.
You're "a good one" too, mate. :)

[Dickhead]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop
I don't know about Dickhead's collection of lads approach[/QUOTE

It's not like I said to give them a dirt nap or anything (not sure they have those in Oz?). Occasionally wayward lads need a bit of direction, and proper education and counseling are then necessary. "Wall-to-wall" counseling can be particularly useful.

Now books are very educational and can also be wonderful counseling aids. For example, if you put a thick paperback book over someone's kidneys while you are counseling them with say a pipe wrench perhaps, no marks will be visible yet the counseling will still be quite effective. This type of moderate and gradual approach allows the wayward one to truly see the error of his ways, while ensuring a sufficient deterrent effect.

This guy jacking with Rubbie is acting like a pimp; threatening, trying to control, and blackmailing all sound like "stupid pimp tricks" to me. I can't quite recall but it seems I may have previously mentioned once or twice that pimps are not my favorite subset of society. The pipe wrench and phone book procedure is just one of the many techniques I discuss in my handy new book, "How to Housebreak Your Pimp" (also available electronically on my website, www.ihatepimps.org).

Here is a sample excerpt: "A pimp is much like a puppy in that they both have short attention spans. In order to gain a pimp's full attention, stick a chisel or a drift in his ear and gently tap it with a hammer."

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
at the risk of strengthening my negative reputation on this forum among it's most avid contributors,

Overall I don't think your rep is neg but you seem to be working on pushing it that way lately. Why is that? DH

my favorite prostitute was a mexican girl who made love to me as sweetly and soulfully as any real girlfriend would ... i think the reason our relationship

You didn't have a "relationship" with her any more than you have one with your barber. DH

there were no intimacy barriers between us that i could detect.

So she was a good actress as well as a skilled prostitute. Theater is important in Mexican culture. DH

the point i want to make is that a sexworker can really only satisfy me as a client if she can provide an authentic gfe,

That just shows how much you really want a girlfriend. This makes me question whether mongering is a good idea in your case. DH

also, if you didn't feel a need to "protect" this client's feelings by misleading him regarding your relationships with other clients, he wouldn't get the idea that he's like your one and only client.

Isn't that just good business sense and professionalism? Only an idiot of Brobdingnagian proportions would think he was a HOOKER'S only client! DH



Sorry if these aren't my finest posts but my flight got cancelled and there isn't much entertainment in this airport. DH

[The Virgin Terr]

to those who may find my opinions exasperating as hell, my suggestion is: DON'T READ THEM. skip over them. for others, read on...

i am a utopian idealist, and basically my philosophy is advocating "free love". i'm going to be using alot of quotation marks around the words i use because words can have very slippery meanings and quotation marks convey that, but i'm also going to try to explain my thoughts fully enough so that even "mere mortals" such as yourselves can understand them, and grasp the "immortality" of my message.

"free love" isn't about indiscriminate fucking or having sex for "free". it's about the freedom to fuck consensually whoever you wish under whatever conditions you wish, including prostitution. in fact, prostitution is the key to the proliferation of "free love", or promiscuity.

perhaps unlike most of you, i associate sex and love. generally speaking, love has many components, including trust, respect, passion, affection, and commitment. i think the more sex there is in the world and the more "freely" it's given, the more love there'll be. frankly, i think we're in big trouble as a species because we've become so sexually repressed and consequently so miserly in how we love. giving someone money is an act of love as much as sharing your body with someone who desires it.

jealousy is a sick and evil compulsion to control one's lover by claiming ownership of their body, sexuality, and love. it's the primary mechanism behind repression and the pitifully fucked up and self destructive species we've become. jealousy is completely incompatible with the precepts of free love and promiscuity and a world in which the religious ideal of brotherhood and altruism can be attained. jealousy is also incompatible with the wide acceptance and spread of prostitution for obvious reasons just stated. prostitution is the key to the spread of "free love" and the attainment of a world in which "brotherhood" is more than a dream.

dickhead, you're too cynical to respond to. joe zop, i've stopped reading your posts, so i can't respond to them.

RN, i can't recall an instance of anyone "criticizing" you other than myself, but then perhaps i haven't been around as long as you and i don't read all the areas where you post. from what i have read, i would say "Mild disagreement" is the closest anyone else has come to being critical of anything you've said.

reading your more detailed explanation of what went down between you and your troublesome client, i have to say i'm more sympathetic with your position. but i still think that as an individual who strongly associates "love" with monogamy or "faithfulness", you can't be a very good prostitute or advocate of the prostitution cause. you can't provide your clients with the "intimacy" they may crave and not have. you can only provide an "act" which even the dullest of them will see through in time.

[Paddy]

Hi Virgin Terry,

I seldom surf this specific thread although I'm somewhat familiar with your postings.

In lieu of your psuedonym of "Virgin Terry" and realted writings, I've never quite been able to determine if you are a male or female??? I ask this question respectfully and apologize if you are offended by my query.

[Warpig2000]

dickhead, i totally agree with you on the hygene thing except flossing if your planned activities include daty. this is a safety issue- flossing can cause abrassion and bleeding of the gums making it easier for hiv and other std's to be passed through the route of infected body fluid/ blood contact. normally daty is safer than other intimate unprotected activities and everyone has to decide their safety/comfort level, but flossing can up the level of risk to that of being on the recieving end of a bbbj and swallowing. and while a dental dam or abstinence from daty is probably the safest course all around, i generally like to practice this activities with providers i feel are generally health concious and get regular check ups, if the girl is willing of course.

i'm not totally sure that it is a replacement for a dental dam but i like to swish my mouth out with perioseptic mouthwash (contains hydrogen peroxide in an .05% concentration) about 20 minutes to a half an hour before the date, and immeadiately afterwards when daty is on the menu

hygene is very much important and it was good of you to bring up the point.

rn- i agree with you totally that a provider should be able to set her limits where she will and will not go, i do however feel it is ethical that she explain those limits to the client as clearly as the prevailing law of the land will allow her without entraping herself.
i could perfectly understand where in some jurisdictions "i only perform covered oral" etc. before the session would probably get a girl busted, and gentlemen owe it to themselves to use reviews where possible, and read between the lines. i hope your 'dificult' client gets his head out of his rectum and lets you move on with your life.

many good points are made in this thread. i admire terr's idealism but in my opinion you have to learn how to deal with the world as it is, life on life's terms.... the 'do gooders' and 'moralists' who resent the hobby and alternate lifestyles also have their 'worldview' of 'how things ought to be', and are equally active in trying to bring their competing vision about. you have to be flexible and see the forest through the trees- but by being a 'majority of one' you also have the freedom to act by your concious, as long as you accept the consequences for your decisions. this is what being a free agent (as opposed to being a robot) is all about.

[Darkseid]

I must agree with VT that jealousy is the product of a sexually repressed society. Our society enforces monogamy and the fact that we MUST only have ONE sexual partner or else we get arrested or taken to the cleaners if we have an affair. This country is UN-FREE in the sexual way in every way. If an immigrant from India comes over with his 5 wives, he gets handcuffed and forced to sign divorce papers with four of them if he is to live in this country. Well, that's the law here in America. I know, I know, some of you might disagree with me and say follow the law or get out. I do follow them but that doesn't mean I like them.
The fact that we can only have one partner in this society creates jealousy. We are forced to make a pact with one woman and if we break the pact with her, we lose our shirts to divorce or we get arrested for being johns in prostitution or arrested for polygamy. We therefore become more possessive of the only woman we can have or the wife. If the girl should cheat, we have a lot to lose because if she wants the divorce, we still lose our shirts. It's a no win situation here in America. This monogamy doesn't encourage free love and sex. It represses it. It also gives American women the idea that they can control us with sex. They hate other countries that have prostitution so they send camera toting drones who are brainwashed by the moralists to expose the countries with briothel establishments and try to shut them down. And the saddest thing is that a majority of these exposes are American or British. What PRUDES!! They should leave us free loving people alone and let us live the way we want to live. But these moralists think it's wrong and it doesn't conform to THEIR standards of morality which is monogamy. They think it ruins marriages. Marriages are actually ruined by this moralist attitude of jealousy. If we all were allowed to have open relationships, the wife wouldn't have to have the obligation to provide sex to the husband. Some women like sex and some don't. But almost every man loves sex and sometimes the wife can't provide it so monogamy would actually RUIN this marriage because there is no compromise for a monogamous relationship. He is stuck with a sexless marriage and without prostitution, which is the American idealogy, the husband would go nuts and would divorce the sexless wife or kill her so he can find another wife who might provide him with sex. Prostitution is a great compromise for this type of marriage because they would have still been married and the husband would get some sex and the wife would not have to provide sex and would still get the companionship she wants from the husband. But noooo, America has to be moralist and deny that poor couple that right to have an open relationship by taking away prostitution and making such laws and negativity against affairs. We live in a repressed society and repression is in no way a definition of freedom. Is this still a free country? You decide. I will not say any more on this question because I don't want to be bashed for being an America hater.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry,
Promiscuity is "free love"...prostitution is "expensive love!!" lol Ok, just kidding around.
" ...but i still think that as an individual who strongly associates "love" with monogamy or "faithfulness", you can't be a very good prostitute or advocate of the prostitution cause."
You know my feelings on this subject...prostitution has absolutely nothing to do with love. How I relate to a significant other, has absolutely no bearing on how I relate to a client. If my clients are looking for "intimacy" (of the level you are talking about), then they are looking in the wrong place. You and I aren't ever going to see eye to eye on this issue. To me...love is love and prostitution is prostitution. And never the twain shall meet.


Warpig,
Welcome to our humble abode! LOL Don't think I've seen you in this section before...nice to have you here, babe. :)
Just for the record, prostitution itself (the actual act of sex for money) is legal here. There are no problems with describing explicit services or defining boundaries. The particular client I'm having trouble with, was never given any false impressions or fed any lies. He was just a regular client who got possessive and went off the deep end. I think what happened was...because he was a regular (and a good one), I was discounting prices, making an effort to see him even if it didn't fit into my schedule, memorising conversations so he knew I was being attentive, etc. That's my job. He, on the other hand, (I think) saw all this as evidence that I was "falling for him". In his head, he built it up to be something it wasn't. I think that hearing about me booking someone else... reminding him that his "girlfriend" was actually a hooker...was what really set him off.

Paddy,
I am pretty sure...and I will be very embarrassed if I'm wrong, after chatting to him for so long...that Terry is a guy.

[jadegatelover]

Hi all,

Here's my dilemma. I'm 31, only been with one woman, still with her and plan to marry next year...after over 10 years of courtship. yep high school sweethearts. For the last three years or so I've had this one nagging thought.

What are other women like?

It's gotten to a point where the sight of a woman sets me off imagining the things I'd do to her and the way I'd like for her to reciprocate. These urges are quieted after some internet porn and masterbation, but that's becoming less and less of a long term solution. This leads me to think that being with someone else is also not the answer, but I can't think that far now.

I've never wanted to find another girl to have discreet sex with because I don't want or can't emotionally divorce myself from the act. For a long time I didn't want to use the services of a hooker because I imagine her hating me as a person and would rather grind my wallet for the amount of time it takes me to cum.

Now, I'm still hopelessly torn and getting a little desperate, to the point where I'm looking at going overseas to satiate this curiosity/lust, or whatever. I figure I'd go and do the deed before I get married. Reasoning that at least I didn't commit "adultery". I know I"m reaching here but I'm hanging onto whatever I can.

For you guys who may have experienced similar angst, what happened? how did you resolve it? One option is to talk to my sweetie, but not sure how to start.

Do you guys wish you never went down this road?

If so, did it stop at one incident?

RN, your perspective or real incidences would also be greatly appreciated. too bad you're not in the business anymore, otherwise, I'd fly down under with flowers in hand :)

[Field Commander]

this an interesting (and long) interview to camille paglia by tracy quan: i think it's really worth reading it

miami vice does "culture"

the prostitute, the comedian -- and me
by tracy quan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in 1990, when i began reading camille paglia's sexual personae: art and decadence from nefertiti to emily dickinson, i was so excited that i would only put her book down to sleep, eat or turn a trick. it lay on my bedside table next to the phone, a small supply of condoms tucked inside the front cover. whenever i slipped into sexual personae to unwrap one, i felt vindicated. what better way to pay tribute to paglia's ideas? one evening, after attending a pony (prostitutes of new york) planning session, i found myself at performance space 122 in manhattan's east village. i was nearly thrown down the stairs, in my high heels, by a (female) performance artist who accused me of "reading camille paglia". i had committed heresy -- by suggesting that women are often the privileged sex -- and was forced to defend myself with a saks fifth avenue shopping bag filled with pony mail. swinging my paper weapon around in wild desperation, i escaped down the steep staircase, hobbled somewhat by my favorite shoes.

as my terror gave way to inspiration, i realized that i was destined to meet with the intellectual diva who had helped to inspire this angry feminist assault. the prostitute, the comedian -- and me was originally published in puritan (number 31) in the winter of 1993, as part of an interview series focusing on the sexual attitudes of well-known authors and artists. i am greatly indebted to stan bernstein, the creative force behind that series, for his editorial guidance, and to the entire staff of puritan magazine. -- t.q.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tracy quan: your view that men have created civilization to escape woman's dominance is very different from the feminist notion of male domination. quite honestly, it's a point of view i would expect to hear from a prostitute -- because most prostitutes understand that aspect of women's power. i've also noticed a knowledge of prostitution which many feminists lack. did you have a lot of friends who were in "the life"?

camille paglia: i never knew a prostitute in my life... i studied history. my conclusions also come from observing -- movies, media, reading -- and also from seeing prostitutes on the street.

the movie butterfield 8 had a huge impact on me. when elizabeth taylor (playing gloria the call girl) said, sic transit gloria mundi, i loved it: a call girl using this famous latin phrase of the pope's! i see a parallel between prostitution and being a monk or a nun.

tq: one of my aunts is a nun. i think i'm the only niece who relates to her lifestyle, because i'm a hooker.

cp: there's something similar -- a very organized way of dealing with sexuality, with human issues. the prostitutes i see near the university of the arts look very competent, very professional. they look fabulous! i've always felt that prostitutes are in control of the streets, not victims. i admire that -- zooming here and there, escaping the police, being shrewd, living by your wits, being street smart. i think that with prostitution, getting the money is control. i identify with that. in college and even in high school, i did not as a woman like the situation of giving it away for free.

i view the prostitute as one of the few women who is totally in control of her fate, totally in control of the realm of sex. the lesbian feminists tried to take control of female sexuality away from men -- but the prostitute was doing that all along.

tq: many feminists would disagree. they paint this outlandish caricature of the ***** -- she's powerless, and totally victimized.

cp: feminists like to quote these absolutely specious statistics, a typical trick of the feminist movement of the last twenty years. for example, they'll say the majority of prostitutes have been sexually abused as children. but there's no evidence for this! the most successful prostitutes are invisible, because the sign of a prostitute's success is her absolute blending with the environment. she's so shrewd, she never becomes visible. she never gets in trouble. she has command of her life, and her clients. the ones who get into the surveys have drug problems or psychological problems. they're the ones who were sexually abused. feminists are using amateurs to condemn a whole profession. this is appalling!

i'm against the harassment of prostitutes. unless they are actually interfering with people's movements, they have a perfect right to be doing what they're doing.

tq: why, in your view, does prostitution exist?

cp: it exists because men's sexuality is not fully absorbed in marriage. in fact, the problems of being married produce other sexual needs -- not for all men certainly, but most. prostitution exists for sexuality to be free from the duties and obligations of home, for the man to be free as a sexual agent. a lot of the sex which an ordinary gay man has is very close to what a prostitute has with a straight man. it has to do with keeping the sex impulse free.

tq: some "pro-sex" (or "sex-positive") feminists have told me they'd like to see more women buying sex.

cp: they're misunderstanding what prostitution is. prostitution is woman's command of men! no woman should ever have to pay for sex. in the sixties i thought everything would be equal: women would want sex just as much as men; we'd have as much porn for women as for men. but over time, that hasn't happened, and my thinking has evolved. i cannot believe anyone would still say that. what kind of woman would pay for sex?

tq: a woman who wants to be serviced by a professional?

cp: xaviera hollander, who i really admire, said that now and then she had female clients. i love her book the happy hooker. she describes a movie star who wanted to be tied up with her husband's neck ties and ravished by two women with a dildo. and xaviera was being unusually moralistic, saying, "i've never understood this. i thought such a beautiful creature should be treated tenderly!"

but that will always be such a small number of women, compared to what men do. when men go to prostitutes there's a tremendous psychodrama at work. the man engaged in a transaction with a prostitute is trying to resolve some problem he has with the dominance of woman. the money is a way to detach emotion from it. there's an element of shutting off the dominance of woman. i applaud that because it's a way to get the masculine impulse free. but women don't need to do that. most women who pay for sex are pampered women. they have a facial, a massage, a manicure and then -- servicing. it's just like having a masseur.

tq: one of the co-founders of the international committee for prostitutes' rights, a women's studies professor, called for an alliance between the "madonnas" and the "*****s." what do you think of the feminists who want to eradicate the "***** stigma"?

cp: that's hypocritical. it's such a superficial analysis. they're looking around the current culture to explain things that you need a historical sense to understand. you have to look back over time, at the heritage of these things. the prostitute is not, as the feminists believe, socially constructed. she's dealing with the natural fact of sexuality. the social constructions of our time are judeo-christian.

you'll always have the women who are willing to live within the judeo-christian institutions, like marriage, with the official sanctions. then you have the women who are the pagan outlaws. there's a fantastic sizzle for the man, going between them. it's not just something "the patriarchy" has created: good girl/bad girl. it is not. human nature is split. the needs of the body are impetuous and animalistic -- they could never be contained by these judeo-christian codes that are trying to control it.

tq: do you see eradication of the *****'s stigma as a liberal fantasy?

cp: how can you eradicate the stigma? the prostitute is always going to be an opponent, in some sense, of all the official institutions. the prostitute gains by that sharp identity. if you have that kind of identity, then take personal responsibility for it. stop asking everyone else to change their attitude. stop saying "love me, please, mommy and daddy." the stigma of the prostitute is the badge of her identity. that is why the client goes to her. if he wanted someone without a stigma, he'd go and screw the lady next door.

tq: how can prostitutes have a meaningful relationship with feminists?

cp: any attempt to make prostitution somehow reconcilable with the recent phase of feminism is a dead end. prostitution is a pagan form and current feminism is a puritanical protestant form.

the prostitute, dealing with men outside the institutions of marriage or religion, sees sexual reality clearer -- and pornography shows lust clearer -- than the feminists see it. lust is sexual reality, and the prostitute historically knows how to deal with it. the comedian is much more accurate about sex than the feminists. like a prostitute dealing with a client, the comedian deals with, and is constantly in flux with, the audience.

the comedian has to get a laugh from the audience, just the way a prostitute has to get an orgasm from the client. they are looking looking looking at the audience, constantly reading the audience, just like the prostitute. the prostitute and the comedian are right on the edge, very mentally alert -- working working working with the responses. i'm never in agreement with the feminists. they're off in a box talking to each other. they have an ideology. they are not observing! but the prostitute and the comedian and me: we are observing -- looking at the way people think and act. as the culture is shifting, you're working working working it...
tq: i wonder if you would have the patience to be a hooker. if you were in the profession, i think you'd be in a more flamboyant area of the trade.

cp: i could have been a fabulous dominatrix if this had been more available twenty years ago. i could have made a fortune and paid off every bill i ever had in my life! fifteen years ago, when i wrote about nipple clamps in my chapter on michelangelo, s&m was still in very small esoteric areas of the urban scene. by the time sexual personae got into print -- that's how long it's taken -- now s&m is everywhere. my period of experimentation was before all this. if i were young now, i'd certainly be experimenting with s&m because my mind was moving in that direction. but it happened too late for me.
tq: s&m was once an elite phenomenon. why is it now so popular in american society?
cp: it also happened in imperial rome. in the old days, rome was like our new england. you were, like, dutiful and you thought of the state and the good of rome. there were all kinds of sumptuary laws -- you couldn't spend money on jewelry, there was a certain way to behave. it was very simple, prudent, frugal, industrious. suddenly, the culture got very large. it moved from republic to empire, from rome within italy to this mega-empire! the movie "cleopatra" with liz taylor is very good (even though it was considered a bomb) because it shows that great moment of transition from the old republic into the new empire. and that is when people became much freer. my conclusion is that s&m comes back when people are most apparently free. as religion breaks down, as government and law and order break down, s&m sex bizarrely reappears.
tq: another thing about the sexual culture of the classical period -- in sexual personae, you point out that a smaller phallus was considered desirable in ancient greece. how did the preference for the larger phallus evolve?
cp: most of the world has probably always esteemed a large penis, except for ancient greece. i think that was an exception to the rule. in greece, there was a period of interest in proportion -- they were working out the ideal proportions of the human body. (you know, the same period when they were trying to figure out the dimensions of the parthenon.) they decided the head should be one-sixth of the total body. the penis, in proportion to this, can't be that big.
roman statues were in the style of greek nudes, and nudes that survived from the greco-roman period always had small penises. in art, the penis has often been extremely small, imitating the classical greek style. women who went to museums in the nineteenth century and saw these nudes were probably very surprised when they got married and realized the actual proportion a penis has to the male body!

for the upper class in athens, for the people who spent their leisure time exercising and watching the beautiful boys, a small penis may have been a sign of beauty. but the people who were building the parthenon -- they probably wanted a big penis. today, in the upper class, you never see obese people. it's socially unacceptable. but in the shopping malls, and in working class life in america, you see lots of obese people. there's no social pressure against it. in the same way, people speaking about us in the future will say, "well, thin was in. looking at all the ads from the period, thin was in." yet, the working class was fat as ever. same thing here. for a brief moment among the upper class in athens, a small penis was considered philosophical. it meant you were not driven by animal appetite. it may have had no impact whatever on what was going down on the dock in piraeus: a big penis was just as in as it has ever been.

tq: so, the animal appetites were suppressed only among the very effete...

cp: at the same time that you had these great sculptures of the greek boys with the small penises -- and later in the hellenistic period -- you also had pottery featuring these satyrs with huge penises. wild, hilarious scenes! satyrs, with a half-goat body and a giant penis, chasing down a hermaphrodite or woman or a boy. and they're [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) him! you can see clearly that a large penis was animalistic to them. a lot of my ideas about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) are coming from that, the fact that men find [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) fun and erotic. it seems so obvious if you look at the whole history of art.

tq: candida royalle, who was an x-rated star in the seventies, is now producing sex videos with a feminist orientation. i've heard her say that a lot of porn is unrealistic or demeaning to women. how do you feel about feminist porn?

cp: feminist porn means you remove all the things you don't like. you censor porn to make it subscribe or conform to a prefab ideology. it's diluted. you remove all the lust from it. this idea that porn has to conform to the ethics we live in real life is ridiculous. you can look at things you would not tolerate in real life. you can watch people being whipped or beaten or abused in porn, and you tolerate it because it's in the realm of imagination, of art. porn gets its charge from taking a taboo and violating it. porn should be grotesque and coarse, it should do everything possible to offend and humiliate. when people say, "that's irresponsible, we don't want to see that," i say, "why not?" i want to see everything: the most horrible, the most unimaginable. i want to see it and get a charge off it. feminist porn's absurd. i'm totally against it. i like regular porn.

tq: when do real life ethics become a concern in porn?

cp: a lot of people say, "i'm for erotica but i'm against kiddy porn," or "i'm against violent porn." i can understand why people would be concerned about using live children in porn. but i would support kiddy porn drawings and paintings. i mean those cupids we use on valentine cards -- that's kiddy porn.

tq: or "baby porn".

cp: baby porn, yes. caravaggio, half his work is kiddy porn. i told a reporter from the san francisco examiner, "what is all this talk about snuff films? i want to see a snuff film." people went crazy. but i don't want to see a real woman being killed! when we go to a mystery movie, we want to see an actress pretending to be dead. same thing. a truly avant garde film maker today would make a snuff film. a truly avant garde film maker will find the taboo. where's the taboo? it's in snuff films? then make a snuff film!

tq: candida royalle and other feminists have contended that we need to see more "real women" in porn, not just the "nineteen-year-old blonde, busty female."

cp: i also am tired of a certain kind of california look which has been done to death, but it's not because they're nineteen and busty. i prefer european-type bodies which are kind of fleshy. the flesh is flowing. i think languor is more sensual than, "hey! let's get this stuff out of the way and i'll take on sex with you and then go out and do my aerobics." the american cheerleader thing -- there's a dead element. in earlier porn, the untoned bodies were lewder, more lascivious. this new, hard amazonian look -- i'm not sure i like it. as for being busty and nineteen years old. why not?

the whole point is to see something you can't see in ordinary life! maybe we can enlarge the idea of what constitutes beauty, not to include ugliness or the ordinary, but to include fleshiness.

tq: leaving aside the concept of feminist porn, do you think women's porn is here to stay?

cp: most women don't get a big charge off of voyeurism. it's not satisfying to them. okay, in the suburbs women go to the video store and choose the porn to watch with their men. but they're still buying it to enjoy in a couple. it's not pure porn. the way an individual male will go out and get a heap of things, and take it back to his apartment and look at it by himself? there are hardly any examples of women doing this. i do, but i'm unusual. the phenomenon of john hinckley -- a solitary person in a room agitating himself erotically and mentally -- that's male behavior. feminists, in their approach to art history, believe that men are taught to stare at women and make objects of them. but men are staring because it's biological. there's an aggression thing involving the eye in male sexuality. it's related to hunting. that's why there's an enormous porn industry for men and hardly anything for women. it will never be comparable.

tq: i was advised by one of candida royalle's staff to stop calling their product "porn." it's aimed at women, so they call it "erotica."

cp: oh, i hate that. this idea of trying to revise what we're doing by calling it "erotica". i reject that. i'm not saying, "i like erotica." i'm saying, "michelangelo is a pornographer." we have to understand that the pieta with the nude christ -- that's pornography. michelangelo is slobbering over that body. if you can understand the sacredness of the pieta and simultaneously understand its pornographic elements, then we're very far along the road here, okay?

[Dick Johnson]

Jadegatelover, 31 and only been with one girl? Unreal. What are you doing on this site then? Are you pulling our legs or what? I see in China section you are asking about going to China. Your screenname sure don't sound so innocent.

Sorry but your dilemma has nothing to do with the morality of prostitution. And I find it absurd you can't make up your own mind on issues such as this. You're 31 for christsake, not 17.

Most people just throw a bachelor's party and get it over with.

[Doctor_Skank]

jadegatelover,

Cheating on a partner:
All I can say is think it over before doing it... in my experience it can have a negative effect on one's sense of morality and self-worth. If you can get over that, as I did, then it becomes remarkably easy. Or maybe too easy.

I don't know about you, but I am totally fascinated about the differences between women sexually... it varies wildly. And the search for new experiences becomes addicting. Prostitution is a relatively easy outlet for this need. And the search, whether in clubs, sex tourist destinations or just with the girl next door is in my case never-ending. Rewarding at times, nerve-wracking at others (many of my experiences were with "real" girls who eventually wanted more serious involvement), sometimes expensive, sometimes scary, sometimes a huge ego-boost, sometimes demeaning... but always somehow fascinating.

So if you go that route, you may just be opening a can of worms. You may find what you're looking for...which could also be a bad thing for your relationship.

But still...as fascinating as it is, it is "just" sex in the end.

[Darkseid]

Jadegatelover, it would be best to satisfy this curiosity before getting married because sometime during the marriage it will bite you in the ass and then you will have an affair with the woman next door or any opportunity that comes around. I would find the best looking woman you can get your hands on, any way possibl;e even if it's prostitution and have sex with her and see if she compares to your fiancee. If your fiancee is better, then she is the right woman to marry and yes, you can feel the "sparks". If not, then perhaps the sexual chemistry is not there and you are dating her as a best friend or soulmate rather than a sexual partner for life. If you still love her as a soulmate, make a compromise where you can have sex with other women and still remain married to her. Have an open relationship with this arrangement. Also don't wait till the bachelor party to satisfy this, it'll be too late.

[Rubber Nursey]

Dr Skank...great post, honey. Really well said. Oh, and welcome to the board as well :)

DJ...good to see you! Been a while. Happy New Year, mate.

Miami Vice...that was a great article. Thank you. I will most definitely have to get hold of Camille's book. She sounds like my kind of chick! (So does Tracy Quan).

Jadegatelover,
I don't know what to say, babe. If you sleep with someone now, you may get it out of your system and never think about it again...you may get "hooked" on being with other girls...you may find that you enjoy it more than you do with your girlfriend, and break up with her...you may find that it's not as great as you expected and be sorely disappointed. It could turn out any number of ways.

The only thing I am pretty sure you WILL end up with, is guilt. The fact that you mentioned going outside the country for sex and made so many excuses to justify your feelings, says to me that you know in your heart what you're thinking about doing is wrong. (Wrong for YOU, that is). You sound to me from your post like you are feeling guilty about even entertaining the possibility. Can you live with that guilt if you go ahead with it?

Of course the other question is...can you live with your choice if you DON'T go ahead with it?? From your post, it seems to me that you've come almost to the point of insanity with this problem. Can you really just "let it go" and get married anyway? I had slept with a number of men before entering into my first serious relationship, so I really have no idea how it feels from your perspective. But I have always thought that marrying the only person you've ever slept with is a little 'dangerous'...I would think the burning curiosity about other women would eventually have to have an effect on the marriage.

For what it's worth, my advice would be to NOT marry this girl while you are feeling this way...not without bringing it up with her first. Of course, that's a hell of a lot easier said than done! But I think you owe it to her, and to yourself, not to jump into a lifelong commitment while this issue is still unresolved. That's not to say that you shouldn't marry her...just that you should be sure of what you want, before you do. If you can't talk to her about it, then I would recommend the age-old method of decision making...the pros and cons list. Put a line down the middle of a piece of paper, and write all the GOOD things about sleeping with someone else down one side. Then read back through your list...and be HONEST with yourself...and list all the BAD things that could come of it, down the other side. Then look at the entire page...pay attention to which column is longer and think about whether you can live with any of the negative consequences that you wrote down. This sounds really corny, I know. But having all your thoughts right there in front of you in black and white, really helps to look at a dilemma rationally.

Go have a look at the "Sexual Addiction" section of the board as well. That may give you another perspective on the issue. Sorry I'm not much help. Good luck with it, honey. :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Jadegatelover,

Just an afterthought. If you're childhood sweethearts...does that mean that SHE hasn't slept with anyone else either?

I was just thinking that perhaps (if you're lucky) SHE might be feeling exactly the same way! Is there any chance that...before you get married, in case it doesn't work out the way you expected...you could introduce other people into your relationship? Like bring in a female and/or male hooker, or go to a swingers party together? If you were able to agree on something like that, you could BOTH get it out of your system before the wedding. Don't involve anyone you know, or anyone you could form an attachment to (which is why a hooker is a good choice), because I would think that after such a long time with one person, having sex with someone new would be almost like your first time all over again. That could bring up some really powerful emotions, which would seriously affect your relationship with your fiancee.

Please also remember that sex with your girlfriend is probably very familiar these days...even "below average" sex with a stranger will probably feel exceptionally wild and passionate in comparison. Don't automatically assume that it's better, just because it was more exciting.

[The Virgin Terr]

jadegatelover, assuming you're for real, which is a bit of a stretch, my emphatic advice is to begin getting real with yourself about the power of sex. i come from a failed marriage where i was conflicted for years between my desire for sexual freedom and my social indoctrination that monogamy was what "true love" was all about and that desiring other women was WRONG! the marriage failed of course because vibrant healthy relationships can't include secret desires and wrenching guilt feelings for merely having them. if you can't be honest with your fiancee about your desires, you have a flawed relationship. it may be painful to do so, but you need to be true to yourself before you can be true to anyone else.

going the prostitution route can be tricky for someone who likes a sense of intimacy with their sexual partners. avoid streetwalkers! if you're american going abroad if you can for prostitutional sex is recommended, unless you're wealthy and can afford the very high prices of a top of the line big city escort service or independent hooker in the classifieds. america generally sucks for commercial sex, over priced and poor "service". another route worth exploring if you can afford it and want more of a relationship aspect is find someone via ads looking for a "sugar daddy". this route may offer the best chance of satisfaction if you're looking for someone who is not only a sexual firecracker but also a possible relationship, as you can get to actually know alot about her as a person, and screen out incompatible personalities during an initial interview or soon after. abroad commercial sex can be much more affordable and satisfying.

again, if you have this "itch" which is driving you crazy, the worst mistake you can make is think you can suppress it indefinitely via willpower. much better to explore it now than after you're married and possibly have children as well. things will be alot more complicated and a divorce more painful than breaking up now, if your girlfriend can't accept and love the real you.

RN, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. and yes paddy, i am a guy, sorry if that disappoints you. down boy! heel!

[jadegatelover]

Thanks for your perspectives. I understand it'll ultimately be a hard decision.

I have decided to talk to her about it, maybe even seek counseling. Now I've got to figure out how to best approach it.

Dick,
You'd have to understand what makes me me before going on about unreal and such. I've posted on several different continent sections.

My screen name...consider me well read or a fan of a particular author. Take your screen name for example, unoriginal in a simple-minded sorta way or is your real name Richard... or does it much matter?

[Darkseid]

Hi RN, I am planning a vacation this spring around the end of May to the 2nd week of June. I booked a tour for Germany for the first week but I am forced to take a second week and I was considering going to Australia to check it the action there and if I like it, I would consider migrating there. Migrating is a huge move and I so far like Canada or Brazil. However, Brazil is more of a country to retire to and Canada is a great place to spend my middle age. I would NEVER go to China because it sucks in a major way. The only other languages I speak fluently are English and French (English much more fluently). Australia seems to be a good choice but I haven't checked it out yet. Do you have any advice of tips on migrating there and the best city to visit? I would also like to know the EASIEST way to get in as well. I am willing to try the back door because I know that Sydney is much harder to get into than let's say Brisbane. I am getting tired of the US and its horrible women. In fact I am among the worst of the American women, New York City women I might add.

[Rubber Nursey]

Darkseid,

Go to the "What Country Has The Best Women For STR" section. Dickhead and I had a discussion about travel/moving to Australia not too long ago. It's easy enough to visit, but it's almost impossible to get residency. If you have any other questions, write them in the other section...may as well keep all the info in one place. (Once all these guys try an Aussie hooker, they're ALL gonna want to know how to move here!! LOL)

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by jadegatelover
Hi all,

Here's my dilemma. I'm 31, only been with one woman, still with her and plan to marry next year

Now THAT{s the road I wish I{d never gone down! DH

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Darkseid,

Go to the "What Country Has The Best Women For STR" section. Dickhead and I had a discussion about travel/moving to Australia not too long ago. It's easy enough to visit, but it's almost impossible to get residency. If you have any other questions, write them in the other section...may as well keep all the info in one place. (Once all these guys try an Aussie hooker, they're ALL gonna want to know how to move here!! LOL)

Actually my research revealed that I probably could have gotten residency under your point system IF I were younger, like under 30, given my education and qualifications.

So, my New Year{s resolutions are to become younger, taller, and more good looking. DH

[Dick Johnson]

Originally posted by jadegatelover
Dick,
You'd have to understand what makes me me before going on about unreal and such. I've posted on several different continent sections.

My screen name...consider me well read or a fan of a particular author. Take your screen name for example, unoriginal in a simple-minded sorta way or is your real name Richard... or does it much matter?

Oh you've POSTED on several different continents?

I've TRAVELLED to several different continents.

Your posts are all like :"where can i find pussy?" and "should I find pussy?" 31 yrs old and can't make up your mind! the rest of us are sharing our experiences, giving out info, you have done none of these. This is not your personal question and answer/psychotherapy forum.

By the way, what author?
And my real name, unlike many members here, a few of whom I know, is not Richard. It's Mr Johnson to you.

Let me give you a piece of advice, kiddo, and this is funny because we are about the same age, spare us of your moral rationalizing and get on with your life.

I understand you. You're just another wannabe who have neither the time or money, you're just fantasizing and wasting our time.

[jadegatelover]

Gentlemen,

The purpose of this Forum is to provide for the exchange of information for Men who are looking for sex with Women.

Please try to refrain from personal attacks and stick to the subject.

Jackson

[The Virgin Terr]

jadegatelover,

i liked your response to dj, way to stick up for yourself, virgin! (of this business). i'm not all that experienced at it myself, and involve a limited number of american women, quite a few mexican women in the border towns of nuevo laredo and tijauna, and recently some canadian escorts, again on the border. i do take some exception to your crack on "ugly, uneducated, third world women". you have something against people with limited educational opportunities who grow up in poverty compared to most americans? it's not there fault, and frankly i prefer people from humble backgrounds for their down-to-earthness. i can assure you many of these girls are far from ugly. alot of them are freaking gorgeous, breathtaking, instant bonerizing women. the kind of girls you'd drool over on many college campuses, we're talking jennifer lopez/ shakira quality women in terms of appearance. we're talking some degree of satisfaction for men who lust for women of the highest physical quality. one other thing. i pay women to touch them, not the opposite. i pay to drink in sensually magnificient female bodies. if that makes me sexist, someone who makes women into "sex objects", so be it. i don't think it does, because i take into account the whole person in a relationship, but in prostitution, customers are paying specifically for a sexual relationship and beauty is of great importance to me for sexual/sensual satisfaction, so i naturally and unashamedly prefer the most beautiful women for sex.

i'm poor at relationships, so perhaps i'm the last person to take advice from. i'd hate for you to break up such a long term relationship for the wrong reason. long term relationships aren't to be taken lightly, good ones are priceless.

[Joe Zop]

jadegatelover:

While I understand your crankiness with Dick Johnson, and he does at times have a way of being shall we say less than diplomatic, his points are not completely invalid, in that this forum exists for men to share information about women, and the emphasis is on the word share. And for what it's worth, I think his first response to you had reasonably legitimate questions, and you're really the one who escalated by taking whacks at his screen name.

If your opinion of the women involved here is that they are "ugly, uneducated women from 3rd world countries" then you truly do show not only your naivete but a great deal of truly unnecessary hostility. That's not only a very judgemental outlook, but one that's highly inaccurate on several levels, and a comment that far more than any other begs the question of why you're posting on this board. I take the generous perspective that you mostly wantedto take a whack at DJ and not anyone else, but civil is a two-way street, and escalating into name-calling as opposed to dealin with legitimate and undrstandabe questions is hardly conducive to you getting the answers you're seeking.

I think a lot of folks here took decent tries at giving you a response, and I'm going to try another.

Suppose your scenario was slightly different, and you weren't 31 but 21, and you'd had a steady girlfriend for pretty much the same length of time. Should our advice to you be any different? Th bottom line is that at the core of things you'r clearly uncertain whether or not you want to commit to this woman, evidenced both by your desire to taste the grass on the other side of the fence, and your inability to get off that fence and marry her. That's far more the issue and the point than anything else, and that's what you should be thinking about -- the "other women" part of the equation is a red herring. There are plenty of folks who marry younger than you, have the same concerns, and do fine. There are plenty who go into it worried they're missing something and mess everything up. It's all about you, not the situation, and that's why the advice here on this is rather superflous, and why folks can get cranky about it.

Bottom line -- you're an adult, and you must decide what it is that you want. Do you want this woman, or are you going to spend time worrying that you're not going to have everything you think you should in life? If it's the latter, then you'd better get on with getting on. While you're deciding, the clock continues to tick, and your life continues to slide by. You don't want to have this same conversation in five years, or spend time regretting that you couldn't decide. You're on the diving board -- either jump or consider another sport :)

[Dickhead]

Jade Gate:

JZ and VT tend to be rather verbose so let me summarize more succintly:

Get the fuck off this board, you ungrateful asshole.

[The Virgin Terr]

it's saturday night and i'm remembering a saturday night a few years ago in downtown nuevo laredo, not the red light district. i frequented a bar there had lots of pretty young ladies, some of whom would respond favorably to a gentleman's propositon. this was, by the way, wear i met my favorite regular. but on this night, i'd already been laid, and just returned to the bar for another beer before calling it a night. i was almost tapped out on money, had like $16. this was a bar few americans frequented, so i stood out, and was approached by this young mexican guy who told me he had an 18 yr.old american girlfriend of his there who he was looking to set up. i thought what the hell, can't hurt to check her out since she was right there. i told him i only had $15 bucks left, which displeased him, but he said ok. i figured the girl was going to be ugly and/or fat. i was astonished when the girl he introduced me to was absolutely stunning and young as advertised. wow! i took her back to my hotel for a whole hour. she was a virgin to prostitution, and clean, magnificient undressed. an hour with a gorgeous, fresh, american girl of high school age, fucking and licking and caressing and kissing, $15. that was my lucky night.

[Darkseid]

Jade Gate, spending another Saturday night alone with these shallow American women that hate dwarves or elves, like myself makes me want to be in Brazil or any other Third World country right now so I have to disagree with you on the ugly third world country part. In fact, Third World women are much slimmer, prettier and more passionate in bed. I also didn't have to pay for some of the sex I got from these countries and the girlfriend I met in Brazil was happy and well off in Brazil. If you don't want to try Third world country women then fine miss out on it! You can scratch that curiosity itch with European, Canadian, or perhaps another American woman, or else if you really don't want to scratch that itch then you are really satified with this woman and should not try other women.

[Dick Johnson]

DH is right, jadgate is an ungrateful assh*. And he's lucky Joe Z is one of the most diplomatic and patient members around. By the way, DH is not DJ.

His desperate name calling is not going to get him around.

I've visited first, second, third world countries. And 3rd world country people are human beings just like you and I. Your bashing of them shows how shallow you are.

Dick J

[Field Commander]

THE FURY OF COCKS

There they are
drooping over the breakfast plates,
angel-like,
folding in their sad wing,
animal sad,
and only the night before
there they were
playing the banjo.
Once more the day's light comes
with its immense sun,
its mother trucks,
its engines of amputation.
Whereas last night
the cock knew its way home,
as stiff as a hammer,
battering in with all
its awful power.
That theater.
Today it is tender,
a small bird,
as soft as a baby's hand.
She is the house.
He is the steeple.
When they fuck they are God.
When they break away they are God.
When they snore they are God.
In the morning they butter the toast.
They don't say much.
They are still God.
All the cocks of the world are God,
blooming, blooming, blooming
into the sweet blood of woman.

by Anne Sexton

Just treat well these girls; It's not a matter of "Morality" it's a matter of respect.

[Joe Zop]

Tough to follow a Sexton poem -- she's too much, bawdy, profane and holy all at once. Not to mention brilliant. (And, unfortunately, dead.) My kind of feminist, except for the dead part :D

But Vice, morality and respect aren't mutually exclusive -- there's still a fair amount of ground in terms of the whole scene once respect is given.

[Field Commander]

Joe_zop,

I totally agree with you.
The "whole scene" is really complex, what I wanted to say is that sometimes people are able to surprise you positively.

It's difficult to express this idea by words. Poetry often is able to do it. The only one sure thing is change and I approach life (and "these forum hobbies") with an open mind. How can I say ? I don't defend positions, I move.

Miami thinks
Vice plays

[Joe Zop]

RN, you've been awfully quiet of late -- can you give an update on your client problems?

[Rubber Nursey]

hiya joe :)

i've been popping in and out a bit, but haven't bothered posting of late. nothing much has been happening in this section, and the american women section...well, i'm not touching that discussion with a barge pole. it's certainly gone from the bizarre to the ridiculous. i've also got lots going on at the moment...the cut-off date for submissions on the bill is next friday, so i've been working on mine day and night. it's turning into a huge document, and i'm scared that i won't be able to complete it on time.

the client situation...well he's a low-down piece of shit, and that's all i can say without becoming extremely "unladylike". as it stands at the moment, the situation has come to a point where it can be dealt with without me getting too badly burnt...but it's not good. not good at all. first time in my life that i have ever regretted becoming involved in prostitution.

what makes my blood boil is that the government and the police know this sort of thing happens all the time, and yet they do sweet fa about it. they write this disgraceful bill and make every provision they can think of to protect the public and the clients...but don't give a shit about the fact that sex workers still won't have a leg to stand on in cases of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), violence, stalking, threats or blackmail. in fact, the proposed laws will put us at decidedly more risk of abuse, extortion and exploitation. i'm fed up with them telling us that we are "victims" of prostitution. we are victims of their stupidity. right now, i am a "victim" of this archaic legislation, that makes me the criminal...even when someone else commits a crime against me, i am still considered somehow culpable (and punishable). allowing sex worker's clients to get away with a criminal act, and then punishing the victim...now that's immoral.

[Dick Johnson]

Sorry to hear about that RN. Hope you don't let this incident affect your life too much. It may not be as big of a deal as you think. Like they say, don't sweat the small stuff. It's all small stuff. BTW, is there another thread on this situation?

As long as you are in good health... have your loved ones... thats all that matters. Money? You can always make it back. It's probably a small fraction of your annual earnings.

Best wishes,
-Dick

[Joe Zop]

Agreed completely on the American Women section -- it's just an orgy of repetition at this point, which is a shame, as at times in the past there have actually been some interesting conversations and points being made there. And, yes, it's been pretty dead in here, but perhaps that can be rectfied somewhat. (It's nice to have a good net connection again, though I dearly wish I had brought Thailand's weather back home with me, as shoveling snow just doesn't do it for me!)

When you say you've been working on your submission for the bill, does that mean you're working on one for your agency or for one from you as an individual? Are there any portions of the proposed bill at all that strike you as viable? And do you have a sense of the political climate at this point, to know which way the wind is truly blowing? In other words, taking the advocate's perspective of undying optimism for your cause out of the equation, is there something that can/will pass here, and is your fight going to be to pass it or stop it?

No disagreement with you on the morality of the situation -- but let's just face it that it's a two-way street. As in any business transaction, both sides need protection and recourse against the other acting badly. It's keeping that balance that's the trick in the whole equation.

Finally, I'm sorry to hear about the client -- he's really still going at it after all this time? Jeez. I take it any kind of quid pro quo is out of the question, huh? Are you getting any reaction/support from other clients?

DJ -- the info on the situation's earlier in this thread. The issue's not income, it's reputation.

[Darkseid]

Originally posted by RN
Traveller,

Here's an interesting little fact about the "Lucky Country": Australia has no 'people's' Constitution and no Bill of Rights (the so-called Constitution we do have describes Parliamentary processes, etc). That says it all really.

I have gone through all the UN declarations and covenants I can get my hands on, to the point of quoting legislation in my sleep. What I have discovered is that there were several "loopholes" created in those documents, to allow individual countries to fiddle with them. The biggest gap left open was the "morality clause" (my words, not theirs). This was apparently done so that UN laws/recommendations could be applied to every signatory, regardless of the country's different cultures and faiths...they were given scope to interpret what "protecting public morals or public order (ordre public)" meant.

For example, everybody has the right to Freedom of Movement UNLESS you are a prisoner and/or on bail, and UNLESS the Government considers that you are a threat to public order or morals. This little "clause" was specifically created to give individual Governments the right to restrict the freedom of movement of street-based sex workers. Basically what I'm saying is that our Government has the ability to deny us our basic human rights, and get around any declarations we may be a signatory to, because our occupation is "immoral".

There are also problems with using Article 12 here...
a) the local definition of "public place" was broadened, to the point where it's pretty much impossible to claim that prostitution happened in a private place.
b) calling someone a criminal when they ARE a criminal doesn't amount to damaging reputation (and hooking is criminal), BUT if prostitution is made legal and they publicly announce that you are a hooker, they are simply stating your legal occupation so it is also not considered an attack (even though that announcement could destroy your honour and reputation...what do they care).c) in the case of sole-operators, they ARE allowed to interfere in your "home" because it is considered your workplace...
The list goes on.

As far as being able to "invoke principles of administrative law", which this draft seeks to deny us, you could be right about that one. We have huge legal teams preparing submissions about that sort of thing, as we speak. Same with the Privacy legislation, as well as Trade Practices.

But our biggest problem is that damn Board.

Hi RN, I had to go back to an earlier post about the "morality" clause and this clause stinks. This clause was brought about to please the UN which tries to please the rest of the world including the morality based good ol' USA and Japan (with the prude Prime Minister lady). I guess Australia is trying to avoid scandal reports made by American journalists about sex in other countries. I had a run into one of these journalists in one of my trips to Holland. 20/20 was trying to do an expose on the Red Light District. Since they want to hide prostitutes from the international public they don't allow cameras and they tried to chase the cameraman and journalist. Since I was caught on tape, I helped pin down the cameraman. Australia doesn't want to risk the same type of exposure so they try to hide sex workers as much as possible and therefore they deny prostitutes the same rights as citizens. If there was a lawsuit involving a prostitute and her client, it would be aired on international televison and hence they impose the broad definition of the public place.
I blame any government that give into the moral pressure of the US and other moralist countries for injustices done to sex workers. I think the conditions you have to go through just to report a crime is absurd. The authorities put your case in the backburner and probably would take a traffic ticket case over yours because the government doesn't want the moralists to know you exist in their country.
If I were in Australia, I would give that client of yours a good old fashion butt kicking with the years of training I practiced kung-fu. Whoever messes with my friends messes with me. It seems the authorities don't do anything for sex workers anyway.

[Rubber Nursey]

Thanks for the well wishes, DJ (and Joe). :) Unfortunately, the issue IS income now...the situation got really very nasty and I am going to have to pay money for a while in order to protect myself. And I WISH it was only a small fraction of my annual income...unfortunately, I don't work in the industry any more (this guy was my only client for the last 5 months, and after this experience I just can't cope with the idea of working at the moment) and my current income is so low that I still receive welfare assistance on top of my fortnightly pay! Originally he was demanding my WHOLE wage...but now I've got it down to just over a third. So it's really hurting financially, and it's gonna be that way for the next three months. It's way too complicated to explain here, but trust me...this is the easiest way out.

Joe,

The submissions...actually I am working on my individual one, plus three others! (one for each of the groups I am associated with). This Bill is absolutely, positively, NOT viable...in ANY way. It has been written in complete ignorance, and the very "framework" of the thing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. It simply CAN NOT work...no matter what they add or subtract. It's like a house with shaky foundations...giving it a coat of paint and new carpet won't fix the underlying problems. It's always going to be unworkable because the main aim with this legislation is ABOLITION. One of their objectives actually reads "To deter persons from entering prostitution, and to assist those persons wishing to cease prostitution". Any fool can see that any attempt at the total abolition of prostitution, will FAIL.

We are demanding that the entire thing be scrapped. There is nothing that can be salvaged. Even if I completely disregard the impact it would have on sex workers...I could not in good faith allow these sorts of human and civil rights violations to set a precedent in WA law. This Bill is a policeman's wet dream. It has the ability to ultimately hurt ALL Western Australians and if we allow the Government to do this to the sex industry, then there is nothing stopping them from doing it again to another group...and then another, and another...

[Rubber Nursey]

Darkseid,

Parts of Australia have legalised prostitution, and in one state it's decriminalised. We have a town in WA that is an international tourist attraction due to it's brothel culture, and there is a brothel in Melbourne listed on the stock exchange! As a matter of fact, a while back your ex-President said to our media that (because of it's acceptance of the sex industry) Australia was at risk of being seen by the world as "morally corrupt"!! (Not that I give too much creedence to what was said...considering it came out of the same mouth that said "I did not have sex with that woman"!! LOL)

The majority of Australia is relatively accepting of prostitution and sexuality, and would probably never consider going the way that America has with regard to sex. However WA is (by comparison) an extremely conservative state...well, at least that's what our Government seems to think! Believe it or not, the current Government...the one trying to abolish prostitution...is the more PROGRESSIVE party of the two! I don't think that our Government is too concerned with international opinion (if they were, they wouldn't be violating every human rights covenant that we are signatories to)...it's more to do with the fact that the person making these laws is a practicing Catholic AND a woman.

But thanks for the offer of the ass-kicking for my ex-client...he sure as hell deserves one!!

[Joe Zop]

You're kidding - you're paying this guy money? For what? This is too strange and ridiculous for words -- please shed some light on the whole situation.

As far as the bill, let's face it -- the world climate of the times is one of overall repression, and conservative agendas are coming out of the woodwork in the face of that, looking to capitalize on people's fears and ignorance. It takes a lot to fight not only the trend but the specifics, and it will take still more work in the future to get it undone. It's doubtful that you're going to change the entire tone of the bill, as the government's certainly not going to substitute your framework for theirs, so snuffing the sucker and maintaining the status quo sounds like the best you're going to hope for at this point.

[Rubber Nursey]

Ohhhh Joe, I don't really know how to explain it. The abbreviated version goes like this...client was getting extremely discounted rates for a very long time; client decided to "thank me" for that at Christmas and gave me a gift of money (supposedly no strings attached); client finds out I've arranged to see someone else before him and tells me the money was "pre-payment" for future services; an email war starts, and in the process the pre-payment becomes a "loan"...and he wants it back; client starts emailing me and sending messages to my mobile making threats about what will happen if I don't "play by the rules"; I make arrangements to pay the money in installments (and start paying); client hasn't contacted me since.

He's serious Joe. The emails address me by my real name, he knows where I live, he hinted that he knows where I work (I daresay he followed me...which means he would also know where my kids school is, etc). I'm not going to mess around with it. I THINK (at least I hope) that I have all bases covered and that once the money is paid, it will be over. If not, I have some rather compelling evidence of blackmail/extortion/threatening behaviour...whatever you wanna call it...to show the cops.

As for the Bill...IF we can get rid of it completely (not that I like our chances because this legislation has a "history", and won't be given up in a hurry), I don't think that the current Government would try and introduce anything else in it's place. It would be too close to the next election by then. Too risky. The best thing that we could hope for, IMHO, is that it gets bogged down in Parliament. Things have been known to get "lost" in the process every now and then...especially really contentious legislation that everyone wants to wash their hands of.

I attended a public forum last night, with all the primary stakeholders represented...sex worker advocates, brothel owners, local residents, police, politicians, town councils, etc. It was very interesting...full of bullshit of course, with the cops and the pollies talking in circles and trying to confuse the rather naive residents...but we REALLY held our own. Lots of incredible stuff came up, (including admissions of police corruption and backroom deals between police, pollies and councils!), and it will all be available on CD for the whole community to hear. You gotta love that. There was only one person who WASN'T represented...have a guess who that was. Yep, the Police Minister blatantly refused to attend. The local paper even wrote a very sarcastic and derogatory article about her refusal to participate! I'm starting to think that the silly woman was just a "fall-guy" all along...and that SHE has just realised it!!

[Joe Zop]

Hmm, well, in retrospect it sounds as though a gift of that size should probably have been viewed as something with warning bells attached, but who can make that kind of judgement when things are going well?

If giving the money back will end things, then it sounds as though that's the simplest and cleanest way to get out, even if it is completely ridiculous. Do you have the same kind of information about him? (Real name, job, family, etc.?) I ask not because I think you'd want to use it but for your own protection. I hope you've scrupulously kept records of all of your correspondence with him, and I'd also make sure I had a copy of the phone records and pull all this stuff together into a file, just in case. It's unfortunate from a financial perspective that this whole thing has put you off seeing other clients, but on an emotional level that's certainly understandable.

I guess hell doth have other furies, and possessive men are definitely one of them. I do think that the attitude he displays mimics a lot of what one sees in various places on this board, which is the idea that "I've paid for her, so everything's up to me and I can do what I want" which has a basic dehumanizing function underneath it all. The whole issue of possession and equity is a very strange one, no doubt, and it's one that changes by perspective. I know that I had similar disconnections with the woman with whom I spent most of two months in Chiang Mai.

I was the only one giving her money (she really didn't want to be in the business, and is now out of it) and we had a constant back and forth about the amount of time and attention I expected in return for paying for everything. Wasn't about jealousy or possession, (or even sex, really, as that wasn't the main issue, as I was truly more after companionship) it was more that I didn't feel it should all be in one direction and that I should be getting an equitable amount of time and focus in return, and my definition of that was pretty liberal.

We did work it out, which is why it lasted as long as it did, and both of us ended up happy. She ended up with all her bills paid, a new and better place to live, a new job that means she can just go to school and take care of her family, some extra things for her kid, parents, and self, etc. I had a very pleasant interval with a beautiful and intelligent woman, someone to share time and experiences with while far from home and essentially alone in a strange place -- as well as managed to learn a lot since I basically got involved in every aspect of her life, from her family to her history to her dreams and way of thinking, etc. Plus, because I was aware exactly of her financial situation, I was able to help solve things in a way she couldn't manage, and at costs not at all unreasonable for me. (Mostly I helped her think differently about how she needed to deal with money.)

Now, if I was wired differently, that could very easily have been a dangerous situation for her both financially and emotionally, as I could have used the money to control her in a variety of ways. It just goes to show something we've discussed here before -- that in many cases the women involved in the trade are there because they see no good alternatives in terms of making the kind of money involved and still managing to move their lives forward in the directions they want.

As to the bill -- sounds as though stalemate is the tack to go for, then, if the differences are this wide and unresolveable. Good to hear that the press is tweaking, though it's not really surprising that the Police Minister didn't attend the forum, given that she's managed to be pretty well isolated and insulated throughout the whole process, from what you've previously said. You may well be right that she's the fall-guy, but she could also be a sacrificial lamb in this equation, though the question then, of course, is who's doing the sacrificing.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hello boys :)

Seems I haven't missed much in here, huh? As you probably know, I've been working hell for leather on my submission for the Prostitution Control Bill. Being a part of so many other things as well, meant that I always had to put my own submission on the backburner. I pulled a few all-nighters towards the end, but there just wasn't enough time. I eventually emailed the thing to her at 4.50pm Friday, which was 10 minutes before the submission period closed! It ended up being absolutely nothing like what I wanted...it was such a rush job. I'm really disappointed with myself. (Mind you, I still managed 53 pages and I said a majority of what I wanted to say - albeit badly - so I guess it could have been worse). Because I didn't get a chance within my submission, I now intend to create 'draft legislation' of my own and send it to them. They may not read it - probably out of spite, seeing as the consultation period is over - but it can't hurt to try.

Anyway, the good news - they received over a thousand submissions, and pretty much all of them were in total opposition to the Bill! (YAY!!) They included some really big names from some very important organisations, and the sex industry response was INCREDIBLE! (I bet that shocked the hell outta the Government!) And some EXTREMELY good news - although it is currently only 'gossip' and I don't want to get my hopes up just in case - there is a rumour going around today that the Bill has been WITHDRAWN!!! At the moment I don't dare even think about it, in case I jinx it! lol

If this is true, the most incredible part of it will be that sex workers fought for their rights, AND WON. Honestly, you have no idea what this experience has done for the sex industry here. Firstly it united everyone - street girls, brothel girls, private girls, boys and trannies, all working together. Secondly it made them feel truly empowered. For far too long, sex workers have had to be at the mercy of police and legislators and they couldn't say a word because of privacy concerns or attracting police attention. This time we managed to convince the Government to allow false names and addresses on documents, and we begged sex workers to sieze the risk-free opportunity while it was there. And they did!! Can you imagine how absolutely amazing it would be if they actually succeeded? If a bunch of hookers really managed to kick the Governments ass??!!

[Darkseid]

Wow! Congratulations on your victory over this horrible bill, RN. :) I wish something like this would happen here in the United States but each time I join a protest for porn or prostitution, we always get ruled out by the Puritan majority in this country. At least Australians aren't brainwashed that prostitutes are criminals so as to alienate them. In the US, the prostitutes, brothel owners, porno film makers, and transvestites, even when they join forces, would still be outnumbered and outvoted by the Puritan majority.:( Sex is just not accepted in America and that is why I lost all hope for this country and want to become an expat.

[Joe Zop]

That's great news, RN, though of course it would be better to know officially that the thing's withdrawn as opposed to via the rumo(u)r mill. Seems a little premature for any kind of announcement like that, if only so the government can save face.

And fifty-three pages is far from shabby as a submission, especially considering you were working on things for others. Any thoughts about what you should do with that? Seems a shame to let it just get turned into electronic mulch.

The real question for the sex industry in your region is really how can you take advantage of this new united front to make things better, as opposed to simply not worse. Any sense of whether people, now that they feel empowered, can can continue to work together?

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by darkseid
Wow! Congratulations on your victory over this horrible bill, RN. :) I wish something like this would happen here in the United States but each time I join a protest for porn or prostitution, we always get ruled out by the Puritan majority in this country. At least Australians aren't brainwashed that prostitutes are criminals so as to alienate them. In the US, the prostitutes, brothel owners, porno film makers, and transvestites, even when they join forces, would still be outnumbered and outvoted by the Puritan majority.:( Sex is just not accepted in America and that is why I lost all hope for this country and want to become an expat.

Ever hear this story? There are two imperial roman senators discussing how to prevent slaves from running away. The first senator says, "What if we brand a large mark on their foreheads? That would make them easily identifiable no matter where they went." The second senator becomes deathly pale, and states, in a fearful whisper, "Awful idea. If they could easily identify each other, then they would realize how badly they outnumber us!"

I don't think the puritan majority is anything more than a very public minority. They don't have to fear reprisals in there personal and professional lives by speaking out their ridiculous views. Like RN pointed out, it took a veil of anonymity to allow the sex industry to speak up for itself. If something like that could be accomplished (fat chance under the current regime) then, I think that the sex industry and its clientele would find out just how much clout could be brought to bear.

-- P & G

[The Virgin Terr]

welcome back, RN, and i'm happy to see you so upbeat about recent events, and to know your voice hasn't gone away.

purplengold (where'd that name come from?), welcome to the discussion. from what you've submitted thus far i think i'm going to appreciate your contribution. i'm going to play devil's advocate though to your idea that puritanical ideology is in the minority. i tend to be pessimistic about sexual freedom because i perceive that my own totally positive view of sex is completely foreign to the mixed or negative views of the majority. it's true that much sexual behavior is irresponsible with negative consequences. to me, that indicates a need to promote thinking about how to get people to behave more responsibly, but i think for most people it leads to condemnation of the sex drive itself. what do you think?

[Dickhead]

I disagree that puritanical attitudes in this country (the US) are merely a vocal minority. I blame it on the rise of Protestantism in general and Calvinism in particular in Western Europe in 17th-19th centuries. Read Robert Malthus' Essay on Population. He viewed the working class as being incapable of behaving responsibly sexually and felt that if they were given more than a subsistence level of food, they would reproduce in an unchecked fashion and doom the planet. His solution (at least in his second version) was to delay marriage to a much later age. Of course, this was only for the working class and the upper classes could do whatever they damn pleased. His essay was often used by the Victorians to justify their bizarre and extreme forms of sexual repression, as well as to justify paying shitty wages.

And VT, "much sexual behavior" would NOT be "irresponsible" and "lead to negative consequences" if all these fucking puritans weren't preventing decent sex education in the public schools, discouraging contraception, getting freaked out about masturbation, and condemning alternative sexual practices.

BTW I think purple and gold are probably the team colors of P & G's college.

[The Virgin Terr]

interesting shit about malthus and the victorians, dh. reminds me of something i read about clare boothe luce, the beautiful right wing wife of the right wing publisher of time magazine, henry luce. as i recall, claire luce was introduced to lsd in the 60's when she herself was about that age. well, ole claire absolutely loved the shit. but she still supported it's suppression (illegality) on the basis that the lower classes shouldn't know about it. it's the exact mentality that underlies the whole war on drugs, where accurate information is suppressed and government propaganda and coercion rule.

re. the whole issue of human attitudes towards human nature and human behavior, the basic supposition of christianity is that human nature is inherently "sinful" and in need of salvation. this provides the blueprint for all of our repressive laws and attitudes.

[Dickhead]

But where the Protestants broke from the earlier Christians was in believing that privately amassed capital was a good thing. Aquinas would never have stood for that. Malthus may have been totally wrong since he never anticipated that technological advancement would push the food supply curve out as far as it has. Or, he may have been right but it will take a few more centuries or perhaps millennia.

But in the context of prostitution, even though the world may not be overcrowded in absolute terms (or maybe it is), there are problems with population distribution and gender imbalance that lead to an increase in prostitution. Look at the tropics. They have higher birth rates but less productive land as compared to the temperate regions. That means far less chance of full employment, which means prostitution.

And gender imbalance in places like Colombia (due to murder) and Bolivia (due to war and migration) are now beginning to be replicated in Mexico as the predominately male breadwinners go to the US to work. Sometimes they don't come back and the women thus turn to prostitution. You have opposite gender imbalances in India and China due to female infanticide and selective abortion, the latter being particularly prevalent in China since the institution of the one-child policy. This is leading to a lack of suitable wives and a postponement of marriage, increasing the need for the males to patronize prostitutes.

Therefore, no analysis of the morality of prostitution is complete without an analysis of population problems. But fundamentally it is still the rich against the poor. Malthus came from a wealthy family and was one of eight children (in fact, although he did take his own advice and married quite late for his time, late 30s I think, he himself had three kids). Rich gringos travel to Costa Rica, etc., throw money around senselessly with no regard for local practices, and that fucks it up not only for the local guys but for cheap ass Dickheads like me.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry,

Thanks for the welcome back. :)
re. the whole issue of human attitudes towards human nature and human behavior, the basic supposition of christianity is that human nature is inherently "sinful" and in need of salvation. this provides the blueprint for all of our repressive laws and attitudes.

This is my belief as well - and (with regards to prostitution), I believe that WOMEN'S sexuality is considered PARTICULARLY sinful. Prostitution seems to be (almost) universally condemned by those cultures based on patriachal religions. Cultures with more 'pagan' leanings (not that there seem to be many of them!) do not seems to have the same low opinion of sex work. Historically, the repression of female sexuality seems to have always been of ultimate importance to the (male) lawmakers and religious authorities. For example, telling women that sex was sinful and that they should only do it with their husband for procreation, meant that men could be sure their children were really theirs and their lineage was 'untainted'. Women were not allowed to sleep with people above or below their station. Women were not allowed to be prostitutes. What that means is that men are NEVER to blame for their sexual indiscretions, because the women they sleep with are ALWAYS in the wrong!!! (Typical of patriachal religion, when men behave badly the WOMEN are to blame. Just look at the Adam and Eve crock...) I personally do not believe that attitude will ever really leave our legislation. It's too firmly ingrained in our culture.


Dickhead,

I think another thing that needs to be taken into account when talking prevalence of prostitution, is the existence of welfare services and 'extended families'. From every statistic that I've ever seen, the overwhelming majority of sex workers are single parents. (And others are supporting children as well as low paid or unemployed husbands). Obviously, accessibility to adequate welfare services would decrease the need for many of these mothers to join the sex industry. In countries with no Government welfare system, there are fewer options for women with children. A lot of the time, working actually puts you into further debt! In particular, single parents need to be able to earn more than a 'basic' wage, just to cover their childcare bill.

And in some cultures, for example, the Australian Aboriginals, they are really big on extended families - there might be three or four generations living under the same roof, which would decrease individual living expenses and there would be no need for working mothers to use childcare services. I think that would also affect the number of mothers who felt 'forced' to enter the sex industry. I don't have any real evidence to support that theory of course, but I do know there are very few Aboriginals working in the sex industry here. There are HUGE welfare resources made available to Aboriginals, and they often have extended families.

[Rubber Nursey]

Darkseid,

At least Australians aren't brainwashed that prostitutes are criminals so as to alienate them.

This Bill included fingerprinting, palm printing, photographs and probity checks for prospective sex workers; all civil and human rights - like the right to remain silent, innocent until proven guilty, etc - were written out; and sex workers were going to be forced to carry "Prostitutes ID cards"! That is most definitely "alienating" and treating us like criminals. Most people here believe that prostitution should not be a crime - but they also believe that the sex industry is not able to be left alone to operate by itself, so unfortunately there was a lot of agreement with the general aim of this Bill within the community. We were only listened to because we saturated the media, and told the community how it was going to affect THEM. People don't give a shit about our 'right' to have sex with who we please. They only care about how our behaviour impacts on THEIR lives.

It's nothing to do with outnumbering or outvoting them - we were grossly outnumbered during this fight!! It's about bringing the whole community together with a common goal. If we say we don't want license cards because it violates our human rights - they will just say we don't deserve the same rights as them, because we are wh*res. Stalemate. But if we say that licensing will lead to decreased access to health services, which will lead to more disease in the industry, which will lead to more disease in the community as well as greater strain on our already under-resourced Medicare system....they will stand alongside us against licensing cards. See what I mean? The main difference between here and America is that we have a small, organised group of very passionate individuals who are willing to scream loudly for the sex industry. From what I understand, you guys don't.


Purplengold,

Welcome honey! Awesome quote about the slaves - I'll definitely be making use of that in the near future!!

Joe,

Don't worry - I'm not counting my chickens before they've hatched. The 'gossip' did come from inside Parliament, but the person could have been wrong for all we know. I guess I'll have to wait and see. I agree it will probably be a while before they would make a formal announcement of that kind either way, just to save face. However, we have very publicly condemned their lack of community consultation during this period. Consultation and being 'accessible to the people' was this Government's major election platform. If they have scrapped the Bill, they MAY want to use the opportunity to say "The people have spoken and we are listening". Let's hope so, huh?

Oh and my submission will soon go onto my site, along with quite a few others. (I have to check the practicalities of that - the submissions are huge and will probably exceed my 'free website' limits). The copies sent to the Minister will become public record, and will be available from the Government library for all to read. Not a complete waste of time I guess.

[Dickhead]

rn, the problem with welfare or social services as an antidote to women being forced into prostitution is economic. australia has natural resources such as minerals and grain and therefore can create a social services or welfare infrastructure. the latin american countries, having being thoroughly raped by colonialism, can not. they lack democratic social institutions and the income and wealth stratification are extreme. in the amazon, the people know they are screwing themselves for the future when they deforest the land to get cooking fuel, but there is not a hell of a lot they can do about it on a short-term, subsistence level. nor do the caribbean countries have much in the way of natural resources. the bahamas is an excellent example. it was settled when plantation owners from the carolinas sailed there with their slaves to see if the land was good for growing cotton. it wasn't, so they sailed away in the middle of the night and left the slaves to fend for themselves, since it was cheaper to buy new slaves than to sustain all the old ones on the return trip. from a sociological perspective, perhaps this legacy of abandonment helps to explain the phenomenon there of the "out children," or children of men who already have an "official" family and thus do not support the out of wedlock kids.

i have chided you for this before and i will chide you for it again: your perspective is clearly that of someone who hasn't experienced countries that are thoroughly impoverished. it is simply unrealistic to think that any significant form of social welfare is a realistic solution in such countries.

and, as we've also discussed before, there is plenty of poverty in the us and although social services exist, the puritans who run the social services want to take prostitutes' children away and put them in foster homes, instead of helping them to support them. and, again using mexico as an example, since the us does not make social services available to illegal immigrants and generally not even to legal immigrants, there is little incentive for the entire family to sneak across the border. so, normally only the guy does. many, many times these fine hard working people achieve their goal of working for a while, sending money back to their families, and returning when they get the chance. other times they get thrown in jail. other times they are lonely and meet another woman and have a kid with her and it becomes convenient to forget about their other family back home.

continuing to use mexico as an example, although this can be applied to other former colonies as well, the largest gang [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) in history took place there. the legacy of this is that the mexican hates his hispanic father who represents the [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126), but does not respect his indian mother who represents the victim. the vast majority of mestizos, or hispanic/indian blend, have hispanic fathers and indian mothers, at least if you trace it back to colonial times. this goes a long way to explaining the "macho" phenomenon in these cultures: double sexual standards, wife beating, etc.

on the other hand, most of the prostitutes in the us are junkies. yes, a lot of them have kids but unlike in latin america, they are not doing prostitution to support their kids. they are neglecting their kids and feeding their pipe instead. all i can do about that is apologize. so, morally, i try to avoid us prostitutes and redistribute what little wealth i have (there is not enough money to pay people in my profession after all the athletes and movie stars have bellied up to the trough, apparently) to latin american prostitutes.

[Rubber Nursey]

Noooo DH. I wasn't saying that welfare was a SOLUTION to prostitution - I was just saying that it's existence may affect the number of women working as prostitutes in various countries. Those countries that have no welfare systems - like the poorer ones you mentioned - seem to have huge numbers of sex workers.

To my knowledge, my country has one of the best welfare systems in the world. Single mothers are able to choose to stay at home and be paid (what's equal to) the minimum wage by the Government. I think that could be one of the reasons why our sex industry is comparatively small. I certainly don't have any research to back that up of course, but I do feel that it contributes.

[Dickhead]

But Western European countries such as The Netherlands in particular and Belgium as well have extremely good and extensive social welfare systems, yet mucho mucho prostitution as well. I can't say if their welfare systems are more extensive or "better" (worse of course rather than better if you are a Bush supporter) than Australia's since my area of expertise is prostitution and not welfare, but at least roughly comparable I would venture. How, then, do we account for the well-established prostitution there? In The Netherlands it appears to be a way to attract foreign capital (sex tourism); this is understandable when you realize that country has virtually no natural resources and has always depended on foreign trade and being an intermediary. But, in Belgium the scene appeared to be geared to locals (although most of the hookers I ran into were not Belgian).

This brings me back to the VT hypothesis and makes me think that prostitution exists because it is fun to have sex with different people and then not have to worry about getting all involved in a relationship with them. And, if we didn't have the puritan influence we could just have the sex without the prostitution. That's kinda what it was like in the US in my adolescence when the drugs were better.

[Rubber Nursey]

That's interesting - is prostitution legal in the Netherlands and Belgium?

[Dickhead]

In The Netherlands, prostitution is "pretty much" legal. I say that because they have a concept there: "It is not legal but it is permitted." But basically yes. There is even a drive up red light district that is owned by the city of Amsterdam. Amsterdam is a great city for museums and culture, and you can get weed there legally and women there legally. Too bad the weather sucks and the hotels are damned expensive (true of all of Northern Europe IMO). The local women are gorgeous so when I go there I just watch them bike by in their long plaid skirts and I am fully operational. They are tall and fair like you with very healthy looking skin, hair, teeth, etc. My opinion based on my travels is they are the most beautiful women in the world on average although there are more absolutely beautiful women in Spain. But I digress as that has nothing to do with morality.

In Belgium there are some red light districts that have been subject to increasing restrictions in the past few years. There are also obvious brothels. Whether it is officially legal or merely tolerated, I am not completely sure. I think it is technically illegal or restricted to certain areas. But it sure as hell isn't like the US where it is DEFINITELY neither legal nor officially tolerated AND sucks. Some guys say there are great escorts available in the US who will do anything you want for $400 an hour US and if I ever have that kind of money I will let you know. Oh, wait a minute; no I won't. I will go to Argentina and get laid ten times an hour for the same money instead. Now that is more moral as I am redistributing wealth.

[Rubber Nursey]

Thanks for that. I was just thinking that the legal status would probably have a lot to do with whether people stayed at home on welfare or went out and worked. As you know, prostitution is illegal here. Aside from street work, it is pretty much tolerated (well, there is constant police harrassment but not usually arrests) BUT people on the 'outside' don't know that. If you were to read our newspapers, you would get the impression that our brothels are rundown shacks in dark, dingy alleyways, run by biker gangs and crime syndicates - not that they were multi-million dollar purpose-built establishments, run by businesswomen who pay taxes. And according to our media, police are always "cracking down" on the sex industry.

People entering the industry often presume that their choice is going to take them into the seedy underbelly of Perth, and that they could be arrested by police at any minute. That may be a reason why many would choose welfare over sex work. In a place where prostitution is 'accepted' and the industry is out in the open, sex work may seem like a more viable option.

Out of interest - are the women in the cities you mentioned more 'professional' (generally of course) about their work? Would you say that most of those women CHOOSE to work in the sex industry - rather than being foced by circumstance or a third party- more often than, for example, in a third world country?

[Joe Zop]

RN, I doubt your tome will exceed your free web limit unless you try to turn it into a PDF file or something like that, and probably not even then unless you do something complex with it. I you don't put it up as web pages, just pop it up as a text or zip file -- shouldn't be any larger than one of your jpgs, and probably smaller.

As far as the whole legal process goes -- I'm reminded of a quote by Otto von Bismark, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." Unfortunately, contrary to that, if you don't know what's ground up inside, you may not like the taste.

I think your perspective about how people react to laws is exactly correct -- they first look at how the law is going to affect them personally, and make a judgement based on that. If they don't use prostitutes, don't work as one, well, then curtailing rights means nothing. On the other hand, if health problems result, and costs go up, then it does affect them andthey'll pay attention. That's one of the great secrets to advocacy action -- push the button that shows people this has to do with them if you want a reaction.

To chime in on the Netherlands/Belgium versus Third World debate, I think the bottom line is that in those instances there are two aspects involved. First is simply social climate -- the Netherlands and Belgium have always been relatively liberal in terms even of European perspectives, perhaps because they're small, basically port-oriented and thus have usually had a fair amount of multi-country interaction and influence. If you get sailors coming to port on a regular basis you're going to have to find some way to accomodate them, lest they come in, bust up the local area, and then sail away. Or worse, come in, knock up a bunch of daughters of the middle class, and then leave. You don't want to restrict the sailors, because your economy depends on their ships. Prostitution is a practical social solution. The second things is the relative degree of wealth and social stability that are there, reflected in welfare practices, so prostitution is far more a "choice" than "the only avenue open." I've only been to Amsterdam a couple of times, but a large number of the women I saw in the RL district there were foreign, though there were also Dutch women working, of course. In my conversations with women there (of course I can never help but talk and ask questions :)) most of the foreign women said they came there specifically to work in the industry, because it was safe, the rules were clear, and they didn't have to worry about being treated like a criminal. The Dutch women said, well, it's a job where I can make a lot of money. There's little social stigma, which makes a huge difference in a western context.

It's simply different in the Third World, no matter what, and virtually anywhere geographically there are some similar underpinnings. In the Third World, everyone, and I mean everyone, is an entrepreneur by nature, because there is not sufficient financial structure and support to presume that you're going to receive regular assistance on anything from your government. There are not enough formal "positions" available as regular jobs to go around, and, in many places, even if there are you may need to know someone or to grease palms to get or keep them. So survival and an ability to make your life better depends on a perspective of having something within your own control that you can use on to make money and get food. Whether this is hustling trinkets for tourists, renting pirate videos to locals, making ready-made food on busy streets, or prostitution, the underpinning is still one of personal entrepreneurship and control. This is what you do to feed your family and to get ahead.

Thus, the whole stigma issue is different. There may be moral or societal codes (as in South America with Catholicism) but those are generally trumped by an understanding of practical realities -- in the same way the moral structure of the Church has historically mixed with pagan practicalities throughout the world. You may believe in Jesus, but the church doesn't have anything that directly addresses the need for rain for the crops or good luck for healthy harvest, so you also make sacrifices or offerings to the appropriate minor deities or gods that do. Same thing with prostitution -- while it may technically violate the Church's moral structure, it's mitigated by the fact that the intent is not sin, but sacrifice, as you're providing for your family. Therefore, it exists in a state where it can be officially condemned but also sympathetically understood and tolerated. In situations where other religions, such as Buddhism, are involved, the religions strictures are simply less intolerant and damning on the surface of things, and that also helps mitigate social perspective.

It also changes the situation of the parents involved -- indenturing your child in prostitution, while negative, is often seen as a sad choice made for the good of the family on both sides of the equation -- the parents are surrendering higher social aspirations for that child, and the child is sacrificing herself for the improvement of the family. (I mention this not because I'm at all in favor of it, though some women willingly make this "sacrifice" for their families -- the outcomes here are the kinds of things I loathe in terms of condition and issues of personal choice, and I'm in favor of aggressively going after the operators of such enterprises -- but because people in the west simply cannot understand how a family could do this, and put uniformly negative and heartless labels on the family as opposed to looking at the social stucture.) The same perspective applies in cases where it's not about indenture, but choice. It's the responsibility of grown children to care for the parents who have cared for them, so many times the youngest adult daughter(s) end up in prostitution to help fulfill their family responsibilities (this happens often throughout southeast Asia.) Visible improvement in the family's situation is critical to the equation, as without it there's no justification -- so the addition of electricity, some new clothes and additional food, etc. demonstrates the practical and social correctness of the sacrifice, since the family as a whole sees improvement, and the community can see it as well. So though this child is sacrificing her social aspirations (and thereby will need and deserve support later, after her working days are finished) the family as a whole sees true benefit, and often a rise, as opposed to reduction, in social status.

[Dickhead]

originally posted by rn
out of interest - are the women in the cities you mentioned more 'professional' (generally of course) about their work? would you say that most of those women choose to work in the sex industry - rather than being foced by circumstance or a third party- more often than, for example, in a third world country?

i am not really sure what you mean when you say "professional" in this context (note to jz: when faking being european be sure to use single quotation marks like rn did and not double ones like i just did). brussels wasn't so great for mongering and i never met any hookers who were belgian. i remember a black jamaican woman, a polish woman, and a gal from slovenia. being a dickhead, i do not take the jz social science perspective of asking a lot about their backgrounds, although i do often enjoy talking to them. that is assuming we have a language in common. my french is not sufficient to do much more than negotiate price and services so when in belgium i try to find english speakers and that may account for why i never ran into any belgian hookers. but as jz said, there are lots of local girls in a'dam, and they all speak english. the dutch are the most cunning linguists in the world and are required to study i believe five languages in school. my experience has been that they are a bit too antiseptic so i usually try to find thai girls there (of whom there are many). i would never get to the point of asking a hooker why she got into the business, though. all the hookers in a'dam certainly appear to be there of their own free will, but certainly the economic realities in their own countries are a factor.

however, since i hate pimps i would do my best not to choose a hooker who was being forced into it by a "third party." i have not been to southeast asia and the more i read this board, the less i want to go there partially for those type of reasons. i mongered a lot in hong kong and all the girls were mainland chinese and not from hong kong. i was not going to brothels there due to 1) language barriers and 2) being a lazy dickhead so i just pulled women off the street right by my hotel. i do not think there were any third parties involved. i remember one quite excellent experience with a gal from beijing who had one of those electronic translators in one hand, a currency converter in another hand, and a cell phone in another hand. we were standing there on the street by the tsim tsat tsui subway station, trying to work out price and service in this fashion. it was hilarious. i was with a friend and girls kept coming by and tugging on his sleeve, saying "massage!" "sex!" and he was freaking out. some of them were **** for sure. i have heard anecdotaly that there is forced prostitution in hong kong.

now as far as being forced into it and third parties are concerned, i had lengthy conversations with several of the women i screwed in buenos aires. no pimps, just boyfriends who knocked them up and ran off, and no jobs in the outlying provinces, so more or less "forced" to move to the city and hook. but the two i chatted with the most (did a repeat with one and spent a whole evening with her which for me is most unusual) mentioned that they liked sex a lot and so it was an easy choice. i got flamed on the board over there for recommending these two street walkers over going to the clubs. people were slamming me for recommending something so "dangerous." what a load of crap. they were nice sweet girls. the unemployment rate there is 25% so you have to factor that in. prostitution is supposedly illegal in argentina but i can't see how that could possibly be because there are mind-boggling numbers of streetwalkers, tons of clubs, jillions of outcall girls, and so forth. plus, the non-prostitutes will screw on the first date so that is handy.

in mexico, where i have a lot of experience, many of the girls are being "managed" by someone and a lot of them don't seem to like or feel good about what they are doing. i feel few mexican women would "choose" to be prostitutes. there i tend to choose clubs over streetwalkers, try to find a girl with a good attitude and get her phone number so i can call her later and avoid the pimp issue to a somewhat greater degree. more moral and a lot cheaper too! that is the only country i have mongered in where all the hookers are from that country. other places appear to have a majority of foreigners, or in the case of argentina, not a majority but a significant minority (mostly from brazil and paraguay).

the only place i have been where i know for sure that sex for money between consenting adults is absolutely legal absolutely everywhere (but only if there are no fucking pimps involved) is costa rica. my experience there is that the majority of the prostitutes are from colombia and the dominican republic; i had a few costa rican gals but was not impressed. there's jobs available in costa rica, by and large, and the costa rican gals i met usually had a day job and were hooking by free choice to have money for luxury items. therefore i would say they were choosing the work based on its relatively high rate of pay rather than sheer economic necessity.

so is hooking to buy nice clothes less moral than hooking to feed your kids? don't know don't care because i don't think prostitution is the least bit immoral anyway. i say that to my friends and i get the old "would you want your sister to do it?" line. i doubt it would bother me. what's funny is my female friends seem to be less bothered about my hobby than my male friends. i do think that if the woman has to take all comers as is the case in some places, that is immoral.

[Joe Zop]

I'm with you, DH, that it doesn't really matter why someone is in the game -- as far as I'm concerned, one can do whatever one wants with/to their body as long as it's not harming someone else. (And my sisters can and will do what they damn well please regardless of my attitude about it, and they're still going to be my sisters. As long as they don't become politicians...) My point in talking about the whole indentured servitude aspect was more about the cultural differences in terms of family attitude and reasoning than anything at all about justification.

Don't get me wrong on Southeast Asia -- it's far from all indentured servitude, which is in the minority, and in fact you'll come across far more of that in, say, India, than you will in Thailand or Indonesia. It absolutely depends on where you are -- something like that is more likely in Cambodia, for example, and families in Vietnam, Burma, and Nepal are more likely to indenture their daughters. It's also true that even in some of these same brothels there are women who are absolutely there by choice as well. Personally, I'm not much for brothels anyway, and I avoid such a scene in the region on principle, as even if I'm paying an independent I'm supporting the system, but there are tons of other options in any event -- in all places in SEA there are a wide range of freelancers. I don't actually see a huge difference between Thailand and some of the Caribbean/Central/South American areas in terms of overall scene, though there are obvious cultural and magnitude differences. There are actually far fewer pimps or handlers in SE Asia than in most other places, though there are probably more boyfriends/husbands in the background, chiefly because of the distinctions between "farangs" and locals. But these are intentionally hidden by the women involved, as they are generally selling the "girlfriend experience" and that would be harmful to the illusion. You get tons of women in Thailand with the exact same story as you've described in BA -- a high percentage of the women I met there were supporting kids who their parents were looking after, after their Thai boyfriend/husband had split. And the usual approach was to go from someplace rural to a larger city a ways away. The unemployment rate in Thailand is fairly low, so it's not all about lack of options.

And for what it's worth, I'm not one to grill anyone or ask how they got into the game -- just asking someone about themselves is usually all it takes to get the story, as many women want to explain themselves once they're treated as a normal person. (And I generally like to know who I'm spending time with no matter what the circumstances.) The reality is that few people, in or out of the game, can resist telling their life story if given the opportunity which is something I learned during my journalism years, where I was constantly surprised how much information people would give to someone when knowing it could/would end up printed somewhere.

[Dickhead]

JZ, I am not saying that you are "grilling" the women but more saying that I sort of don't give a shit some of the time. And I am not saying that I wouldn't go to SEA based on the indenture thing. I am just saying that between the humidity and the bugs and Freeler and Skinless' pet rats that I will stick to Latin America where I know the language and understand the culture. I am not sure I would do well in a consensus-type culture, being a Dickhead and so forth.

[Joe Zop]

Understood, but I seriously don't find it any worse in terms of climate, bugs, etc., than most of the other places I mentioned. Freeler and Skinless were talking, I might add, about a particularly grungy $3/night hotel I looked at based on their encouragement and decided not to stay in, sorta cheap hooker heaven in one of the less attractive cities in Thailand. And the culture's mostly Buddhist, so they're fairly tolerant -- they get tons of tourists so they're pretty used to Dickheads by now, and I suspect you'd be one of the less obnoxious, as you at least have a brain attached and some tolerance for different ways of thinking, unlike many travellers I met there. If you were comfortable in Mexico and Costa Rica there's no reason to worry about SEA. Heck, my 73-year-old mother managed it twice.

[Dickhead]

Oh, I am not WORRIED about it. I have BIG brass balls if nothing else. I was mostly kidding about the rats and I realize that Skinless and Freeler tend to stay in shall we say "low end accomodations." It just doesn't sound to me like I'd feel quite as at home as I do in Latin America. I think I am actually Mexican and not Irish and got switched at birth in my crib. But I use a modified Dickhead approach in Mexico and not full Dickhead mode. Full Dickhead mode works great in Amsterdam and it worked really great in Buenos Aires. The weather in the tropics is just a bit too extreme for me unless it is at altitude. It's a moot point right now as I am all scheduled out until 2004.

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, what has been your experience with long term relationships? i'm curious, because it appears u prefer prostitution for both it's convenience and that it's a way to have sex without a relationship. i, on the other hand, prefer relationships and sex to go together, perhaps because i want so much more from women than just sex, but lacking charm or access to a society that's amenable to my views, and thus alienated, i have to resort to prostitution, and go without relationships. if i was to have a relationship i think my ideal partner would be a prostitute, and i would support her decision to "work", both because i would benefit financially from her income as her mate, and also because i want to do anything i can to encourage prostitution because i have empathy for all the other lonely guys like me in the world. don't u miss having someone to love, i mean more than for just a quick fuck? don't u miss having someone to share your life with on a day to day basis, sharing thoughts, dreams, losses and victories? creating memories and a bond which transcends the physical?

i have a similar question for RN: didn't u miss, while u were working, having a deep relationship? i know u've said in the past how possessive u r and how u couldn't understand or respect a man who wouldn't be possessive of u, so u can't have a deep relationship with anyone while working, but didn't u miss it just the same? if prostitution is to become truly "moral", doesn't it have to become a "job" whose participants can lead completely "normal" and complete lives?

[The Virgin Terr]

to clarify my last post: don't get me wrong, i love propositioning women whose beauty knocks my socks off. it's just that, in a perfect world, i'd want to have a relationship along with the paid sex. having a relationship has other fringe benefits as well. once a women knows u'll be sticking around for awhile, if she likes u, u can get some great discounts, as well as alot of outright freebies!

[Dickhead]

Well, that is an EXTREMELY personal question. I have had 3 LTRs as in shacking up, including one marriage. 6 months, 7 years, 2.5 years respectively. #1 was great but she had goals and ambitions beyond what I had and was somewhat out of my league, or at least the league I was in at that time (her family was way rich, like tens of millions of dollars, and I was a high school dropout who grew up so poor I had to jack off the dog just to feed the cat, plus she was Jewish and would never have married outside the faith). We both knew that going in and when she graduated she was gone. We knew it would end that way. Only mildly painful and I learned a lot. #2 was true love. We got married after 3 years and it went downhill fairly quickly. She was emotionally unstable which I could not deal with in the long run, having grown up with a completely insane, manic depressive parent. The instability got worse over time and plus I was not ambitious or well-educated enough for her (she had a graduate degree and I was a high school drop out). Class differences. The divorce was not a bad one. The breakup was pretty painful. I got over it after maybe a year. #3 was a waste of time. We were co-workers and it was easy but as I believe I have posted previously, she immediately began to gain a LOT of weight and developed lockjaw. Now the tables were turned vs. the marriage and she was not ambitious or well-educated enough for me (I was in the process of working my way through college at the time and she was pretty ignorant, not well traveled, etc.) Breakup was only nasty in that it was hard to get her to move out of my house and I finally had to just say look you got 30 days. We stayed friends for several years but then drifted apart over an issue of me lending her money and her not repaying it as agreed (although she finally did). I was faithful during all these relationships, at least during the live-in and committed stages.

I had a very good friend who I used to screw off and on when neither of us was in a relationship, or more accurately when I wasn't in a relationship and she was pissed off at her boyfriend du jour. After 20 years of friendship and 10 or 12 years of off and on fucking, we began to get emotionally involved. She said she wanted to leave her boyfriend for me. We went on a trip and it was great. We sealed the deal for her to tell her boyfriend she wanted out. She got cold feet and decided not to do it, largely because she thought he had more money than me (he didn't) and was willing to support her in a more luxurious house, etc. She wasn't honest with me about and kept saying she was waiting for the right time to tell him. Finally she leveled with me. That one really hurt, big time. It's been 3.5 years since this all went down and I was in pretty bad shape for close to a year. Fucking a lot of hookers helped me get over it, for sure. She is still with him and amazingly we repaired our friendship, although it took a long time. The friendship is pretty good right now but I did permanently lose a lot of respect for her. Now the boyfriend, who quit his job at the height of tech boom to start his own business, is going bankrupt and she is dropping hints again. Ain't gonna happen.

Do I miss having something to love? Sometimes. Do I find having to constantly consider another person's wants and feelings annoying? Yes. Do I want another relationship? Maybe, but this time there's gotta be more in it for ME. ME ME ME this time. Do I think it will happen? Probably not. Do I think it has a higher probability of happening in Latin America than in the US? Definitely. Is that why I am moving down there, at least part-time? No. Would I be moving down there if there weren't lots of prostitutes? No. Will I be 100% faithful in the next relationship if it ever happens? No, I will nail anything that moves. Do I enjoy sex without relationships? Yes, very much.

Do I think you, VT, can have a loving relationship with someone who is out there hooking? I doubt it. Could I do it? I doubt it but my odds are better than yours since you are a tender, sensitive guy and I am a fucking Dickhead. Would I do it? Absolutely not.

[The Virgin Terr]

i should also add that i want more prostitution because i have empathy for women who could benefit from it's social acceptance; women who like sex and would benefit economically from being able to sell it. gotta go now, but i have much yet to say on this and related subjects.

[The Virgin Terr]

i can reply to dickhead's post i just read b4 i go. dickhead, i can empathize with your heartbreak, having been there bigtime myself once, following a 6 year relationship/marriage. i was devastated for about a year afterwards, and it changed me permanently, radicalizing and liberating me from previous limitations such as sexual jealousy. partly i think i can speak so blithely about sharing a lover because i've never had the experience with anyone i truly cared about. it probably would be very difficult, but i think with the right ideal person, if she exists, it could work. my relationship role models are a couple that are friends of mine and have been together over 30 years, with most of that time having a very open relationship, the kind where it doesn't bother one to watch the other getting fucked by someone else. people who are completely tuned into sex in a completely free way. don't know how they manage it, but they are so much closer and more affectionate with one another than any other couple i've known, i think because they don't need to hide anything from each other.

relationships do require effort and sacrifice, so unless the benefits outweigh the costs, they aren't worth it. that's why compatibility is so important. u have to find someone who can support u emotionally and who u can respect and have platonic friendship, and shared interests. and if u have a compelling dream or goal to pursue, your mate must share that also.

i'm not as smart or knowledgable or "manly" as u probably r, so you're right about it being more difficult for me to get women, any kind of woman. for someone to fall in love with me she'll have to get to know me and she'll also have to share my worldview and my desire to be a "messiah", or liberator of society. aren't many out there like that i suppose, so it may well never happen. but as far as being tender and sensitive, those qualities are part of being strong, part of love, and i'm sure women appreciate that.

[Dickhead]

You are an idealist who wants to CHANGE the system. I am pragmatist who would rather figure out ways to BEAT the system or be happy within it. There are a lot of changes to the system I would favor but I lack your zealotry to be the one to change it. Too difficult and I am too lazy. Also I have no interest in watching anyone fuck anyone. I am not into threesomes or swapping although I have tried it. I don't like to fuck with any third, fourth, fifth, etc. party in the room. It is just not my bag. And, if I were watching someone fuck my girlfriend I would then be in the same room with a naked guy with a hard on and that has NO appeal to me.

What if you watch your girlfriend fuck some other guy and she comes better with him than she does with you? You would not be able to handle it. You are a dreamer, albeit an articulate and undoubtedly nice one. I want to live in the real world.

PS: I never said anything about you not being able to get a woman although you have certainly said it yourself many times.

[Rubber Nursey]

I wish you wouldn't all bring up so many fabulous points while I'm sleeping - makes it impossible for me to comment on them in less than 2000 words.

Firstly I really gotta ask Joe and DH...what's up with the European spelling stuff? Are you saying that Americans don't use the terms "I've" or "I'd"? That's really odd. As for my quotation marks - well, that probably just comes from the fact that I never finished highschool and I'm doing it wrong! lol For me, single quotation marks usually means 'for want of a better word'.

Joe,

I wasn't really worried about my submission alone taking up too much room (I'll probably just put it up as a Word document or something), I was more concerned that I wouldn't be able to put too many other people's submissions up with it, because they are all terribly big. If that's the case, I'll just pick the best ones.

re: indentured servitude. The trafficking of Asian women into Australia is something that took me a very long time to come to terms with - much like child prostitution - and (as you suggested) it really was a matter of looking past my 'morals' and what I believed was right, and understanding the story behind it. In the past two years I have spoken to 2 Thai women who were in this situation. They were brought into Oz with the promise of waitressing work and schooling, and then forced to have sex instead. They had their passports taken away, worked in locked-down brothels and gave most of the money they earned to the owners to pay off their $40,000 'debts'. I was horrified and wanted to help these women out of this awful situation...until I discovered they wanted to stay IN it. Even on the small 'wage' they were being paid each week, they had never seen so much money in all their lives. They were sending money to their parents back home and making plans for when their time was up. One was saving to buy a shop in Thailand. The other was planning on marrying one of her regular clients and staying in Australia.

Ideally, they would have been able to come over to Australia legally, sponsored by brothel owners to work in legal brothels, but that isn't possible here at the moment (it's something that's going into my suggestions to the Government though). Until then, this is the only option these girls have to make all this money. If they are caught, they are deported, so they do not want to be 'helped' out of it at all. It still breaks my heart - to see women exploited in this way - but I have learned to try and see it through their eyes. My interfering would only make things much worse for them.


DH -- thanks so much for all that info. IF we have got rid of this Bill (I'm still too scared to believe it may have actually happened) it will be time to talk other options with the Government. Showing them other places where it works for all - the workers, the clients and the community - will help.

Gotta run. Terry -- I'm not ignoring you. Will answer your question tonight.

[Joe Zop]

RN -- well, the European spelling is really more American spelling, in not using "ou" in colour/color, etc. And while, yes, Americans do recognize and use "I've" and "I'd" DH's correct in pointing that it's not heavily done, and does have some regional aspects.

A small suggestion for your site -- if you're going to put things up as Word documents, then load them into Word and use the "save as" function to save them under new names. This can dramatically reduce the size of the file -- after multiple edits and saves Word docs can get pretty bloated with "undo" information. You could probably reduce them further by saving as Rich Text (RTF) files, which basically every wordprocessor, including Word, can recognize.

The whole indenture thing is really complex, and occurs with many variations and types. In the case you mention I'd have far more qualms, as there truly was no advance knowledge or assent, but many women/girls do in fact understand in advance that they are being indentured, try (naturally) to talk their families out of it, but then acquiesce and "do their family duty." Again it comes down to cultural differences in terms of family obligation and structure, and I don't pretend to emotionally understand all the nuances, though I think I've gained a fairly good understanding of the overall dynamics. (In some ways I'm reminded of boys being apprenticed during the middle ages, where their situations could also be incredibly harsh and difficult, and there often wasn't even a wage involved, only room, board, and learning a trade.)

The difference in the economics cannot be overlooked -- it can take say 40 to 60 thousand baht to buy and open, say, a small food stall, which works out to 900-1400USD. That's a tremendous amount in a country where many office workers earn 4000-7000baht a month, but for the women you mention, even in their scenarios of clearly unfair money distribution, that's a very viable plan and they can even be far more ambitious. (If they're go-go dancers in Bangkok they can make that much in a month, but they'll never save it or leave the biz to open a such a business.) In a brothel in Cambodia or Thailand or wherever they will not make anywhere near what they're making in Oz, but their debt load is far, far lower. Even so, many will prefer to stay once they're paid off, as the same reality of the business is true there -- it pays far more than most other options women from these circumstances have. And that's true even in the out-of-the-way little towns where people are paying $5USD or less per session.

I think what it demonstrates is the need to include those affected or involved in the contextualizing and changing of their situations. It's easy for someone like me from a reasonably wealthy country to make snap judgements about situations based on my own expectations and sense of "what's right" but as you say, attempts to "help" might actually be actually very damaging to the very people targeted for improvement.

And we're sorry to wreck your sleep -- not! :D It's been a while since there was a decent discussion going on in this section. (I do so wish Philip Augustus was still with us -- his intelligent and lively voice is definitely missed!)

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, i can get a woman, but she has 2b as special as i am. my zealotry is both a blessing and a curse. zealots need other zealots 2 relate 2. zealots either end up heroes or goats; it's a role of the dice, like anything in life. just because you're not a zealot doesn't mean u aren't special. like i said b4, you're smarter and more worldly than i am, and it takes all types to make a world. i'm wiser or crazier, but in any case, i can't b "normal", i can't adapt 2 anything i can't relate 2. only time will tell how things turn out. i can either b a martyr or a loser: i hope i can find the courage 2b the former.

RN, you're thinking is still confused and contadictory. oh, i'm sorry, i misread your message. maybe you're not confused after all. you're right about the tragedy of thai women being deceived into becoming prostitutes, and you're also right about the rightness of not imposing you're solutions upon them. it's an imperfect world for sure. everyone makes mistakes, so we can only hope that they result in making lemonaid out of lemons. i'm looking forward 2 your response 2 my earlier query.

[Rubber Nursey]

"didn't u miss, while u were working, having a deep relationship? i know u've said in the past how possessive u r and how u couldn't understand or respect a man who wouldn't be possessive of u, so u can't have a deep relationship with anyone while working, but didn't u miss it just the same?"

You have to remember that I started working during an extremely bitter divorce from a violent drunk. The previous four years of my life had been a living hell. I did NOT want a relationship for a very long time after that. When I was working I had regular sex at work, and good friends around me to share personal problems with. So no, I don't really think I missed being in a relationship all that much.

For the last few years I have occasionally thought that perhaps it might be nice. Aside from my immediate family, nobody has said "I love you" to me for 7 years. I think about that sometimes, and it hurts a bit. However, I am also enjoying my independence. I have spent the majority of my adult life in relationships, and it's really nice to have autonomy and not have to worry about someone else's feelings all the time (I already have to organise my whole life around the needs of my children - a partner only makes things more difficult).

The thing that concerns me about your wanting to be in a relationship with a prostitute, is that you seem to equate this with an "open relationship". That because she was having sex with heaps of men a day, you would be able to screw around too. I think if you ever do end up dating a sex worker, you're going to get a very rude shock! It's just not the same thing. The closest thing I can think of to use as an example would be a gynaecologist. If I was married to a gyno, I would be perfectly comfortable with him poking around between women's legs during his working days - but would it be the same thing for him to go around fingering other women outside of work?? And should *I* be allowed to go around fingering other women for fun, just because my husband does it in the course of his work?

That is the very reason why I would not date while working. Because men cannot see past the "sex" that a sex worker has, and they always seem to figure that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I was going to have a partner while I was working, I would only ever date another sex worker (past or present). a) they would understand the difference between work and sex, and b) they would never throw the fact that I was a wh*re back in my face. (It would make issues of disclosure at the beginning of the relationship less complicated as well).

"if prostitution is to become truly "moral", doesn't it have to become a "job" whose participants can lead completely "normal" and complete lives?"

There are many sex workers in loving and beautiful relationships. It takes special kinds of people and a special kind of understanding I think - but it's certainly possible.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

I met the two girls that I mentioned at different times, but they were both from the same establishment. They were being paid around $500 a week. (That probably sounds like a lot, but not when you consider that they were on-call 24 hours a day, 6 days a week. They would probably see at the very least 8 men a day, at $200 per hour). As much of a rip-off as that seems to me - it was a hell of a lot of money once it was sent back home to their family.

It absolutely shits me that women in third-world countries can't do this legitimately. If they were able to come to Oz legally, they would have no need for these lowlife pimps. Brothels would be able to sponsor Asian girls and pay their airfare over here (they do that at the moment for girls from interstate - pay the airfare, then take it back from their first couple of bookings). Of course the Government won't do that, because they would be seen to "condone prostitution". Stupid assholes - would they rather be seen to condone Asian syndicates trafficking women??

Anyway, thanks for the website help. I'm such a fool when it comes to all things technological! lol I'm gonna go put it up now.

[Joe Zop]

RN, see -- $500AUD is more than 50,000baht each month, which is a massive amount. (And in USD it's 80,000baht, which is a mind-boggling amount for people who have lived on 100baht a day.) I think this should also be looked at in the context of what many women from SEA do in terms of going abroad to work in other countries.

Hong Kong and Singapore are filled with thousands of domestics from Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, where they are poorly paid by local standards but paid highly compared to what they can make at home. Hong Kong has something like 225,000 of these workers, more than half from the Philippines, and there's been a lot of controversy over the past year, as and organization representing the workers rejected have efforts to raise their minimum wage, fearing it will price them out of the market, and currently to be heavily taxed, trying to shift employement to locals. The governments of the various countries have threatened to stop sending workers if their equilibrium is upset. The minimum wage is less than 500USD a month -- so far lower than the women you mention are making -- and most of these workers are doing the same thing, working and sending what is considered a very large amount of money back to their families.

While I was in Thailand, the governent tried to get Thai workers out of Israel because some had been injured in a bombing (which caused great alarm at home, as it was the first time Thais had been involved) ordering the employment companies responsible for them to get them back. Again, the workers refused, angrily, saying they were not targets, they felt safe, and they were making a lot of money for their families.

So I think it's very understandable that these women would decide to stay -- they've already seen and been through the worst, know what to expect, and the money dazzles enough to offset their dislike of the work and also gives a justification for what they've been through (not to mention helps them not be "victims" in their minds -- let's not forget how people blame themselves for getting into positions they could not possibly forsee.) They can picture their positions once their "debt" is completely paid off, and in the cultural context of putting oneself last behind the families, they're gaining tons of face. It's also highly unlikely that anyone at all at home knows what they're doing, so their social status is protected if and when they do get home, unlike local workers who are near the bottom of the social structure.

That doesn't mean it's not still slavery, and immoral on the face of it -- a distinction about those who are tricked into this as opposed to those who accede to family wishes. But hurting these same people twice isn't a solution, as you've seen.

I completely agree with you about the idiocy of the government, but it's certainly no different than similar positions it takes on other issues. Outside of the condoning aspect, the government is going to have a hard time accepting the idea of putting itself in a position where domestic sex workers protest about being put out of work by a government sanctioned flood of foreign ladies. Talk about a politician's worst nightmare! LOL

And there's a big difference between being a fool about things technological and simply not having experience and knowledge. Yours is clearly the latter case, and you shouldn't kick yourself for it. Those of us who have been dealing with this stuff for a long time only know it because we repeatedly beat our heads against the walls trying to figure out solutions to stupid simple things...

[Dickhead]

Yeah, well, the Australian government doesn't want ANYBODY moving there. It isn't just Thais, or prostitutes, or Thai prostitutes. If say for example I don't know maybe a well-educated financially stable 45 year old professional American Dickhead wanted to move there, they wouldn't let him in either. Under their point system, you have to be a YOUNG college educated professional, preferably with an advanced degree or enough money to open a business. Fuckers.

And RN, Aussies, Brits and the lot use 'single' quotation marks and that is correct. We Yanks use "double" quotation marks and that is correct. There's some other boring differences in the use of ; semicolons and the like. Brits and Aussies would say 'I've an appointment at three o'clock' while MOST Yanks would say either "I have an appoinment" or (incorrectly) "I've got an appointment," which is redundant. When Aussies lose their job, they get retrenched. When Brits lose their job, they get made redundant. Yanks, on the other hand, get laid off. Just like "fanny" means ass (or arse!) over here but pussy over there.

[Rubber Nursey]

you know - this discussion has reminded me of something else that really cheeses me off.

if a thai girl was kidnapped and taken to australia, had her passport removed, was kept under lock and key and was forced to have sex with every man who walked into her kidnapper's house - she would be rescued, given shelter, sent to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)/trauma counselling and maybe even granted refugee status. at the very least they would make sure she was recovered before sending her home to her family. if exactly the same things happen but she gets paid for being forced to have sex -- she is thrown straight into a detention centre like a criminal and deported! i've seen immigration in action...they are banged up then gone within a matter of hours.

not too long ago, there was an armed robbery in one of our local brothels. it's pretty well-known within the industry that this particular place is owned by a syndicate, and most (if not all) of the girls there are illegal. anyway, there was a robbery and the workers were terrorised by two men with shotguns and had all their possessions and money stolen. the agency called the police. now to me, that was a really brave move on their part, and i for one am always pleased to see a brothel exercising it's right to police protection. the police showed up - 45 minutes later of course, because brothels apparently aren't a very high priority - and shortly after, so did immigration. (i certainly don't believe that was a coincidence!) 7 of the girls were taken away, thrown into detention and the next day, they were deported.

i see this sort of thing all the time, here and in the newspapers from around the world. sex workers are always punished as being 'party' to the crime, rather than being considered the victims. so if someone forces me to have sex then walks away, that's [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) - but if he throws me 100 bucks after the fact, that suddenly means i consented to it?? does the money somehow make the pain go away?

like we have established, many of these girls are happy to stay where they are and earn the big dollars - but the fact is, their bosses have committed the crimes of kidnapping, extortion, deprivation of liberty and sexual slavery. from what i've heard about some of the girls 'introductions' to the industry, these bastards are also guilty of, or party to, gang [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). these girls are the victims. the fact that the victims are routinely punished in these cases, really burns me up.

[Rubber Nursey]

DH -- Our immigration requirements are bloody ridiculous. I know of two people in the last year who have tried to get residency to be with Australian partners, and were unsuccessful. I also lost a Bulgarian friend a few months ago, who was deported three weeks before her residency was granted (she was found working in a brothel). She was here as a refugee, and had been here for nearly 3 years waiting for a decision - but she apparently wasn't allowed to work in that time!!

Out of interest - do you know what the situation with New Zealand is like? It's a bloody nice place, and once you've been there long enough to get citizenship, you can just walk straight into Australia. They're practically considered our 9th state. Kiwis come and go into Oz as they please, and vice versa.

I think I've already told you guys the story about the horrifed girl I worked with, who refused to see a sailor because he asked if he could "spank her fanny"! And then there is the American tradition of "rooting in the stands" at your football matches - something that Aussies would be arrested for. Oh and by the way, when Aussies lose their job they get "laid off", which is usually followed by them "getting pissed" - as well as getting angry. LOL

[Joe Zop]

let's face it, when it comes to blaming women for having sex, it's a long-standing cross-societal tradition ranging from [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) to prostitution to adultery to pregnancy, where women are always far more likely to be censured. to a certain extent i can understand the whole "they took money" aspect as a way of defining these women as participants as opposed to victims, even though it's of course unfair and ridiculous, in the sense that without taking money there's no way they can be anything but victims, whereas getting money enters the slippery slope of where someone is a victim and where someone is just telling a story to avoid responsibility. the latter case means actual thought might have to enter into the justice equation. of course the operators absolutely know this, so paying the women means that they can claim willingness, thus trying to mitigate their own responsibility, and avoid being absolutely labelled as slavers, which is a far harsher label than pimp, even though that's of course exactly what they are. the unfortunate side of things is the knee-jerk reaction of the authorities, who just plain don't want to deal with what's really going on as opposed to shipping off the victims and pretending that actually does anything positive.

but of course, rn, you've just had an object lesson in how difficult it is to get lawmakers to entertain complex thoughts and new ways of looking at things...

and it's not, obviously, as though your government has any corner on this market, either. over the past year in the states there have been raids on large numbers of asian massage parlors, chiefly korean, some of which have operated under the same general indenture scenarios, some of which have not, and the reaction is the same -- hey, you're an illegal immigrant, out you go, sorry if you happen to be someone who had a rough time.

and dh -- thailand's the same way in terms of immigration, only even more extreme. if you are not born thai, you cannot be a citizen -- period and ever. you cannot live there for a long period unless you have specific employment, or are a retiree with an specific level of income. and any of this can be revoked at any time, by any bureaucrat or by the gummint at large. and though, if you're one who actually does live there long-term, you can own property such as a house or condo, you cannot own the land it is on and you cannot own a business without a thai partner. but at least thailand's had the good grace to be traditionally xenophobic, which makes this a logical cultural extension, as opposed to oz's history of being a place where ships simply unloaded people. (hmm, when you think about it, rn, oz's history of population expansion is remarkably similar to the situations of the women we're discussing, in terms of forced relocation, which makes the reaction even more ironic.)

[Rubber Nursey]

Australia wasn't only a penal colony - it was also the "Promised Land" for the English. It was exceptionally expensive to make the three month boat trip over here. That meant that there were two very distinct classes of people in Oz in the beginning - the convicts and the wealthy. (There were middle class people too, like the wardens and postmasters and the like, but they were well outnumbered by the other two groups).

I think this division is still quite easily seen to this day - you are either affluent, or a 'yobbo'. Even middle class people are seen as yobbos by the rich. And the upper class are still making laws that treat the underclasses like criminals!! LOL

[Dickhead]

Nope, the Kiwis aren't letting any Dickheads in either.

[Rubber Nursey]

Well -- I guess Australia and New Zealand don't really NEED any more dickheads. It's not like our supply is running low. ;-)

[Dickhead]

Well, it is rather a shame since I would make an excellent yobbo. But really, I didn't find too many places that wanted to give permanent residency to this particular Dickhead. Mexico will deign to accomodate me when I am 51. Although, all you have to do in the case of Mexico is leave the country for ten seconds every six months. Costa Rica ditto but substitute 72 hours for ten seconds (and I think 90 days for six months; can't remember right now). Oz and NZ have limits on how many tourist visas you can get in X period of time, and the tourist visas are only 90 days instead of 6 months, so I couldn't "butterfly" between those two countries.

Therefore I developed my plan B of working here for 4-5 months while living rather frugally, then spending my hard earned money elsewhere.

Note to my president:

Dear George: Congratulations. You have finally succeeded in driving me out of the country, which I'm sure was your goal all along. But fret not as I view it as an opportunity and not a failure. Here is my pink Irish ass, kiss it one time and may its fragrance linger on your lips for an eternity.

PS: Dear Board, I apologize for this unrelated post.

[The Virgin Terr]

i haven't read any of your posts made since i last posted. i'll do so and respond later, but first i have a train of thought to share.

zealotry. dickhead calls me a zealot and u know what? he's right. i am a zealot. but dickhead, i have a question for u: what about the wealthy capitalists of the corporate world, who buy the politicians who run our world, and what about those politicians who criminalize marijuana and promote the massive organized violence of war which has killed tens of millions of people in the last century alone, while leaving many more with shattered lives? and what about the ordinary hard working law abiding citizen who votes for these politicians and supports their decisions? these people aren't zealots? i think pot smoking should be openly encouraged for it's medicinal and therapeutic value, but i don't think anyone who doesn't want to try it should be forced to or face criminal penalty. so tell me, who are the real zealots in this world? i'm a zealot only in reaction to the incredibly hubristic way that civilization has evolved, and i think the only sane people left in the world are other zealot activists who r fed up with war, capitalism, a society which values wealth over life.

do you know why so many people go apeshit over violent, aggressive sports like football? it's because society as a whole encourages controlled violence and aggression in men. and u know who does that the most? women. women do it by mating more frequently with men who r violent and aggressive in a controlled manner. war is all about "controlled" violence, although in reality it often is out of control. without the threat of violence, the repressive laws we hate wouldn't exist. i think the only violence society should sanction should be in response to the relatively rare instances when someone engages in individual unsanctioned violence. if u think about it, the vast majority of violence in the world is government sponsored and promoted. this sickens me so much that i'm zealously opposed to the whole fucking system that oppresses and abuses us all so the ruthlessly ambitious and aggressive men who are in charge can be obscenely wealthy and powerful. so i am zealous, but in my view, if u aren't, there's something wrong with u. if u think everything's cool or you're just too cynical to care, you're part of the problem.

[Dickhead]

Man, did you even read my post? I think there are a lot of things wrong, so many in fact that I am leaving the country to the maximum extent that I can, which unfortunately is only about 65%.

I admire your zealotry and am certainly not using the word "zealot" as an epithet. I am not a capitalist and never have been. I am a collectivist who believes in redistribution of wealth. Nor did I vote for this fuck who is starting this war. I am not "too cynical to care" but rather cynical that there will be meaningful change to the system within my lifetime, the majority of which lies behind me rather than in front of me (at least in terms of years; perhaps not in terms of adventure). I cast my ballot every year but it is just voting for the fuck who makes me want to puke the least.

But I do like football, and I enjoyed playing it (although I prefer baseball). I like my violence to be without weapons.

PS, the Shift key is just to the left of the z and 2 is a number, not a word. "u" is also not a word but rather a letter. I have no idea what "ur" is. Please try not to write like Tapioca.

[The Virgin Terr]

after reading or scanning all posts of the past day, i feel more like an apologetic zealot, seeing how out of place my zealotry is among u. i apologize and ask your forbearance. i just don't know of any more appropriate places to vent, so i do it here. the personal anguish sexual repression causes me makes it a focal point for my passion.

RN, i don't operate under the assumption that most prostitutes are also free lovers, but a few r, just as some women who aren't prostitutes r. i do operate under the assumption that prostitutes who like their work like sex more than most women, and that's a plus. also, prostitution is a profession that attracts more beautiful women, because beauty is a prime asset for a prostitute to have. i have a strong preference for beautiful women. and frankly, if a woman thinks prostitution is a good thing, she probably is or has been one herself, and i couldn't have a long relationship with anyone who doesn't share my passion for freedom and pleasure. so all that adds up to the idea that pro-prostitution activists who r passionate about freedom and pleasure and who r enlightened to the benefits of open relationships r the ideal women for me. i wonder how many such women exist, who r also age compatible, prefer sensitive men, and in search of their soulmate?

dickhead, make sure not to wipe before bush kisses your ass.

[Joe Zop]

DH -- if driving you out of the country is part of W's goal, then there's no doubt I've gotta be on his list as well. But the sucker's going to have to try harder, as I'm still someone who believes it's possible to make change happen, and he's only got a limited amount of time to keep screwing things up, another five years or so at worst, and this country can recover from that. I once moderated a panel on repression and censorship, and an artist (originally from Sri Lanka, btw) at the table put forth the idea that censorship was good for him, even though he preferred it not exist, as it forced him to be more inventive which thereby made him more effective.

This is, of course, off topic on its face, so let me relate it a bit back to the thread and say that overall it's a question of tolerence of differences in values, which acceptance of prostitution clearly represents, and in terms of accepting and listening to other perspectives and approaches, on any issue, this administration is clearly the most absolutely intolererant we've had in a very, very long time. The concepts we're now seeing used in the name of security will absolutely lead to significant erosion of privacy, and who you decide to sleep with will no doubt be on the list, as it's a hot-button way of marginalizing people, especially when it comes from the inflexible christian perspective that currently dominates.

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, dickhead, dickhead! another person giving me grief about my sloppy, lazy, personal shorthand writing. ok, if 'you' are bothered, perhaps i'll change for 'you', lol.

i'm pretty cynical myself. i apologize for coming on so heavy. i'm not quite sure what i'll do if i ever encounter anyone who says to me "so you want to change the world; let's do it!" but dude! i was only talking shit! i enjoy talking shit though, because it's the truth.

my heroes are people who have changed the world by leading movements that changed society, in other words, prominent activists. it's incredibly hubristic of me to embrace such an ambition for myself, but as you're witness to, i'm at least toying with the idea.