The Morality of Prostitution

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by 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.

If and when that happens perhaps I will reverse the steps I am now taking. To misquote Ted Kennedy, "we'll drive off that bridge when we come to it." But since the part of the year I have to be here is during elections (and football season, and the World Series) you can rest assured that I will VOTE. Right now I am voting with my feet.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
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!"

Reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite profs: "You know the difference between pioneers and settlers? Pioneers have arrows in them."

my heroes r wealthy entertainers and rich athletes. oh and i figured out what "ur" is. it goes between um and uh.

Just giving you shit, but your personal lazy shorthand does make your posts harder to read.

The true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members.

[The Virgin Terr]

last rant for today: another thing i hate about western civilization is that it treats nature with all of the subtlety of a bulldozer, pun intended. there, i'm done.

dickhead, activists are pioneers of social change. not all pioneers die violently, because if they did, there wouldn't be any settlers to follow them.

[PurpleNGold]

thanks for the warm welcomes. i would have posted sooner, but hadn't been watching this thread, and hadn't realized how active it was. so much was posted over the past day, that i'm not sure whether i'll even remember all the ideas i had while reading. and, still, this is gonna be a long one...

for those who asked... purple & gold are laker's colors. 4 more 40 pointers and kobe will break wilt's record!!! (hmmm... how can i relate that to morality of prostitution?)


virgin_terr: 02-21-03 10:08
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.


i agree that most sexual behavior is irresponsible and causes a lot of bad in the world. just take a glance at teen pregnancy statistics and the spread of diseases like aids. i think the root cause are the very policies in place to prevent irresponsible behavior. rather than trying to do something to educate people and encourage responsible sex play, our governments, churches, schools, etc. pass 'decency' laws that forbid teaching children safe ways to express and explore their natural urges.

several years ago the first condoms were handed out in schools and children were given counseling concerning birth control. overboard conservative groups were up in arms. "we're promoting promiscuity! we're telling the kids that they should do this! we're all doomed!!"

well, the programs went ahead, and the u.s. saw a decrease in teen pregnancy as a result. now, in britain, where they have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in europe, they're is a furor over a program to teach young students about oral sex as an alternative to full intercourse. the same arguments are coming out. will we never learn?


dickhead: 02-21-03 17:43
i disagree that puritanical attitudes in this country (the us) are merely a vocal minority.


i suppose my statement was a bit too simplistic. it's not just that those who are so vocal are an actual minority. many of those who are so vocal against any sexual actvities outside of traditional marriages are in fact some of the biggest contributors to 'immorality'. not a season goes by that you don't read about how some big politician was caught with a prostitute, or in the arms of another woman (or man). how this self-righteous do-gooder got busted buying kiddie porn, etc. let's not even get into the proclivities of the clergy. so, all this fuss that is made in our media concerning how wrong all this is amounts to lip service. yet, it's powerful lip service because it creates this communal repression.

an example. two friends of mine were recently wed. the woman i've known since she was a wild child in high school. she was into my father's porno collection more often than myself. the man, i've known for a couple years, and have enjoyed the hospitality of tijuana with him on more than one occasion. now, during a dinner conversation the topic of pornography came up. the woman started talking about how they had rented a porno during their honeymoon, but how it was so disgusting that they had to turn it off. the man chimes in about how silly the acting and plot were. what the hell? they both know that i'm aware of their individual views. yet, here i was listening to them lie to each other concerning how they felt about a fuck film. if they cannot even admit the truth to one another, how could they possibly stand up in public and vote/defend their views.

btw, i found a reference to malthus on population (http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/malthus/popu.txt). it'll take me a while to read through it.


dickhead: 02-21-03 20:05
therefore, no analysis of the morality of prostitution is complete without an analysis of population problems.


there was a lot of posting concerning whether or not prostitution should be a valid choice for women in dire straights. i think most of that came from this kind of analysis. and, i'm thinking that the two issues are distinct. whether something is moral or not is not the same thing as whether one should do it in the face of starvation.

i totally believe that it's a valid choice for many of these women. they do what they have to for survival. does that make it moral? what if they have another choice? does that change the morality? i don't think so.

if someone kills another human being in order to save himself (i.e. a soldier in combat), it doesn't change the fact that killing is immoral. just excuses the act within context.


dickhead: 02-21-03 22:35
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


this is incorrect. i've had a discussion about this with a relative who works as a welfare fraud prevention agent. she told me that, illegal or not, people who apply for medicare, foodstamps, etc. are judged solely on their financial situation. she said that it is even illegal to call ins. strange.

also, there is a law, at least in california, that says a hospital emergency room cannot turn away a patient strictly on the grounds of immigration status.


dickhead: 02-21-03 23:12
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.


that's part of it. but, i think there are many different reasons for people to be using professional services.


virgin terr: 02-22-03
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...



rn: 02-22-03 03:36
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).


i need to re-think my ideas concerning the morality of prostitution. i know that, if i were to date a pro, i would expect her to give up that line of work. not so much that i think her job is wrong, but because, like rn says, i wouldn't be able to see past the "sex" that she is having at work. it would bug me. i just couldn't handle having to say "have a good day at the office."

does this mean that i really don't consider it moral? vt has a point, that if prostitution is just a job, like any other job. why shouldn't the employees have normal lives? yet, i can't see myself dating an active provider without expecting her to curtail her activities.


rn: 02-22-03 8:39
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??


there was a discussion of this in the bangkok and 'thai women' threads. rn, i think it's [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) either way.


rn: 02-22-03 4:29
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??


unfortunately, the government knows that legalized prostitution is a magnet for sensationalist media looking to cache in on the 'vocal minority'audience. yet, the women traffickers are a shadow entity that escapes public knowledge in the general case. a sad statement about the priorities of such 'humanitarian' states as the us who chastises other countries for lack of equal rights for women.

well, this has been long. sorry about that. i'll try to stay more current with the postings.

[Dickhead]

PG, while Medicaid is a federal program, it is administered by the states and in my state, for sure, neither illegal aliens nor resident aliens are eligible for it. I am not sure about food stamps. Nor are resident aliens eligible for TANF or "welfare" in my state, with the exception that if one parent is a resident alien and the other is a citizen who is either absent or incarcerated, the resident alien is eligible for TANF if and only if the paternity (or rarely, maternity) of the absent or incarcerated parent has been PREVIOUSLY established. However, it is true in my state that immigration status cannot be used to deny services at a public hospital.

Since you are a Lakers fan, you probably live in California and "everyone knows how liberal and left wing they are out there." :)

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
Since you are a Lakers fan, you probably live in California and "everyone knows how liberal and left wing they are out there." :)

Wish that were true :-) Unfortunately, CA is a fairly conservative and, historically, republican state.

[Dickhead]

A quick web search reveals that CA has had 37 total governors since achieving statehood: 20 Republicans, 15 Democrats, 1 Whig or "American" or "Know Nothing" and 1 Union party, whatever the hell that is (anti-secessionist, I would assume?).

[Rubber Nursey]

P&G,

"I need to re-think my ideas concerning the morality of prostitution. I know that, if I were to date a pro, I would expect her to give up that line of work. Not so much that I think her job is wrong, but because, like RN says, I wouldn't be able to see past the "sex" that she is having at work. It would bug me. I just couldn't handle having to say "Have a good day at the office."

That's a completely understandable attitude, and one that I would expect from the majority of men. However - does the fact that YOU don't like the idea of YOUR girlfriend working in the sex industry, really make prostitution itself "immoral"? I don't feel that your problems with dating an active sex worker relates to any sense of 'morality'. I think it would have more to do with - well, in a word - your male ego.

You have to BE a sex worker to fully understand what I mean by the difference between sex and work. And I do not, for one minute, expect a man who has never been a hooker to be able to make a distinction between the two. That is why I could not respect a boyfriend who said it was ok for me to work. Because as far as HE is concerned, he is saying he doesn't mind if I have sex with heaps of people. That really bothers me.

"Does this mean that I really don't consider it moral? VT has a point, that if prostitution is just a job, like any other job. Why shouldn't the employees have normal lives?"

I think Joe and I had a discussion about it being a 'job like any other' a while back. I might clarify my position on that again. I believe that sex work should be considered an OCCUPATION, like any other income generating activity is (rather than a crime or a sexual deviation). But I do not believe it is a job "like any other". Like in many jobs, there are some issues that are faced by sex workers, that are unique to the job. It is an extremely intimate job, and one that carries a huge amount of negative stigma. This is bound to cause particular problems and create unique challenges for the people involved. But I don't think that in itself automatically qualifies the job as not 'normal'.

I work in social services and activism - which is a perfectly 'normal' job - but it, too, would create some very unique problems for me and any of my significant others. I come home with bucketloads of emotional baggage and huge amounts of anger and frustration...my partner would have to deal with my crying fits, my incessant ranting (which I currently use you guys for LOL) and the fact that I am completely obsessed with my work. It will take a certain sort of person to be able to tolerate all that - but I'm sure he's out there somewhere.

You have to remember that Terry's comments were directed at me - and I have already told him in the past that I would not date while I was working, because of the dramas it would cause. But just because it doesn't work for me, (or you), doesn't mean that it's the case for everyone. Like I said in my last post, there are many sex workers all around the world who are in loving relationships. Those women and men have perfectly 'normal' lives.

[Joe Zop]

I think the essence of the issue of being in a relationship with a sex worker comes down to one single question more than any other -- "How is the sex I have with her different than the sex she has with clients?" And that is a question based on the issue of emotional security, as I think it has far less to do with the sex itself than it does with the emotional veneer around it. In other words, if my partner is brilliant at her job, and her job entails convincing men for a short period of time that she cares about them and that their happiness is the most important thing on earth via sexual congress, then how can/does one know the truth of where one stands in a relationship with her?

It's not about how many dicks she's sucked or taken, it's about what I can or cannot believe when she's involved with mine.

Obviously, this is true regardless of whether a women is a sex worker or not, as it's the basic issue of trust and security in a relationship, but I think the situation and issue gets magnified in this instance, because you are being with someone whose stock in trade is being a physical and emotional chameleon who also has, as RN has so aptly described elsewhere, the ability to mentally and emotionally distance herself from what it going on as a way of maintaining that self. I think the bottom line in a relationship like this is the fear that this would be happening, not so much that your partner would be treating her clients like you, but that she'd be treating you like her clients.

[Rubber Nursey]

"It's not about how many dicks she's sucked or taken, it's about what I can or cannot believe when she's involved with mine."

So like I said - it's all about male ego! LOL

Lots of men have very similar feelings about 'regular' women who have slept with lots of guys, as well. Am I as good in bed as the others? Did she scream louder with the last guy? Will she get bored with me? Is my penis smaller than the average ones she's seen? Add to that the stuff you said about us being "chameleons", and I would think sex workers - ex or current - are probably quite threatening to men. Remember that (dreadful!) estimate I made a few months back? I'm not sure that's a past count that every man could handle.

Do you think making her 'give it all up' when you get together would ultimately make all that much difference? Even if she's not doing it any more - can you live with what she's DONE?

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe -- "How is the sex I have with her different than the sex she has with clients?"

That's actually very easy. With a client, there is no history, no future and no 'us'.

Let's just say the client is a particular favourite of mine. We have fantastic sex, multiple orgasms and then lay back stroking each other and talking like old friends. The chemistry is there, the attraction is there and the friendly rapport is there - it may even have the appearance of real intimacy and friendship. But it's not! I don't know his last name, or even his real first name probably. I don't know what he's done in the past, nor what he plans to do in the future. I don't know his friends, his family or his workmates. He's not going to just call me one day to share good news, or cry on my shoulder when things go bad. If he drops dead tomorrow, nobody is going to let me know. And all the same stuff goes for him, too.

Sometimes the relationships can become very close and it may feel like we are really sharing something - but in reality, we only share with each other on a 'need to know' basis. He might tell me all about his sexual dysfunctions, describe his bizarre fetishes in detail and ask me to take a look at the strange lump he felt on his arse...but heaven forbid I might find out what suburb he lives in, or what his son's name is!

It's not really so much of a case of learning to 'distance' yourself from the intimacy - it's learning to realise that it's just not there in the first place. There's no depth to it. It's not real. That's what makes it so different to having sex with someone you love. You have a history, a future and an 'us'. That's real.

[Joe Zop]

Well, RN, really, relationships are all about ego, period, both male and female, and men certainly don't hold a patent on ego issues there -- though theirs may manifest in specifically different ways. Relationships are like religion in that it's necessary to willingly suspend disbelief and trust in things you can't see or quantify. (Which probably explains why there are so many people disappioned in both!)

And though I know we're close to revisiting the issue about disclosure of a sex worker past in a relationship, I truly do think the issue is one of confidence and trust. Knowing whether or not you can believe your partner is key, or at least knowing how far you can believe them and in what areas. It's rather the same issue of being with an actor or actress, fraught with the same difficulties (though the particulars of when someone is or isn't on state are different, and role play is different from emotional disengagement.)

For me, personally, the past is only an issue insofar as it affects the present. Presuming I have a good sense of trust with a woman, I don't care in the least how many partners she has or has not had other than knowing how I need to treat her in terms of adjusting to the fact that she has or does not have experience in relationships. I care in that I prefer someone who's got skillz, but there are different ways to get them as well :) But then for me the truth is that it's far more critical that I've got someone with whom I can spend a good three days out of bed and be comfortable and compatible -- the bedroom is important, of course, but it's easy to get along when screwing, and the test of a relationship is more when you're not.

I don't see myself having any particular trouble being with someone who was/is a sex worker, honestly, as that would really be a secondary issue. My ego's big enough to drown out pretty much anything other than the noise of my own selfish needs :D and I've spent enough time with people in the trade in various situations to have a decent sense of how things would or wouldn't work. I would probably not want her working while with me, but to be perfectly frank that's less about what she'd be doing, and more because I can't picture being with someone who isn't highly intelligent and quick, with some degree of ambition, and people with those characteristics can do many other more fulfilling things, and are generally going to be more fulfilled by them -- something for which you present ample evidence. And the latter issue is, of course, also ego-driven in that I recognize I work best and am happiest when I'm with a partner who challenges me to move or get left behind, and I need an equal, not a lesser. If I was to be with someone who had all those characteristics, who also made a truly compelling case for why sex work happened to do all that in a way that I could see and use as a catalyst, then I'd have to say go for it.

[Joe Zop]

And what if you do find out what his son's name is, or what suburb he lives in? Does that move the issue of what is or isn't real sharing? Where's the point at which things can cross over? That crossover can happen in any kind of situation, from doctor-patient to co-worker, etc.

The problem really is that the membrane separating what is real and what is not is so very thin, and in a relationship it's necessary that the perception of that membrane be agreed upon and shared. As Einstein said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." And heaven knows there are plenty of relationships in the real world that have no depth, even among people who have been with each other for years. People who live together and still operate on a "need to know" basis.

Witness your recent situation -- your client misunderstood what reality was, and the nature of the relationship, hence all hell broke loose. While he's an extreme case, the seeds of that kind of misunderstanding are within all of us, all the time, in every situation.

[Rubber Nursey]

"Where's the point at which things can cross over?"

That, I guess, comes down to the individual sex worker. I can honestly say that I never had a client who really managed to 'cross the barrier'. As I have said many times before, I had quite a few regulars that I was very close to - but still, it just wasn't the same somehow. There was always that invisible line in the sand between us, that kept me from actually classing them as 'friends'. And I do admit I did that on purpose, much the same as a psychiatrist or doctor would I suppose. Professional distance. Every girl is different of course, and the barrier is probably not so defined for some of them. But for me personally, there was no 'point' where it could have crossed over. I just wouldn't have let it happen.

As for that idiot client in particular, he obviously has some serious problems with reality! We never even got NEAR 'the line'! (I wish we had though, because then I would have been able to send the boys around to his place to give him my regards). What part of "I will only f*ck you if you give me money" did that moron not understand?! LOL

[Joe Zop]

We never even got NEAR 'the line'!

You mean, near your line, right? Obviously, this bozo's was was different, which is part of the point -- in any relationship there's negotiating and exploring lines.

[PurpleNGold]

RN, I guess you're right about liking something and considering it moral being two separate issues. I can think of other things that I don't care for, that I wouldn't question as to morality. This is a good thing because I prefer leaving cornerstone beliefs intact for now :-)

I don't think I'd have a problem becoming serious with a former sex worker. A woman's past just doesn't bother me. In fact, after my last two serious relationships, I think I'd prefer a situation in which my partner has enough experience to know whether she is happy with the relationship or not based on what else is out there.

As far as 'crossing the line', the comment about sex workers doing what they can to convince their clients that they are the most important in the world is what bugs me. I believe that, as soon as you convince someone of who you are, and, when that illusion is maintained permanently, then it becomes reality. So, I know that I couldn't distinguish between the relationships my girlfriend is having with clients and the relationship she's having with me.

A quick edit to note that I've passed my centennial post :-)

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, i take it that sex worker activism is very important to you currently. what about 5, 10 ,15 years from now? will the issue be resolved to your satisfaction, and if not, will you still be an activist? which raises the further question: how will you resolve your activism with your personal life? you seem very ambivalent on this because you operate on the idea that men, or at least the men you would consider desirable, prefer women with a relatively unremarkable sexual history. how can you hide your history if it's hinted at by your interest in advocating for prostitutes rights?

society is flawed because it's "moral" provisions preclude individuals who lack at least a veneer of "propriety" from positions of power. perhaps this is why you don't want a guy who could accept your past; because such a guy would obviously be a social pariah himself.

[The Virgin Terr]

there is a certain inconsistent weakness in your position. you want to end discrimination against sex workers, yet you yourself discriminate against men in your personal life if they don't discriminate against prostitutes in theirs. see what i mean?

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

"You mean, near your line, right?"
Well, yeah, my line - but wasn't that the original question? What is it that makes my relationship with a client different to a relationship with a boyfriend? The difference (for me) is that with a client, there IS a line. With someone I love - there is NO line.

P&G -- Congrats on hitting your century! :)

Terry,

"RN, i take it that sex worker activism is very important to you currently. what about 5, 10 ,15 years from now? will the issue be resolved to your satisfaction, and if not, will you still be an activist?"
Sex worker activism is very important to me, and has been ever since I started working in the industry. I have also been very active in the Gay and Lesbian law reform debate. Before that, I was involved in the fight to improve conditions for working mothers, as well as legalising abortion. Before that, I was very vocal about the issue of teenage pregnancy. Fighting for people who are unable/unwilling to fight for themselves (especially when I have been personally affected by the issue), is something that I feel compelled to do. It's just me. So no, I don't think it's something that I will eventually tire of.

The rest of your post seems to twist a few of my comments around a bit.

"you operate on the idea that men, or at least the men you would consider desirable, prefer women with a relatively unremarkable sexual history."
I said that many men feel 'threatened' by a woman who has had large numbers of sexual partners in her past. That was more an observation than anything else, and I never suggested that I would consider these guys to be more "desirable". If anything, I would obviously find these men LESS desirable - I want a man who can accept that I have had lots of partners, and who couldn't care less about it.

"perhaps this is why you don't want a guy who could accept your past"
That's not what I said at all. I said I don't want a guy who could accept that I was STILL WORKING.

"because such a guy would obviously be a social pariah himself."
I certainly don't consider sex workers, nor their clients or partners, to be social pariahs.

"there is a certain inconsistent weakness in your position. you want to end discrimination against sex workers, yet you yourself discriminate against men in your personal life if they don't discriminate against prostitutes in theirs. see what i mean?"
Ummmm...no. I have absolutely no idea! LOL I don't think that attraction or relationship values have anything to do with discrimination. For example, P&G has said that he would not want to date an active sex worker. To me, that doesn't constitute discrimination - it says that he has certain values and needs certain things from his partner in order for their relationship to survive. Similarly, I will not date a man who says it's ok for me to have sex all day at work - that is just not a quality that I find attractive in a man. I would hardly call it discrimination.

[Joe Zop]

RN, the point is that your line might be very clear to you, but that doesn't necessarily help it be obvious or solid to someone with whom you're involved, be it customer or lover (and we were mostly discussing the latter.) This is true in all relationships, as of course we can't see inside someone else's heart or brain, but the issue isn't simply about what you feel or convey, but about how it's received. You earlier said this was about male ego -- you're right about that to the extent that it's about the ego of any partner who needs to find ways to reassure themselves in a relationship. You answered the question ("How is the sex I have with her different than the sex she has with clients?") from the sex worker perspective, but my point was that no matter how you answer it, the answer may not make enough sense or have enough impact to provide sufficient emotional security to the guy in this equation, whos asking himself how he can truly know the truth of the matter, since he's with someone who's good at convincing strangers she cares about them. The nagging issue is, if she's doing it with them, how can I trust she's not doing it with me? As I said, it's about emotional security, as it always is in a relationship, and it's just more difficult to obtain in this equation because the issue of "can I believe what my partner is showing me" -- which people always have -- is front and center.

[Rubber Nursey]

Well I guess that takes me back to the comment I made a couple of posts back - that I do not expect a potential partner to understand what I'm talking about when I say the sex is different at work, and that the only time I feel it would be understood is if my partner was a current/ex sex worker. I think that another sex worker would probably instictively 'know' if I was treating them like a client.

As I said when Terry and I had this convo a few months ago, there are two reasons why I would not date when working. One is because the idea of a lover saying it was ok for me to have sex with others all day, is very disconcerting. The other is because I would not want to put my partner through the sort of heartache and confusion that you are describing.

However, I do think that (ideally) it should ultimately come down to trust. We take a lot of chances on the people we love, and there is never any way for us to really know that they are telling us the truth. We just trust that they are. If a sex worker says that she loves you, and that you mean much more to her than her clients do - should you really be doubting her word? Is it any different to when a man says he no longer feels anything for his ex-wife, or when a woman says her affair with her toyboy is over and she wants you back?

[Joe Zop]

If a sex worker says that she loves you, and that you mean much more to her than her clients do - should you really be doubting her word?

Certainly not if you want to be in a relationship with her, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said regarding trust. There's a point where either you have it or you don't. We all know that trust in relationships has a million ways to disappear, and I simply think, as I said, that it's a tougher row to hoe here.
In the examples you cite people believe either because they simply do or because they want it to be true. Sex work isn't different in terms of what must happen for such a relationship to work, only in terms of the specifics of the scenario. To take your example further, if a lover tells you that their affair was a mistake, they want to be with you, etc., you're much more likely to truly believe it if it's the first time such a thing has happened than if it's the fifth. The fifth time you start to doubt the sincerity, or at the abolity of the person to match actions to words. And knowledge that a sex worker, like an actor, has fluency in telling people what they want to hear as a way of getting what they want (something on which sex workers most certainly haven't cornered the market!) simply adds somewhat to the potential for doubt. I'm not at all saying it's impossible, and I'm not at all disagreeing with you regarding the unfairness of that, and that it's all in a guy's head, I'm just saying it's more likely to be an issue than if you're with, say, a bank teller.

Let's face it, we're all fairly insecure little animals in general, easily spooked when it comes to relationships. (I give you the American women thread as a case in point.) This whole issue represents dark forest to lots of folks, which is why a discussion such as this is so great.

[Rubber Nursey]

I do understand what you're saying, but I still think it's terribly unfair. What you're saying is that a sex worker would be treated as guilty until proven innocent - that you would presume she was 'faking it' unless she could prove otherwise. And if you are so convinced that she is such an expert at misleading men...how would she ever do that?

You mentioned actors in your post. I just can't see people treating them in the same way. If you met a woman who worked as a theatre actor, for example, would you doubt her word when she said she was in love with you?

Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive about it, but to me, it seems like this whole thing is led by the stereotype of the 'lying, cheating wh*re'. That the idea that she probably can't be trusted is already planted in your mind, and from that comes the excuse that she is an expert in the art of deceiving men. To put it in (overly) simplistic terms, an actor would not automatically be doubted, because she would be considered a woman at home and an actor at work. But the belief that a sex worker could be playing you like she plays her clients, seems to come from the assumption that she is a sex worker 24/7.

[Joe Zop]

I think you're reading too much in here, as well as imparting a greater emphasis than I mean -- and it's not about the stereotype. I'm simply saying that by and large relationships are difficult, period, as people can always find something to worry about, and that this whole issue clomps into that category. It's not necessarily about someone saying they're in love with you -- you believe that if you believe that -- it's about when things get difficult, and when trust and faith become necessary.

It's also simply not about where someone is a sex worker and where someone is just a woman -- as is the case with everyone, we're all more than one thing at a time, and when people look at each other they can see multiple layers. Do you ever "turn off" being a mother? Could someone who knew you ever look at you and not have at least some recognition of that? How would being a sex worker be different in terms of that level of recognition? It's not different for other professions -- when my friends look at me, they also see what I do for a living as part of who's staring back.

I absolutely know people can treat theatre people that way, as I've lots of actor friends, and I've had exactly that conversation several times, both with the theatre folk and their partners/ex-partners. A actress I went to college with (perhaps the most gorgeous women I've ever known -- one play she was in sold out -- which never happened at that college -- mainly because she had a nude scene) who worked in Hollywood and who I still see on occasion in New York, where she's now a producer, has told me of several very similar discussions with boyfriends. An actor is always an actor, on or off the set, as far as people are concerned, and whether or not they're acting at any given instant is a constant issue. And, with some actors I know, this is a very viable issue, as they're always "trying things on" to see how they work or feel. That's part of why they're good at what they do.

I've got a good friend was married to a psychologist, and he used to tell me about her using "the tricks of her trade" as a way of controlling him, and his sense that she treated him like a patient at times, as a case study as opposed to true partner. (Whether any of this was true or not is beside the point, of course.) I've been accused of mining relationships for writing material, and listening to someone as if they were a potential character in a book. (True on occasion, on actually almost all occasions, but not that specific case.) If someone is not secure, they look for reasons why that's not the case, and let's face it, it's rather easy to find them in the instance of a sex worker.

So relax, RN, I'm hardly saying this is a death knell for all your future potential relationships! Cripes, please recall that I also said I didn't see this as being a problem for me personally, and that I could absolutely picture being involved with someone who was/is a sex worker, as to me that's a secondary issue.

[Rubber Nursey]

LOL! Sorry Joe - I certainly didn't mean that to sound like a personal attack on YOUR beliefs in particular. And I said that I was probably being a little too sensitive about the matter. I do know that's the case, but I just can't help myself sometimes. I think concentrating so hard on all the stereotyping and unjustified bullshit in the Prostitution Control Bill has led me to be even more easily riled than I ever was.

And you are probably right about me taking it more 'personally' than I should, too. The common perception out there is that you can never really be an EX sex worker. All the things that you mention, are things that people will always suspect me of being capable of. I guess it really does worry me a lot, and it's one of the reasons why I said a long time ago that I would almost prefer my partner not to know about my past. I find it unfair that sex workers are automatically assumed to be somehow less trustworthy than other women - but I find it even more unfair that EX sex workers are judged on something that occurred in their past.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
If a sex worker says that she loves you, and that you mean much more to her than her clients do - should you really be doubting her word?
And in another post:
Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive about it, but to me, it seems like this whole thing is led by the stereotype of the 'lying, cheating wh*re'. That the idea that she probably can't be trusted is already planted in your mind, and from that comes the excuse that she is an expert in the art of deceiving men. To put it in (overly) simplistic terms, an actor would not automatically be doubted, because she would be considered a woman at home and an actor at work. But the belief that a sex worker could be playing you like she plays her clients, seems to come from the assumption that she is a sex worker 24/7.


In almost every conversation with a Thai girl that I almost started a relationship with, she told me that her customer had bar fined her, taken her to dinner and to play pool, then, only chatted with her in the hotel room. After the first two or three times, my first thought was always, "I know what you do for a living. Why do you lie to me?" Then, I thought about it and wondered why I should consider trying a real relationship with someone that I obviously don't trust. It wouldn't matter if she's lying to me or not. I don't believe her. That thought, along with some good advice from fellow WSG'ers (JZ included) convinced me to put those thoughts on a shelf.

I didn't doubt her because I thought that she was a "lying, cheating, wh*re." I doubted her because I thought she was just trying to spare my feelings (and avoid any unpleasant discussion that could have arisen).

I would feel the same about any woman who said, "This guy, who is vacationing here for the purpose of getting laid, took me out. He paid a lot of money to feed and enterain me. Then, he took me back to his hotel room and chatted with me the whole night." Yeah, right.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
The common perception out there is that you can never really be an EX sex worker. All the things that you mention, are things that people will always suspect me of being capable of. I guess it really does worry me a lot, and it's one of the reasons why I said a long time ago that I would almost prefer my partner not to know about my past. I find it unfair that sex workers are automatically assumed to be somehow less trustworthy than other women - but I find it even more unfair that EX sex workers are judged on something that occurred in their past.

I can only speak for myself, and, I'm sure that there are more people, than not, for which your statement is true. But, I know that I could put the past behind me. I don't think I'd want to sit in front of the fire hearing details, but for a woman to tell me that she had been a sex worker in the past or that she had had lots of partners would not bother me. And, I would certainly rather know the truth because I think it's important to know who my partner is and how she's gotten to be that.

[Joe Zop]

P&G, just for the record, there are a number of working Thai girls for whom I paid a barfine, went and had fun with, and never slept with. For a variety of reasons, including but not restricted to figuring out the girl was half-crazy, a druggie, depressed and moody, very tired, only wanted to eat/dance/talk, etc. Also true with several at my favorite little beer bar in Chiang Mai, where I never dared/wanted to sleep with anyone, as I knew everyone and everyone's history/problems/dreams, and liked just hanging out there, and didn't want anything to change that, but also true in a number of other places. The woman I spent the better part of two months with I often simply took out, and even though we slept together there were a fair number of nights where it was simply that, sleep. But then, as I wrote elsewhere, my trip, though it involved taking advantage of what the country had to offer in terms of companionship, was not first and foremost about that.

So it's certainly possible, at least, that this woman was telling you the truth, but it's unlikely in general terms, as you note. And the issue of trust in a real relationship is simply paramount -- if you're skeptical going in, it's tough to get that little voice out of your head.

RN, I certainly didn't mean to imply that the stereotyping isn't out there, and doesn't have a dampening effect -- we both know it does. But my presumption is that someone who's afflicted with such perspectives would probably not be pursuing a real relationship with a sex worker, current or ex, nor would it likely be happening in the other direction unless the worker had a solid wish for pain.

[PurpleNGold]

JZ, I figure she might be telling the truth. In fact, maybe she was only telling me about the customers that didn't have sex. But, what you point out is exactly what I was getting at: if that voice is going off in my head, then I need to realize that there is a serious trust issue.

I think that, if she were not active in the field, I really wouldn't care about her past. I would just have to get past that voice so that I could hear about the particularly significant events that she wanted to share that concerned her prior career.

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, perhaps i do sometimes distort your stated views by virtue of my own prism of the world. perhaps i'm harder on people who are closer to my views than i am on those who aren't even in the same ballpark, to use an american term, which means aren't even close. i want to radicalize the liberal and ignore the conservative as hopeless. i'm glad you don't take much offense to my criticism. so how 'bout some more, lol? if you don't consider yourself a pariah, then why is it necessary to remain publically closeted? and if "mongers", to use dickhead's term, aren't pariahs, can you name any politicians who are publically acknowledged mongers? generally politicians flaunt something which is popular with a majority of voters such as religiosity, and hide "politically incorrect" behavior such as "mongering", don't you agree? they have no problem with being viewed entering a church, but don't want anyone catching them visiting a "house of ill repute". regardless of personal viewpoint, it's the majority that determines who is a pariah and who is acceptable. so while you yourself may not publically discriminate against "people like us", i think it's incorrect to state we're not pariahs.

[The Virgin Terr]

dickhead, are you familiar with the country singer loretta lynn's autobiography, COALMINER'S DAUGHTER? it portrays the instrumental role loretta's husband had in initiating and promoting her career. this brings to mind your frequent condemnatory remarks on pimps. do you think there's really necessarily a difference between a man who promotes his wife's career in a "legitimate" field of entertainment as opposed to one who promotes a career for her in sex? why? in either case, the man is facilitating her work, and sharing in the financial benefits. if a guy is not sexually possessive and is fortunate enough to find a mate who is gifted sexually with both looks and enthusiasm, why shouldn't he be able to encourage and promote for her a career in selling sex?( other than the fact that in so doing they are choosing pariahdom for themselves)

[Dickhead]

I have not read the book but I am familiar with story of Loretta and Oliver "Mooney" Lynn. I recently read an interview with her. He qualifies as a pimp in my book. He married her when she was 13 which is repugnant. He beat her regularly which is repugnant. He would not give her any spending money even though he did not want her to have a job, which is repugnant. He did not support the children at times which is repugnant.

And she had the classic battered wife symptoms of being an apologist for him, and still is an apologist for him. I am less familiar with the extent to which he managed and/or pimped her singing career since I am not a country music fan.

RN has spoken of how the laws in WA prevent an SW from having a guy around for security and protection. I have no problem with security and protection and do not consider that to be pimping. What IS pimping is when the guy forces the gal to work, beats her if she doesn't, treats the money she earns as his own, and gives her as much or as little of her hard earned money as he feels like. To that extent it doesn't matter to me if the guy is forcing her to work as a prostitute, a country and western singer, or a cake decorator. It is all pimping and they should all be tortured and killed.

Do I make myself abundantly clear?

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
can you name any politicians who are publically acknowledged mongers?

Nope. Not a one. But, due to the frequency of political scandals, I believe that the majority of the male politicians are mongers. Probably, the busts on an AMP or prostitute are sometimes driven by a DA who got bad service himself, or one of his friends did.


regardless of personal viewpoint, it's the majority that determines who is a pariah and who is acceptable.

In this case, I think it's a fear of losing one's place in society that keeps people thinking that sex industry affiliates (including mongers and mongerettes) are a minority in the first place. Think about it. How many members does this board have. How many boards like it exist? How many people are there that don't even know about the boards, but participate. Yet, there's a tiny percentage of all these people who would actually stand up and proclaim their views publicly.

[PurpleNGold]

On the topic of pimps:

Any person who abuses another individual, presses another individual into work against his/her will, enforces an unfair revenue sharing schedule in which the other individual has no say, coerces another individual into addiction in order to maintain control over that individual or performs any act that harms another individual should be treated as a heinous criminal. This means that most pimps are heinous criminals.

However, I could imagine a situation where a pimp could be a boone for a sex-worker. A pimp might not be forcing the sex-worker into her career. A pimp might just be helping the worker to keep her shit together. A pimp can provide security and marketing for the worker. The pimp could be the person to whom the worker can turn in times of trouble. The pimp could be the sexually non-posessive boyfriend who provides love and nurturing to the sex worker. Is there a pimp out there who does this? I don't know. But, if he's out there, then I don't think he's a criminal.

[The Virgin Terr]

more on pimps, this excerpted from a chapter of a book about prostitution which is a conversation between anti-prostitution "feminists" and prostitute activists. here's the prostitute activists response to the feminist question: what about the pimp?

"feminists have always tried to save us from the pimp. ryan lives with val (both women, both pro-prostitution activists). she takes money from val when she's out of work. technically speaking, she can be taken away for 7 years. it's sort of the unwritten thing- we're not allowed to live with anyone, and we're not allowed to have a mate, and we're not allowed to give them any money."

"you're not allowed to habitually be in the company of a prostitute. that makes you a pimp. this means we're not allowed to have friends, we're not allowed to have lovers. these are the pimping laws they're defending, which is a way of telling us we can't have anybody. we're not good enough, and the only people that would be seen or caught dead around us are no-goods anyway because nobody decent would really associate with us. "

it seems to me the point of criminalizing pimping is the same as criminalizing prostitution. it's not to protect anyone: there are already laws against assault, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), theft, etc. sufficient to do that. their purpose is to make prostitution as difficult and dangerous as possible so as to discourage it.

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm curious about the silence which follows some of my posts like the last one. does everyone think i'm a nut, or am i just too politically incorrect, defending the likes of pimps, those shadowy figures so effectively demonized in the mainstream media the same way prostitutes are? don't get me wrong, dickhead, i admire your hatred of abusers and exploiters, i just don't share the notion that all "pimps" fit that category, any more than i buy the idea all prostitutes are "victims".

[Dickhead]

Nah, VT, don't be so paranoid. I think it's just that not everyone has as much time on their hands as we do!

[Sixtynine]

Just thinking about pimps conjures up negative images as we have seen portrayed in movies and the likes. Shallow, vulgar creatures who dress poorly and treat their women badly all the while most importantly, jacking up the price mongers have to pay.

I suppose that is the only real reason I dislike pimps is that he is the middleman and is standing in the way between you and what you want. If the girl is providing the service, than she should receive the bulk of the pay. Therefore, the girl does not enjoy it as much as she is getting less but since you paid more you are expecting possibly more. That is a losing situation for both sides. Best to pay the girl directly and both be happy when you can. If she is upset with the amount then she can be discontent with you. I would hate it if a girl was discontent because the price her pimp put on her and then passed on that bad service to me but then again, I had only negotiated with one pimp before and that was in Singapore.

It is simply something we always do, try to find out the supplier and go direct. Looking at how many people order the same product of online rather than go to the neighborhood Wal-Mart.

Lastly, a question to throw out to you, do you consider touts to be pimps? Afterall, they get commission and can lead you to the girls even though they normally do not provide the girls security for example.

[PurpleNGold]

VT,

In my post, I was trying to say that pimps aren't inherently evil. So, I guess I was siding with you to some degree. The problem is, any experience I've had concerning pimps (including the media) has been negative. So, I just don't think there are many out there who are anything but scum.

[Dickhead]

Bullshit. Pimps ARE inherently evil, worthless, cancerous brummagem until proven otherwise. This means the street definition of pimps and not Webster's fucking dictionary generic definition. Anyone with any experience knows a pimp when he sees one and it does NOT include "security guards." Any guy who makes his so-called living off of some woman's pussy is a waste of skin and a disgrace to the dick carrying race. I recommend that if you see a pimp, you should [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) in his mouth UNLESS his face is already on fire.

[PurpleNGold]

Dickhead, that was some colorful imagery :-)

I can't agree that pimps are inherently evil. To say that, I'd have to say that there is something inherently evil about the hobby. And, I don't believe that.

If we assume that prostitution is a job like any other, then why isn't a pimp just a manager like any other? Granted, as soon as a manager, in any profession, abuses his subordinates, he becomes scum. But, like VT pointed out, we already have laws for dealing with that.

Also, would you extend your vilification of pimps to include mamasans at a brothel?

[Joe Zop]

There are very basic differences between pimps and business managers, security guards, etc., and they fall mainly in the arena of control. If a woman hires someone to help her keep her shit together, provide security, etc., that's one thing, but if it's a parasitic relationship where control is in the hands of the guy, when it's the woman doing the selling, then it's exploitive and evil. Going after some woman's webmaster or significant other who's babysitting because they're assisting in pandering is complete bullshit, but someone who's taking a "percentage" while essentially doing nothing deserves every bit of DH's and the law's vengeance and more.

[Dickhead]

I don't have any experience with mamasans. That is an Asian concept and I am a Latino monger, primarily. I have an admitted double standard as well. I have no opinion on female pimps. It is only male pimps who are so low that their heads should be pounded so far down into their chest cavities that they have to unbutton their collars to blow their noses. I have only been to Hong Kong in Asia and I stuck to independents. I always try to stick to independents. Why the fuck do I need a middle person to drive up the price?

You seem to feel that the hobby cannot exist without pimps. That, unfortunately, makes you a pimp by proxy and I forgive you only due to your obvious naivete. Managers don't beat up their employees. Pimps do. Managers don't prevent their employees from quitting. Pimps do. Managers provide substantial expertise that contributes to the success of the business. Pimps provide intimidation, brutality, and victimization.

"If we assume that prostitution is a job like any other, then why isn't a pimp just a manager like any other?" That is the most naive statement I have heard in a very long time.

If you would confuse a manager with a pimp, you would confuse cutting a fart with shitting your pants. There is some more colorful imagery for you.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
I don't have any experience with mamasans. That is an Asian concept and I am a Latino monger, primarily.


That's certainly not an asian concept. That's a brothel concept. Maybe the term 'mamasan' is asian, but in the western style brothels, we refer to the same position as the 'madame'. Means the same thing.



I have an admitted double standard as well. I have no opinion on female pimps. It is only male pimps who are so low that their heads should be pounded so far down into their chest cavities that they have to unbutton their collars to blow their noses.


Again with the imagery. I like it :-)

However, why the double standard? That undermines your argument that pimps are inherently evil. A pimp is a pimp, regardless of sex. Would your double standard become a triple standard if the female pimp were a bulldyke?



I have only been to Hong Kong in Asia and I stuck to independents. I always try to stick to independents. Why the fuck do I need a middle person to drive up the price?


No argument here if you feel safe with independents. But, from my experience, the independents are more often rip-off scam artist bitches. Not always, but more so than in an MP or go-go bar. Do you ever visit MP's? There is certainly a middle man/woman there. What about the owner of the bar where the chicas work? Isn't that a pimp?

I don't use SW's, so I don't encounter the street pimp. But, I've had lots of dealings with bar owners and brothel madames. I certainly find no fault in there jobs as long as it is a situation in which the women can quit at any time.



You seem to feel that the hobby cannot exist without pimps.
That, unfortunately, makes you a pimp by proxy and I forgive you only due to your obvious naivete.


LOL Interesting leap of logic. I certainly don't believe that. Nor, would that make me a pimp by proxy. I think that bar owners, and madames certainly make things run more smoothly. But, as you pointed out, there are independents out there. And, some of them are legit (and even quite good).



Managers don't beat up their employees. Pimps do. Managers don't prevent their employees from quitting. Pimps do. Managers provide substantial expertise that contributes to the success of the business. Pimps provide intimidation, brutality, and victimization.


You operate under the assumption that there are no pimps like what I described in an earlier post, and what VT described. Yet, I think you are only considering the low-life street pimp shown in B movies and on sensationalist news reports. How can you be sure that VT's pimp (man or woman) doesn't exist?



"If we assume that prostitution is a job like any other, then why isn't a pimp just a manager like any other?" That is the most naive statement I have heard in a very long time.


I would prefer, 'lacking complete cynicism'. I can understand why the statement would offend if you can't bring yourself to imagine anything other than the vulgar image of the street pimp that you've been brainwashed with. But, think about what VT said: Vilification of pimping is an indirect way to vilify prostitutes.



If you would confuse a manager with a pimp, you would confuse cutting a fart with shitting your pants. There is some more colorful imagery for you.

The two things are non-sequitir. But, I have, at times, wondered if I was about to fart or shit. In those cases, I just head for the toilet to be on the safe side.

Funny how I've gone from tacitly agreeing with VT to defense of that argument. I guess we learn something new about ourselves every day.

Keep the images flowing :-)

[Dickhead]

Well, the last time I was in a brothel was in Sydney about 3 years ago. There was a receptionist who explained the services available, then rang a buzzer to let me in. I then dealt +++ DIRECTLY +++ with the ladies. I am sure the house got a cut but I am also sure they were not about to beat up the ladies if they chose not to have sex with me. Since then I have probably screwed at least 50 prostitutes without entering any brothels. I have had some OK experiences in brothels but I don't prefer them.

Why the double standard? Because I can see some situations, based on my experience, where due to cultural factors and job discrimination there are no other viable alternatives for a woman with children to support said children when the fathers refuse to. On the other hand, I think a man in that situation should mug dumb tourists or steal from parked cars or sell fake drugs to support his children, rather than PIMP his woman. Think about a nursing mother. She needs to eat well to allow her child to survive. A man, on the other hand, should eat dirt, bugs, and excrement to survive rather than PIMP a woman. That is just how I feel. I don't really give a shit if it is a double standard. Men are physically stronger and should god damn well act like it.

Let me make myself perfectly clear:

If a woman wants to sell her pussy, that is her choice. If a man wants to sell his asshole, that is her choice (yes, I said her). If a man wants to sell a woman's pussy, HE IS A FUCKING PIMP AND SHOULD BE CASTRATED VERY SLOWLY. If a woman wants to sell a man's dick, I am available under the right circumstances.

[Dickhead]

Three rules for maintaining one's morality while enjoying paid sex:

1) Choose independent girls above the age of consent.
2) Choose girls who are independent and old enough to know what they are doing.
3) Choose only those girls, of legal age, who keep 100% of the money that you give them AFTER you have sex with them.

And if in the process of the above, you happen to run into any pimps, consider smacking them around a bit if it is indicated by all facts and circumstances.

[Rubber Nursey]

You'll never get laid in my country if you insist on paying AFTER the sex.

[PurpleNGold]

So, you're saying that you don't see the owners of the brothel as pimps? What are they then? And, how do they differ from shop owners who hire help?

I think I misunderstood you about the double standard. I thought you were saying that it was okay for a woman to pimp another woman. That's cleared up now.

As for men being physically stronger... I'm 6' 205 lbs. A lot of fat on me these days, but I used to be in pretty good shape. Even, back when I was on the wrestling team, in high school, I knew some women that could have benched a lot more than me. It's really not true that women are stronger than men.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead

3) Choose only those girls, of legal age, who keep 100% of the money that you give them AFTER you have sex with them.


Can we extend this logic to say that you should only buy clothes from retailers who give 100% of the money back to the poor people in the sweat shops? Guess we're all going naked.

[Rubber Nursey]

I am totally with Dickhead on the whole drug dealing, woman hating, money stealing, 'slap my hos upside the head' type pimp thing. The very thought disgusts me, and I would be more than willing to put a few of Dickhead's suggestions into practice were I to come across one.

The issue of brothel owners is not so cut and dry though. I have met some brothel owners who most certainly fit the definition of 'pimp'. There is the old trick of providing your staff with heroin - take their booking fee, give them enough for one hit and then they have to do another job to buy the next one. Then lend them money for the cab ride home (because all their earnings went to drugs that day), and they can pay that off as well as buy drugs the next day. I've even heard of this happening to girls who didn't use drugs when they first started in the industry. I know of one brothel that put drugs in food and drinks without the girls knowing it, because the girls started getting too 'fussy' about the clientele and the drugs would 'loosen them up'.

Brothel madams may not physically harm working girls (although it's certainly not unheard of), but there are other ways of keeping staff under control and stopping them from leaving. One place here has been known to contact husbands, parents and adult children of top earners who quit. Because this is a very small industry, owners have also rung other parlour owners and told them the girl has a disease or is a thief, to stop her working somewhere else. Many withhold money or charge massive 'bonds' to keep girls in the brothel.

On the other hand, as a former brothel girl I can also say that some women prefer to work in a brothel. For starters, it means that it's the brothel owner who will take the fall if the police decide to cause problems, not us. They also pay for all the advertising, rent, linen, cleaning, utilities and everything else - all we do is show up and work. It's nice to work in a place where you know someone is just outside the door to help you if a client gets violent. I think that in many ways, these may be some of the reasons why girls choose to work for a 'stereotypical' pimp too. (I am NOT defending those pimps, mind you - just making an observation).

[Dickhead]

Well, I really don't give a shit what brothel owners are because as I said I rarely patronize them. And, I don't patronize streetwalkers who have pimps. I patronize INDEPENDENTS. I don't really even like "bars" and if I do go there, I try to get phone numbers and hook up later; thus, the middleperson is eliminated and the prostitute keeps all the money I give her.

In my experience, some brothel owners or bar "mama sans" or whatever are pimps. Example: some bar owners in Mexico snag naive country girls at the bus station and offer them "work" and then "turn them out" and make them pay for ever and ever and ever for the "fee" they "owe" for being set up in the business = PIMP. Some are not. Example: In Costa Rica, where prostitution is legal but pimping is not, bar owners charge hookers a "cover" to enter the bar but whatever happens after that is up to the woman. It is a flat rate and not a commission. Do I think that is a manly way to make a living? Hell no. Do I respect it? Hell no. Do I want to cut their balls off? Not really. Maybe just kick them in the balls a few times.

Then in Argentina there is a service where women can pay a flat monthly fee to have their picture, personal info, and phone put on a website. After that it is up to the woman. Is that the same as the Costa Rica scenario? Pretty much. But it is a woman running the business so it doesn't bother me because it is not unmanly. Is it unwomanly? I have no idea; I have no concept of "unwomanly." There is my double standard. I recognize it as such. That is just the way it is. Women just flat don't have the same job opportunities in that part of the world. Men have more options and so should be able to come up with something else.

Also, I don't watch TV or movies and my "image" of pimps is not an image at all but based on 30 years of actual, real experiences.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by purplengold
Can we extend this logic to say that you should only buy clothes from retailers who give 100% of the money back to the poor people in the sweat shops? Guess we're all going naked.

No, because in the case of manufactured goods, profit = revenue - (direct materials + direct labor + manufacturing overhead), whereas pussy has a 100% margin. It is the only thing where you can give it away and still have it.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
You'll never get laid in my country if you insist on paying AFTER the sex.

Well, Rubbie, I am living proof that you are wrong. In Sydney, had to pay up front. In Melbourne, showed that I had the money, said I would pay afterwards IF all parameters of agreement were met, no problem. Again I chastise you for extrapolating your experiences to other areas. Perhaps I would never get laid in your STATE if I insisted in paying after the sex!

Paying up front is also a "brothel" concept and is also a reason why I rank Australia as being "antiseptic" as opposed to "GFE." My experience with independents (world wide) is that if they don't DEMAND the money up front, I often give them the money up front, but if they do, I often up and split. Think about it.

[PurpleNGold]

I'd like to point out that I'm in no way defending anyone who would abuse/enslave another person--for any reason, pimping or otherwise.

I'm just extending VT's argument that the possibility of a benevolent pimp exists (I sort of see this as the bar owners and madames in places where the girls can quit at will). And, in that case, that person is not evil. Therefore, pimps are not inherently evil. It is their actions that make them so.

As far as your bit about 'profit =...' how about we change my previous statement back to: "only buy clothes from retailers who give 100% of profits back to the people in the sweatshops?" The garment industry is certainly as exploitive as the sex industry. Do you know how much the Gap pays workers in China to make your khaki pants and pullover sweater? Virtually nada. Yet, you're supporting them?

I'm not saying to go all lovefest on the next pimp you meet, but, maybe try looking at the situation with a more open mind.

Oh, and, never go to movies or watch TV? I believed that the first time I heard it. My physics professor used to brag about how he never went to the movies and didn't own a TV. Went to his home once, and, there in the living room was a whopping 80" Screen that worked off a projector system. Gotta throw the bullshit flag.

[Dick Johnson]

This thread is alive! I agree with much of Dickhead's post but not all. His colorful 'abuse the pimp' imageries are much appreciated. joe z, good to see you again in top form. RN hope all's good.

I believe there's some differences in members ideas of pimps here. Just like 'prostitutes'(I believe you don't mind the term RN).
People can think of druggies selling themselves on the streets or escorts charging US$200/hr all the way up to starlets and models available for the right price. Same thing with pimps. There's the street pimp, there's the brothel mgr and then there's the 'unseen' pimp running a bunch of freelancers. I have many freelancers to be not true FL in the strictest sense as they all have to report to a 'manager'. And the mgr 'safe keeps' their money and keep the girls on an invisible leash. Knowing where they are at all times.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
Again I chastise you for extrapolating your experiences to other areas.

Isn't that what we're all doing?

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dick Johnson
Same thing with pimps. There's the street pimp, there's the brothel mgr and then there's the 'unseen' pimp running a bunch of freelancers. I have many freelancers to be not true FL in the strictest sense as they all have to report to a 'manager'. And the mgr 'safe keeps' their money and keep the girls on an invisible leash. Knowing where they are at all times.

Good point. This makes me think of the situation with the street girls in Tijuana. The girls appear to be FL, but they are, at the very least associated with their hotel. And, there is much speculation, due to the apparent assigned spots, that they have pimps running them in the background.

[Rubber Nursey]

LOL! No Dickhead, I wasn't 'extrapolating my experiences to other areas'. I was just pulling the [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) outta you. ;)

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by joe_zop
but someone who's taking a "percentage" while essentially doing nothing deserves every bit of DH's and the law's vengeance and more.

I'd like to point out that this is what every entrepreneur aspires to. Take a good idea. Get the business going. Hire competent staff to run it for you (because you really don't have the skills to manage a big business). Then, sit back and enjoy the profits while the help does the work.

[Rubber Nursey]

originally posted by purplengold
i'd like to point out that this is what every entrepreneur aspires to. take a good idea. get the business going. hire competent staff to run it for you (because you really don't have the skills to manage a big business). then, sit back and enjoy the profits while the help does the work.

well yeah, but in this case we are talking about people raking in the profits of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). and i'm not trying to be melodramatic - but if we are talking about a stereotypical pimp forcing a woman to have sex against her will (or keeping her in sexual servitude with drugs, violence, etc), then it constitutes sexual assault.

[PurpleNGold]

Hope VT gets on before this discussion dies down. Otherwise he'll post something, everyone will have said their piece already, and he'll think we're ignoring him again :-)

[Dick Johnson]

While I mostly agree with Dickhead, I'm not sure about the part about the prostituting your wife or mug tourists, steal from cars, sell fake drugs thingy.

If it comes to THAT, hypothetically, I would prefer someone sell their wife for cash. Because I would rather have sex with someone's wife then be robbed or have my car broken into. Make love not war.

But seriously there are lots of guys whose girlfriends(wives, perhaps less) are prostituting, and they live with it. It is not uncommon that pros have boyfriends and even kids on the side. Most who have BF will not say they do. Some will, like in Japan, they'll say they need the money to buy whatever gift it is for their boyfriend.

Now about wives it is a bit different. A women whose husband cannot earn a living will have a tough relationship anyways. Maybe it is better for the relationship if she does not turn tricks, unless they are both extremely open minded and comfortable with it. But there maybe a time the woman says, hey, why do I need you?

Oh btw, RN, I'm sure you know in many parts of the world it is pay later. But I have yet to visit Australia.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by purplengold
As far as your bit about 'profit =...' how about we change my previous statement back to: "only buy clothes from retailers who give 100% of profits back to the people in the sweatshops?" The garment industry is certainly as exploitive as the sex industry. Do you know how much the Gap pays workers in China to make your khaki pants and pullover sweater? Virtually nada. Yet, you're supporting them?

Oh, and, never go to movies or watch TV? I believed that the first time I heard it. My physics professor used to brag about how he never went to the movies and didn't own a TV. Went to his home once, and, there in the living room was a whopping 80" Screen that worked off a projector system. Gotta throw the bullshit flag.

Listen you yuppie asshole, I have not owned a TV in over 20 years and I have not been to a movie in at least 8 years, and I have not been to a movie of my own volition in close to 20 years. I READ BOOKS. You should try it some time. And you may have a closet full of Gap clothing and pullover sweaters but I have none of either. Plus I don't post in any place where I don't have actual knowledge. And it is "exploitative," not "exploitive."

[Rubber Nursey]

And I think DJ is right on the money. I'm not sure that we are really talking about hating 'pimps' here - I think we are talking about hating men (or women) who exploit sex workers.
(Good to see you again, Dick :))

[PurpleNGold]

originally posted by rn
well yeah, but in this case we are talking about people raking in the profits of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). and i'm not trying to be melodramatic - but if we are talking about a stereotypical pimp forcing a woman to have sex against her will (or keeping her in sexual servitude with drugs, violence, etc), then it constitutes sexual assault.

but, i don't think that's where the argument is. no one has said that this is condoned. in fact, see my posts in the thai section to verify my opposition to this.

we're talking about whether or not managing a stable of pros is inherently evil. my position is that it's not. certainly, there are evil people who do this (and probably the majority), but the management itself is no more evil than the actual labor.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by purplengold
Isn't that what we're all doing?

NO!

[Dick Johnson]

Good to see ya RN:) Yes, I think the key word is exploitation.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
Listen you yuppie asshole, I have not owned a TV in over 20 years and I have not been to a movie in at least 8 years, and I have not been to a movie of my own volition in close to 20 years. I READ BOOKS. You should try it some time. And you may have a closet full of Gap clothing and pullover sweaters but I have none of either. Plus I don't post in any place where I don't have actual knowledge. And it is "exploitative," not "exploitive."

LOL whatever.

I'm not a yuppie. I am very well read (I just find time for both). I don't shop at the gap because I think it's too expensive (not in an attempt to make a statement that I'm an individualist. I do that in more individualistic ways). And, for the record (from 'webster.com'):



One entry found for exploitive.


Main Entry: ex·ploit·ive
Pronunciation: ik-'sploi-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 1921
: EXPLOITATIVE


Exploitive is a more modern form of the same word.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
NO!

Really? So, you think that we are actually creating knowledge? Odd. I thought we were discussing our points of view, which, are direct results of extrapolating our experiences.

[Dick Johnson]

Purple, thanks for recognizing my post.

But I have to say that your GAP theory is a bit different. I know that people protest about low wage sweatshops and while it is unfortunate, it is a just tough way to make a living at poorer regions. Some of these workers would rather be a pro than work 10 hrs a day for low pay.

However I cannot say I will not buy a GAP product or NIKE shoes made in Vietnam. Because if we all do so, we will put them out of work, which is worse.

(Perhaps it is better to buy generic brands made in poor countries then?? Though I doubt the working conditions are better)

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by purplengold
In fact, see my posts in the Thai section to verify my opposition to this.

I'm not allowed to show my face in the Thai section - by order of Skinless. ;)

And this is supposed to be the 'intellectual' section, boys. No fighting!
Don't make me bring out the whip and the knee-high boots again...

[Dickhead]

PNG, I apologize. I meant to call you an illiterate yuppie asshole, because "exploitive" is not in my Merriam-Webster's dictionary at all (copyright 1999; I think Al Gore had already invented the internet by then). It is not a more modern form of exploitative; it is an imaginary form of exploitative.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
Don't make me bring out the whip and the knee-high boots again...

I gotta take a trip to Oz :-)

[Dick Johnson]

Dickhead you have not owned a TV for 20 yrs and have not been to a movie theater for 8 yrs! lol. More power to you. just books and computer? lol. Which country are you in now?

[Dick Johnson]

Why did skinless say that RN? :)

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
PNG, I apologize. I meant to call you an illiterate yuppie asshole, because "exploitive" is not in my Merriam-Webster's dictionary at all (copyright 1999; I think Al Gore had already invented the internet by then). It is not a more modern form of exploitative; it is an imaginary form of exploitative.

You can check the site (http://www.webster.com). Do a search for the word exploitive.

Think we could get Jackson to start a diction thread? We could discuss the differences between nauseous and nauseated.

Illiterate? Hmmm... sort of silly to call someone posting discussion on the internet illiterate. You might want to use your, outdated, paper dictionary to look up the meaning of the word.

This is off topic. I'm dropping it.

[Dickhead]

You're right, PNG. I'll just call you a naive, sycophantic, craven fucking asshole and let it go at that.

[Rubber Nursey]

LOL...that was a long time ago. I was booted out on the basis that I wasn't a monger, wasn't a Thai sex worker, and have never even been to Thailand. Basically they were just sick of hearing me say that Thai girls were human beings - as opposed to 'sperm receptacles' who should be 'kicked to the kerb'.

[Dick Johnson]

All right all right DH & PNG, no need to get too fussy over spelling etc. So there is that word. The thing is the substance of our discussion.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dick Johnson

But I have to say that your GAP theory is a bit different. I know that people protest about low wage sweatshops and while it is unfortunate, it is a just tough way to make a living at poorer regions. Some of these workers would rather be a pro than work 10 hrs a day for low pay.


Yeah. I know that Gap thing isn't quite the same. But, it's as close as I could think of to an exploitive relationship that's recieved a lot of public attention

[Dick Johnson]

Yeah, I remember that RN, just wanted you to confirm it. I disagree with them. You should just show your face there, I'll cover you.

[Dick Johnson]

Where's Dickhead? PNG is just giving you a hard time come back here.

[PurpleNGold]

RN, I noticed you post in the American Women forum. You're posts are helpful there, so fuck skinless. Post away. :-)

[Dick Johnson]

I gave skinless a hard time awhile back. He's not a bad guy, just a lil cranky occasionally.

[Dick Johnson]

RN, your kindness made them sick :D

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by purplengold
Yeah. I know that Gap thing isn't quite the same. But, it's as close as I could think of to an exploitive relationship that's recieved a lot of public attention

"I" before "E" EXCEPT after "C" and in words that sound "A" as in "neighbor" and "weigh." Might be time time to turn off your TV for a while and quit eating so much popcorn at the movies. Then maybe you wouldn't be 6'0" and 205.

[PurpleNGold]

No offense meant towards skinless. I've been laughing my ass off at his adventures. Just figured to put it that way because Dickhead's gotten me into an combative mood.

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by Dick Johnson
Yeah, I remember that RN, just wanted you to confirm it. I disagree with them. You should just show your face there, I'll cover you.

Oh, sure. "You go in RN - I'll be right behind you". I've heard that before. They'll be attacking me from all sides, and you'll be just standing there ...staring at my ass. LOL

[Dickhead]

Well, RN, since you have made it clear that your ass is off limits, what are we to do BUT stare at it?

[Rubber Nursey]

Well...you could kiss it. ;)

(Sorry - it was just too obvious to ignore).

[Dickhead]

I would be into that after a nice soapy shower.

[PurpleNGold]

This is way off topic, but how do you make the smiley's?

[Rubber Nursey]

; + ) for a wink, : + ) for a smile

[Dick Johnson]

That's a bit of a turn on there RN... that ass thing..

[Dickhead]

Smiley face = colon + right parenthesis.

Frowny face = colon + left parenthesis.

[Rubber Nursey]

Ok, so now I know what to do next time a fight breaks out - I just have to steer the conversation towards my ass!

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
; + ) for a wink, : + ) for a smile

Frank Zappa:

"Don't fool yourself girl; it's winking at you ..."

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Ok, so now I know what to do next time a fight breaks out - I just have to steer the conversation towards my ass!

As long as something gets steered towards your ass.

[Rubber Nursey]

Any more naughty talk from you Mr Dickhead, and I'll be steering my paddle towards yours!

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
Any more naughty talk from you Mr Dickhead, and I'll be steering my paddle towards yours!

If you offered to let me steer the paddle, for a fee, would that make you a pimpette?

[Dickhead]

Pat Benatar:

"Hit me with your best shot,
Fire away."

But don't you think you ought to pick on someone your own size?

(directed at RN and not Pimple and Gold)

[Rubber Nursey]

You know - I think all these one-line posts constitute some kind of record for this section! (Considering most of the regulars suffer from extreme cases of verbal diarrhoea).

[Dickhead]

I am not into anal penetration but I do like to spank women, especially with hairbrushes and ping pong paddles.

[Dickhead]

Also if you alternate it with ice that is good and plus if you have a feather handy that helps.

[Dickhead]

But sometimes the ice or the handle of the hairbrush do accidentally penetrate JUST a little bit ...

[Rubber Nursey]

DH,
Keep both hands on the keyboard - where I can see them.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
You know - I think all these one-line posts constitute some kind of record for this section! (Considering most of the regulars suffer from extreme cases of verbal diarrhoea).

This conversation has racked up 5 pages of the forum in a few hours. It's been fun.

Dickhead: bygones

[Dickhead]

Of course I put a condom on the handle of the hairbrush.

[Dickhead]

Plus only one hand has been on the keyboard ...

[Rubber Nursey]

That's what I was afraid of....

[Dickhead]

Fortunately I am ambidextrous. Does that make me bisexual?

[Dickhead]

And remember Rubbie, I am your friend, not your enema.

[Rubber Nursey]

How we got from pimps to asses to Dickhead's masturbatory habits is beyond me - but we had better get our shit together and get back on topic, before Jackson bans us under the 'General BS' clause!

[Dick Johnson]

Missed your earlier post, RN, I don't say stuff i don't mean, I'll back you up as long as you have intersting/good things/questions to say.

[Dickhead]

Masturbatory habits? My dear, I believe you misunderstand where my non-keyboard hand has been. It has been on the ping pong paddle, polishing it up for you.

[Dick Johnson]

Dickhead, this is not cybersex you know. See ya guys:D.

Dick Johnson and Dickhead are two seperate people.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dick Johnson
Dickhead, this is not cybersex you know. See ya guys:D.

Come on Mr. Johnson. He doesn't watch movies, so he must not be watching porn. He's online right now, so he's not out with a chica. He's gotta get his jollies somewhere ;)

[Dickhead]

Porn has never made any sense to me. Maybe I am just sick, but I prefer live flesh. If I were into porn, I could have saved a lot of money over the years.

[Rubber Nursey]

And you think cyber sex with a prostitute will be any cheaper? If you want this ping-pong paddle conversation to go any further - I hope you've got PayPal. ;)

[PurpleNGold]

What about the guys producing porn movies? Aren't they a type of pimp? I mean, they're out there getting women to have sex so that they can sell the images to guys who will then beat off (a form of sex). Are they inherently evil?

(And here we are, back on topic...)

[Dickhead]

I am the one who brought up the ping pong paddle so you owe me 100 quid.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
I am the one who brought up the ping pong paddle so you owe me 100 quid.

Hey. This is good reasoning. Next time I'm with a pro, I'll bring up anal sex. Then tell her she owes me a premium for proposing the idea.

[Dickhead]

I do believe guys producing porn movies can be pimps especially if there are drugs involved. I am not sure all of the actors and actresses in hard core are there of their own free will (free willy?)

[PurpleNGold]

Some of the Japanese shit I've seen leads me to agree with you, Dickhead, concerning free will. I think some of those girls get tricked into it. THat's sad. And, in those cases, I'm all for your type of justice. Well, maybe I would be a bit harsher than you suggest.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by purplengold
Hey. This is good reasoning. Next time I'm with a pro, I'll bring up anal sex. Then tell her she owes me a premium for proposing the idea.

Does the phrase "chili dog" have any significance to you?

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
Does the phrase "chili dog" have any significance to you?

That's a particularly nasty concept within this context. Are you saying that you like that?

Personally, I've never been one for that kind of thing. I even wonder about the chicks who do it in porn. I'm sure that enemas were used beforehand, but still.

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by Dickhead
I am the one who brought up the ping pong paddle so you owe me 100 quid.
Sure. I'll pay you AFTER the service, and only if the experience lives up to my expectations.

[Dickhead]

Oh no fuck no. I'm just saying if you bring it up and then ask for money you might get one. Dickhead detours around all dirt roads.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Sure. I'll pay you AFTER the service, and only if the experience lives up to my expectations.

That is a win-win situation.

[Dickhead]

I have ping pong paddles with the rubber coating with the many nipples and also the old fashioned sandpapery kind.

[PurpleNGold]

Well, I gotta get some sleep. It's tiring being in a profession like mine when you're illiterate.

But, one last thought to keep the farewell on topic: If we say that all pimps are inherently evil because of their job--regardless of whether or not they drug, beat, etc. their girls--then, aren't we saying that prostitution itself must be inherently evil?

Ciao

[Dickhead]

I don't think anybody ever said that. I gotta crash too.

[Joe Zop]

Wow, I'm glad I went to bed early (comparatively) before this thread erupted, as this was whack and I'd have no doubt stayed up all night playing! What fun!

But I still see the issue revolving around the twin towers of control and choice. I believe in true and genuine choice, which means people should have the right to make stupid choices also, as long as they're made freely and under scenarios where they understand the options and consequences, and they have enough control so that if they don't like the choice they've made they can make another, and where their choice doesn't unduly affect another. (This is obviously also a perspective that can fit to other areas, such as drug use.) So if a woman actually wants to give some guy a percentage of her income for nothing, understanding that's what it is, (be it PNG's entrepreneur or a significant other, where presumably the "nothing" is offset by other factors) that's certainly her choice. In the classic pimp scenario, though, this is accompanied by pressure and manipulation, which makes it less of a free choice -- clearly, few people are going to willingly do this without believing they're getting something positive in return. In the case of a brothel, a massage parlor, escort service, etc., there are plenty of clear upsides for the woman (in addition to various drawbacks, but that's true in all job situations) so the choices are arguable and defendable. In the case of a pimp (baby, I need some new jewelry) that upside is, as best, vague. And here's the key difference where I disagree with you, PNG -- an entreprenuer who collects a percentage has brought something to the table as well, whether or not they're participating on a daily basis, whether it's the environment, the opportunity, the brand, whatever. The pimp just brings the illusion and implication of such things. Every sex worker ought to be able to hire marketers, bookkeepers, security, anyone they want to work for them. (That's the entrepreneur model I prefer.) While like Dickhead I'm in favor of things being cheap, that doesn't mean I'm not all for every woman being able to make as much as she can.

Also, believing in choice doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to want to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) on the people who push choices I consider bad -- so while a woman has the right to choose a pimp, that doesn't mean I still don't think the pimp ought to be smacked.

And DJ, screw you, you self-important judgmental prick. I've changed absolutely nothing about my behavior or perspective except my opinion of and interest in engaging you. You're just a guy who craps on the floor, looks up and sees the sun shining, and says, "Wow, see what I did!"

[The Virgin Terr]

i think it is condemning prostitution to condemn pimping, at least in the sense that a pimp provides a service to the prostitute, i.e. protection. i don't have any personal experience with pimps so i base my statements on theory. i'm sure in real life alot of abuse occurs. i think this is because pimps, like sws, come from violent impoverished backgrounds where violence is the norm.

the rapper ice-t claims to have been a very successful pimp before he got into rap. anyone who gets the rightwingers into apoplexic fits by rapping about killing cops in self defense can't be all bad. (for those of you who don't know, ice-t is most famous for composing a rap titled "cop killer". it's pretty well documented that police abuse african americans from the "hood".)

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
i don't have any personal experience with pimps so i base my statements on theory.

Then perhaps you should listen to those with actual experience? BTW, a good reference book on this subject is "Pimps, Wimps, and Gimps" by Richard A. Head, available on amazon.com for $29.95 plus shipping and handling.

[Dick Johnson]

Whao, joe_zop, what's your problem? Do you want me to start again?

Dickhead, I can't find Richard A Head's book on Amazon...

[PurpleNGold]

Joe,

I'm not arguing about right to choose. I firmly believe that every person should have that. And, that the choices should be limited only by the boundary where a choice would infringe on another's choices.

I'm trying to argue that there is a separation of aspects between the job and the person doing the job. I've known plenty of entrepreneurs who abused those they employed. Even knew one who smacked her seceretary once (she's now in jail for other reasons). An entrepreneur doesn't always bring anything to the table other than an idea. He/she can go to an incubator to have the idea grown. So, how is that different from a pimp who opens a bar and invites women to come sell sexual services? A good example of this would be the proprietor of the Eden Club in Bangkok. He's most certainly a pimp. But, would you say he's deserving of ill treatment? I don't think so. He's just an entrepreneur.

Think about it like this. I define a pimps job as being the protection and promotion of one or more working girls. Now, to say that such a job is inherently evil is to say that the protection of prostitutes and promotion of prostitution is inherently evil. If you say that, you are saying that prostitution itself is evil. And, unfortunately for the sake of debate, there isn't anyone posting on this board who would say that.

Now, the manner in which a pimp goes about performing his job (or whether he actually performs it at all) can be, and usually is, evil. Evil pimps should be beaten and tortured as horribly as possible. But, someone who provides a gaggle of consenting girls with customers, guidance, marketing and protection is not evil.

[The Virgin Terr]

couldn't have said it better myself, p&g. dickhead, i didn't know you were an author? you've been holding out on us. there is a real book titled PIMP i'd like to get ahold of, an autobiography.

[Joe Zop]

Well, PNG, then I think we should define exactly what it is we're talking about, as that seems key here. By your definition, it's not only the proprietor of the Eden Club who qualifies as a pimp, it's the receptionist at every massage parlor, the security guard in the parking lot outside who waves customers in, etc. I don't think that entirely has the necessary level of nuance, since by that definition the folks I mention above, as well as the webmaster for such a worker's site, are now pimps. (And there actually are a number of people who'd like to smack Marc at the Eden Club, btw, but that's more about personality than role.) Is it the combination of protection and promotion that makes the definition fit? Where is the line drawn so that the job is the job of pimp?

I generally simply don't see it possible to make the kind of separation by role you propose -- the answer to a question and the attitude depends on the specifics. I can't be "pro-doctor" or "anti-doctor" without knowing the circumstances and the specifics of the issue. So, for example, if the question is "do you have a problem with prostitution?" the answer is, in general, no, but it depends on the circumstances. I definitely have a problem with it when it's forced labor, such as indenture, for example. I have a problem when it involves those under the defined legal age. I have a problem with the scenario RN described coming into in Oz, where it was based on deception. Do I have a problem with people providing a secure environment and/or promotion for prostitutes? Generally, no, but it depends on the circumstances -- and the circumstances where I can be most generically comfortable are those in which the worker has control as well as choice. And in this case, it's also about control of the money. A security guard, even one working on commission, doesn't control the money -- a pimp does.

I'm sorry, but bringing an idea to the table is bringing something, in the same way that bringing reputation, contacts, vision, etc., are bringing something. And in making by extension a parallel between workers in an incubator and prostitutes, in that each might be doing work for different kinds of entrepreneurs, I think things are stretching nearly to the point of noncongruence.

-----

DJ, I don't give a damn what you do, but if you expect to launch a personal attack on me out of the blue, misread everything I write, give me attitude about your inability to read and try to tell me I've said something different, then try to imply that your actions have somehow changed my behavior or that of a place on the board, congratulate yourself, and somehow a day later expect me to play nice with you, well, then you're an even bigger pompous idiot than I thought.

[PurpleNGold]

Joe, I think we are both arguing the same thing. It's just a different way of saying it. Both of us are pro-choice and, at the least, indifferent concerning morality of prostitution. We're both against forced labor (or women being tricked into it). And we're both for persecution of the vile scum that would beat, enslave or or otherwise harm a woman.

The only difference is that I believe that the possibility of a non-evil pimp exists. And, yes, I would consider security guards, acting as touts, to be pimps. The secretary at the front desk? not really. That's just an ancillary position that keeps the process running smoothly. The secretary isn't promoting or protecting the girls. Only taking money and keeping track of who's next in line.

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by purplengold
And, yes, I would consider security guards, acting as touts, to be pimps. The secretary at the front desk? not really. That's just an ancillary position that keeps the process running smoothly. The secretary isn't promoting or protecting the girls. Only taking money and keeping track of who's next in line.

As Dickhead is always pointing out to me - that depends on what country/culture you are talking about. In my city, a security guard (as rare as they are) is exactly that...they have absolutely no role in soliciting clients and they are paid a wage, by the sex worker, like any other employee. It is illegal for a sex worker to hire a security guard here, and that is solely because people always associate security guards with pimps. Anyone found acting as security for a sex worker is charged under the 'pimping laws'.

However, receptionists at the desk in our brothels ARE pimps, by definition. They are the ones who solicit clients on the phone (and are often responsible for placing the newspaper ads), they are the ones who take the money and they are the ones who tell the girls who they have to sleep with and what the service will include. They are also the ones responsible for the 'protection' of the sex workers, seeing as our brothels are not able to hire security. Receptionists here are also charged under pimping laws.

[Joe Zop]

Precisely my point, RN -- the definition is fluid and broad, so I find it impossible to make some sort of blanket judgement. The dictionary definition of a pimp is simply someone who gets customers for a prostitute, which is a very wide range of possibility, often made even wider by legal definitions which also look at it in terms of virtually any kind of support of prostitutes at all. This leads to exactly how laws usually attack prostitution, as you note with receptionists, and as also happens with roommates and significant others.

I find it difficult to talk about the evil or lack thereof of pimps under this definition, as it ends up being so broad as to almost be meaningless, and a lot of the discussion ends up being about where you grab on, as in the Jain story about the blind men and the elephant. Am I going to say that the receptionist at a brothel is inherently evil? Of course not. And when I say pimp I'm not referring to her. Am I going to say that street pimps or men who buy women into indentured servitude are probably misunderstood nice guys? No way. Dickhead's made it very clear exactly what kind of pimps he's referring to, and I think that helps make the distinctions clear.

I'll concede PNG's point that certainly under this quaggy definition there are no doubt some pimps who are not inherently evil, in the same way that I'll concede the idea that there are probably some governments who are not inherently worth complaining about and whacking at (well, perhaps at least one government, somewhere, possibly, maybe.) But my default position is going to be to view both with extreme suspicion until I've a reason to think otherwise, and to ask what the specific situation is to which we're referring.

[Rubber Nursey]

i don't believe that 'pimps' are inherently evil. i don't think there is anything wrong with promoting, managing or providing security to a sex worker (with her consent or at her request). obviously what most people hate, is the stereotypical street pimp. but to me, people don't hate him because he is a 'pimp'...they hate him because he abuses women. they call him a pimp - rather than a [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126), thief, kidnapper, drug dealer, violent piece of crap - like it's 'part of the job description'. but it's not.

i guess it's probably another example of sex workers being considered party to their own abuse (as usual). if a man does that to any other woman, he is considered to be her abuser. if he does it to a hooker - he is just her pimp. the fact that these women are forced to have sex (or surrender money earned by having sex) by these men, makes them seem even more vile and abhorrent - probably because society still sees sex, and a woman's chastity, as sacred or 'special'.

in answer to png's statement that if pimps are evil, then prostitution must be evil - i think that the stereotypical pimp issue needs to be looked at as a seperate issue. just like sex slavery, drug addiction, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), beatings, etc are common to prostitution, but not inherent to prostitution.

[PurpleNGold]

RN and JZ:

I agree with you both. This is what I was trying to get Dickhead to see. His view seems to be that anyone who can be considered a pimp should be executed. That just strikes me as tunnelvision.

[Dickhead]

Brothel security = not pimp even though WA law says it is.

Receptionist = not pimp even though WA law says it is.

Guy who arranges dates for women and takes a cut = douche bag and pussy and I wouldn't do it for a living. Fun to slap around but should not be tortured and killed. Pimp? Gray area.

Guy who forces women to prostitute themselves, takes as much money as he feels like, beats them, etc. = pimp plus other types of criminal as RN points out. Rip his tonsils out with a fish hook, pour boric acid on his testicles, stick knitting needles in his eyes, bury him in the sand with only his face and pecker sticking out, pour on molasses, and release the insects, reptiles, and rodents.

Are we clear now?

[PurpleNGold]

Crystal clear. And, again, your imagery is vivid.

[Joe Zop]

Precisely my take on things as well, DH. My only caveat would be on the arranger -- if this is someone specifically hired by the woman then I've lots less concern. Still not somebody I'd want to hang with, but not a major scumbag. Put him on salary and I've got little trouble with him at all -- he's just someone the sex worker hires for marketing.

[Rubber Nursey]

Ok, out of interest - what's the general feeling on boyfriends/husbands then?

Let's say the guy can't get a job (or maybe is sick or injured or whatever). The family have huge expenses, so the wife decides to go back to sex work to support the family. The husband stays in the house as security, and sometimes arranges bookings for her. They put all the money she earns into a joint account, like many other single-income couples do.

There is no violence, no coercion, no threats - the decision was entirely hers, based on the financial needs of the family. (Please don't say that she should have chosen other work, or that he should have talked her out of it - let's assume that she can't, or doesn't want to, work anywhere else).

What's the verdict?

[Joe Zop]

A real choice by a functional couple, with the person doing the work truly making the choice? Up to them, and I've no real criticisms, especially under your theoretical scenario ruling out other options. Hard to believe there won't be some kind of repercussions down the line, but it's their call, from my perspective.

[PurpleNGold]

To me, this would be the case of a benevolent pimp. I think the guy should be doing everything he can to right the family ship. He should be taking any job he can in order to bring in money (hopefully enough to make ends meet without the need for his wife to go out working in this biz).

As Chris Rock said, "I'm not saying it's right. But, I understand!"

There's another variation on this theme though. What if the guy is making enough money to make ends meet. Or, that the guy makes enough combined with his wife's secretarial (bartending, office manager, executive, etc) job. But, like you said, the wife wants to do this. She insists on this being her calling.

In that situation, I think the guy should dump the girl and go find himself a woman who wants to be in a one on one relationship. I don't say this because I think what she's doing is wrong. I just think that the relationship is headed for real trouble, and the guy should get out before he gets hurt.

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by purplengold
I think the guy should be doing everything he can to right the family ship. He should be taking any job he can in order to bring in money (hopefully enough to make ends meet without the need for his wife to go out working in this biz).

And now we're back to the fact that sex work is not considered a legitimate choice of occupation. I didn't say that she felt forced by circumstance to go back to sex work, and I didn't say that she didn't WANT to go back to it. I said that she chose to. Both you and Joe made mention of 'other options'. Why should they consider other options, if that's what she wants to do? If I had said that a stay-at-home Mum decided to go back to her old job as an accountant to support the family, would you have said the same thing?

...the wife wants to do this. She insists on this being her calling. ...I just think that the relationship is headed for real trouble, and the guy should get out before he gets hurt.

As I've said before - that's your personal feeling, and it's most certainly understandable that you would feel that way about your girlfriend. The majority of men probably feel the same way. But it's not how ALL men feel. Many sex workers have full and wonderful relationships while still working. Sex work is most definitely a 'calling' for many women - I feel that way about it myself. Relationships are also a 'calling' for many of us. It's not fair that sex workers should have to make the choice between their love for the job and their love for a man.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
And now we're back to the fact that sex work is not considered a legitimate choice of occupation. I didn't say that she felt forced by circumstance to go back to sex work, and I didn't say that she didn't WANT to go back to it. I said that she chose to. Both you and Joe made mention of 'other options'. Why should they consider other options, if that's what she wants to do? If I had said that a stay-at-home Mum decided to go back to her old job as an accountant to support the family, would you have said the same thing?


Yep. I was under the impression, like you pointed out, that selling sex was the only option available. So, to clarify, I'm saying that he should provide her with that option. Or at least make enough money that they could, together, make ends meet without her needing to sell sex because she could get a lower paying job in another industry.

It comes back to choice. If the man is a lazy fuck, and is putting the woman into a position where she can choose to starve or sell sex, then he's basically using passive aggressive tactics to coerce her. That makes him fall under my idea of the evil pimp.



It's not fair that sex workers should have to make the choice between their love for the job and their love for a man. [/i]

You got me there. Okay, I hadn't completely thought through my position on that. But, I'll stand by it from a personal perspective. I'd get out of the relationship in a hurry.

[The Virgin Terr]

seems to me RN, that your position on this (sexworkers having mates) has evolved quite alot so that now you're in essential agreement with moi, in theory at least. i suspect you still have some distance to go b4 you accept it for your own personal life.

for me, paying women for sex is a no-brainer. the reason why: it works! at least with some, those to whom sexwork is a "calling". i don't understand why any guy , or any gal for that matter, would oppose a practice in which all involved get what they want. but hey, people stupid and weird enough to believe in garbage such as the "holy bible" are beyond this person's comprehension. there's a good article in the american newsweek magazine this week about president bush's born again christian faith. i've come to learn that i disagree with everything the religious right holds to be true. all i have to know about any issue is what side the religious right is on, because that's sure to be the wrong side.

eat my shorts, richard a. head.

p & g, what the hell is an attractive woman doing with a lazy fuck in the first place? also, can't she choose another occupation if she doesn't want to hook so she doesn't have to starve? or she can do what alot of women do and become a legal prostitute by hooking up with a rich man in a relationship. isn't that why rich guys get preferential treatment by most women? face it, women are attracted to money. i understand little else about them, but that's all one really needs to know to motivate them to fuck. isn't that right, rubber nursey?

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
all i have to know about any issue is what side the religious right is on, because that's sure to be the wrong side.


Gotta say that I disagree with this. I tend to disagree with the religious right too. But, I believe in keeping an open mind. Who knows maybe they'll have a good point here or there. Closing our minds just because most of the shit they spew is counter to nature only makes us as thoughtless.


p & g, what the hell is an attractive woman doing with a lazy fuck in the first place?

Don't ask me why. But, it happens often enough. Maybe the guy didn't appear so lazy when they hooked up.


also, can't she choose another occupation if she doesn't want to hook so she doesn't have to starve?

The initial assumption was that no other jobs were available. Take, for example, women in very poor countries where the woman is probably not educated and simply doesn't have the options that we take for granted.


or she can do what alot of women do and become a legal prostitute by hooking up with a rich man in a relationship. isn't that why rich guys get preferential treatment by most women? face it, women are attracted to money. i understand little else about them, but that's all one really needs to know to motivate them to fuck.

This belongs in the 'American Women' forum :D

Editing done just to fix the markup tags.

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
seems to me RN, that your position on this (sexworkers having mates) has evolved quite alot so that now you're in essential agreement with moi, in theory at least. i suspect you still have some distance to go b4 you accept it for your own personal life.
I have always said that there are many sex workers involved in loving relationships - just that I'm not one of them.

"face it, women are attracted to money. i understand little else about them, but that's all one really needs to know to motivate them to fuck. isn't that right, rubber nursey?"

And I have also always said that a man's wealth means nothing to me! (Well...unless I'm working, of course).

[The Virgin Terr]

in my opinion you exhibit better judgement in having sex for money than you do when you choose osmeone for other reasons, i.e. that time you brought some psycho home who refused to leave after getting his free sample and decided to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) you. maybe you ought to change the criteria your using in choosing men for your personal life. like i said in a previous post, i think women bear primary responsibility for the fucked up, psychotic world in which we live, with thugs like saddam hussein and religious nuts like bush in power. it just seems to me it's awfully strange that dangerous psychos like charles manson are much more successful in attracting women than a wimpy gimpy would-be-pimp such as moi.

returning to the subject of pimps, i just came across an interesting website by a former street walker who married her pimp and had his child in spite of the fact he frequently beat her and once nearly killed her. just another case of women's psychotic preference in men coming back to haunt them. granted, the pimp was psychotic also. her narrative of their relationship while not pulling any punches still portrayed him as not a monster, but a very fucked up man she tried to love but had to eventually flee for her own life. she also wrote some great touching poetry. you can find her site as a link from www.menbehavingbadly.ca

[PurpleNGold]

VT,

Bush (and his administration) is as much a thug as Hussein. He just uses his 'religious nut' status to hide that fact. Do you remember the big uproar about the withdrawal of abortion funds to third world countries? That was within the first month of his administration. Well, while that was taking up all the news media's attention (the news media is so happy to play along), he also nixed a little executive order that's been standing since Nixon. What was that order? It was an order forbidding the CIA or other federal agencies from assassinating foreign citizens (specifically intended to mean foreign leaders). And, lets not even talk about our wonderful Attorney General and his quest to be the personification of Orwell's nightmare.

Regarding the woman marrying her pimp, I think that there is a psychological condition that describes the phenomenon. Something about abusers being idolized by their victims. That chick just got really fucked up in the head.

[The Virgin Terr]

religious indoctrination ia a form of psychological abuse which predisposes it's victims into becoming pricks themselves. it's nice talking to someone who shares my political views, png. but it takes a natural born thug like saddam to show what real brutality is about. bush and ashcroft are just momma's boys in comparison. bush and ashcroft specialize in bureaucratic brutality, like the good fascists they are. they're just good christian soldiers.

[PurpleNGold]

bush and ashcroft specialize in bureaucratic brutality, like the good fascists they are. they're just good christian soldiers. [/i]

Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic. In his writings, he defended his actions against Jewish people on the basis that they were an affront to God.

[PurpleNGold]

Found this at: http://www.bangkoksex.org/wife_cleopatra.htm


We advocate only consensual, non-commercial sexual relationships between adult partners, which is the only form of sexual activity appropriate for the capitalist, free-market, democratic world of the 21. century.

I have a question for the committee. Shouldn't non-indentured commercial sex be praised as one of the highest forms of capitalism? A woman selling a commodity for which she has no overhead?

BTW, a few lines after the above quote, the article provides the the link for an internet dating service, well known to sport ads for working girls, and promotes it as the end all of 21'st century dating.

[Joe Zop]

It's pretty hard to take pronouncements too seriously from anything that contains both "Bangkok" and "sex" together, and when you combine that with statements about what's appropriate for the 21st century (as opposed to what was appropriate for the 20th, perhaps?) we're well into the Department of Silly Walks.

As far as your question, well, we are supposedly becoming ever more a service economy, and providing services is rather what sex work is all about...

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Ok, out of interest - what's the general feeling on boyfriends/husbands then?

Let's say the guy can't get a job (or maybe is sick or injured or whatever). The family have huge expenses, so the wife decides to go back to sex work to support the family. The husband stays in the house as security, and sometimes arranges bookings for her. They put all the money she earns into a joint account, like many other single-income couples do.

There is no violence, no coercion, no threats - the decision was entirely hers, based on the financial needs of the family. (Please don't say that she should have chosen other work, or that he should have talked her out of it - let's assume that she can't, or doesn't want to, work anywhere else).

What's the verdict?

Any guy who is NOT sick and can't get a job is just a fucking loser and not a man but half a man or perhaps 32.6% of a man. And if he is injured he still has a an obligation to retrain for some other kind of work. Now if he has a severe illness then maybe but I personally would kill myself for the life insurance before I would allow this.

And why do they have such huge expenses? People should live within their means and manage their money so as to avoid problems. The phrase "save for a rainy day" comes to mind.

Just my 2 Argentinean pesos worth.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
what the hell is an attractive woman doing with a lazy fuck in the first place?"

Exactly! Why are some women attracted to loser after loser after loser? DH

"face it, women are attracted to money. i understand little else about them, but that's all one really needs to know to motivate them to fuck. isn't that right, rubber nursey? "

VT is morphing into a cynic. Perhaps he has been reading my posts for too long. But I agree completely. DH

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by purplengold
Found this at: http://www.bangkoksex.org/wife_cleopatra.htm



I have a question for the committee. Shouldn't non-indentured commercial sex be praised as one of the highest forms of capitalism? A woman selling a commodity for which she has no overhead?

BTW, a few lines after the above quote, the article provides the the link for an internet dating service, well known to sport ads for working girls, and promotes it as the end all of 21'st century dating.

Not just no overhead but no cost of goods sold. 100% product margin and a markup of infinity %.

[Joe Zop]

And why do they have such huge expenses? People should live within their means and manage their money so as to avoid problems.

Aw, c'mon, DH, can't you tackle the hypothetical without begging the question? Just take it as a given -- you could postulate any number of reasons why people have high expenses and the guy an inability to get a job decent enough to cover it. Circumstances can trump the best preparation for couples with common levels of resources.

Let's just say the guy was walking to work at his second job one day (because he was saving money both for a rainy day and also to better buy things for his kids and wife) and was run down by a drunk driver. He's physically unable to work because he's got substantial nerve damage or something else, and the medical bills are killing them because he needs treatment not covered by insurance. Or whatever. What about RN's scenario then?

And I disagree that women are attracted primarily by money. I believe they are attracted by an expectation of and desire for security, which follows the natural female need to create a safe nest in which to raise children. (Not that this can't manifest itself in the same precise way, and not that there aren't plenty of money-hungry women --as well as men -- but it's a rather less damning way of saying it.)

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dickhead
Any guy who is NOT sick and can't get a job is just a fucking loser and not a man but half a man or perhaps 32.6% of a man. And if he is injured he still has a an obligation to retrain for some other kind of work. Now if he has a severe illness then maybe but I personally would kill myself for the life insurance before I would allow this.

I think that you're a bit short sighted concerning the availability of work. There are places, even in the U.S., where finding work isn't as simple as wanting to. And, then you have the issue about whether or not the pay for a job is enough to support a family. I mean, the average american couldn't make it on the minimum wage; then, you have the illegal immigrants who work for even less.



And why do they have such huge expenses? People should live within their means and manage their money so as to avoid problems. The phrase "save for a rainy day" comes to mind.


A short while ago, a friend of mine (who simply can't afford to pay $400/month that the health insurance companies wanted) was doing some work on the roof of his house. He, slipped and fell. Went to the emergency room, went through a surgery to put a pin in his right arm. About two weeks later, he's having pain in his left wrist. Goes to see his doctor, and ends up in surgery to rebreak and reset a broken bone. Now, this guy is a consultant, and since he can't use his hands for two months (both are in casts) he can't type. This guy had saved for a rainy day, but, unless your very wealthy, it's nearly impossible to save for a deluge.

BTW, this guy's not married, so the prostitution issue was not an option ;)

[The Virgin Terr]

alienation. i've been alienated practically my whole life, and for most of that time the cause of it was murky at best. even now it remains somewhat that way, although what i've learned since beginning down a path of mental liberation has crystallized a focus for this alienation, and that is how repressed human societies are. for example, i, like many lonely single people, have my most physical and sensual relationship with a non-human animal, in my case a cat. i know society will allow me to keep an animal as a pet solely for my own pleasure and in my case as in many others, as a sort of consolation for the fact that i am lonely and unable to secure the human companionship i desire. i think this is because society doesn't allow humans to openly pursue relationships of pleasure as it allows us to do so with animals of other species. i really hate humanity for this reason. i know things would be a hell of alot different if i had the power to force others to accept my beliefs (which are basically that coercion is only acceptable in defense against other coercion) as they have the ability to force me to accept theirs (human nature is evil, sex is a predatory passion, people can't be entrusted to run their own lives and also maintain an orderly society). so i am forced to repress myself to prevent society from forcefully repressing me (i.e. imprisonment) for doing something as terrible as propositioning a woman i don't know but am attracted to in a sex for cash exchange. if i want to do that i have to resort to a black market or travel a long distance to participate in a legal one, but in either case prices will be inflated and spontaneity and chemistry largely sacrificed. why shouldn't i be able to solicit any cute girl i come across? in any human community there are many attractive females of childbearing age, who are both capable of having more plentiful and more enjoyable sex and financially benefitting from it, because there are always many men willing to pay an attractive woman/girl for an erotic experience. shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves what kind of sex lives they wish to lead without fear that society will forcefully disapprove even though it's freely consensual? would society really fall apart if that kind of freedom existed? i don't think so.

[The Virgin Terr]

to summarize my last post: society doesn't allow human beings to openly and freely have sensual relationships with each other. we are forced to deny our essebtial animal nature. this is very very stupid and very very wrong. i disagree with the idea that our passion unchecked leads to violence. i think quite the opposite is true: by repressing our animal nature, we become more violent, as epitomized by the endless wars we engage in, sometimes to the extent of genocide. people are fucked up big time, and i think if we don't change we will perish. i think if we don't change, we should perish.

[PurpleNGold]

VT. I agree with you about the repression in society.

I think it's slowly chaging to a less restrictive environment though. Look at the attitudes towards public nudity. Decades ago, a one-piece bathing suit was scandalous. Now?

As our society becomes more and more free from this silly belief in a stupid religion, we will become more and more free with our attitudes towards sensuality. Not that does anything for you in the here and now, but, at least it's encouraging that things are getting better.

Also, as for your alienation. You found this forum, which, as far as sex for money is concerned, is populated by like minded individuals. BTW, there's a group of mongers that are going down to TJ at the end of this month. If you live within striking distance, it might be a good chance to socialize with others of a like mind.

[The Virgin Terr]

thanks for the invite, png. a few years ago i moved to san diego for awhile, partly for it's proximity to tj, and of course i went there often, but now i've moved back to the hometown i was raised in, which unfortunately is in upstate new york, so i can no longer enjoy the fruits of cheap and delicious mexican poontang. also, i'm cursed by being very strong and eclectic in all my views, which ensures there's virtually no social group to which i can comfortably belong. for example among mongers, i can't stand those who aren't politically progressive. among progressives, i can't stand those who aren't enthusistic about mongering. among mongers who are politically progressive such as the group that post in this discussion, i still find faults, such as the insistence that minors need statutory protection from "predatory adults" regardless of actual consent. i just can't find anyone to belong with, anyone who doesn't offend me by disagreeing with my views and forcing them into the closet. but thanks for your concern.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
i just can't find anyone to belong with, anyone who doesn't offend me by disagreeing with my views and forcing them into the closet. but thanks for your concern.

I feel for you. Please understand that I mean no offense, but, you might want to seek professional assistance (A shrink, not a working girl ;)). Being ultra-sensitive to disagreement is not healthy. And, the stress and depression you might be under could be relieved with proper treatment. Hell, just talking through some of your issues with a non-judgemental person might be all you need to start learning to associate with people more freely.

Also, maybe read Hegel. He wasn't the most entertaining philosopher, but he did focus on the positive aspects of disagreement.

Oh. And, I lived in Upstate NY for a while (Saratoga Springs). I feel for you there too. With all that snow, no wonder you sound a bit depressed ;)

[The Virgin Terr]

thank you rn for being a convenient target to express my frustration with the choices women make regarding men. thank you very much. it's not your fault that eons of evolution dispose you to prefer strong aggressive males over intelligent gentle ones, as is the case with females of many species.

thanks again, png, but i got little use for shrinks. i wrote down a quote a long time ago i'll try to find to post here. goes something like "we don't need shrinks or therapists to teach us how to be "well adjusted" to a fucked up world". also reminds me of the character of mcmurphy in ken kesey's novel one flew over the cuckoo's nest who ends up lobotomized because of his refusal to allow his spirit to be broken so that he may become "socially acceptable". sorry, i prefer martyrdom to "adjustment". and cold snowy weather doesn't bother me that much. i might actually prefer this climate to the heat and aridity of a desert.

and i don't think i have a problem with intolerance. actually let me put it another way. i have a huge problem with intolerance. i'm tolerant of everything except intolerance. that's why i say the only excuse for coercion is in self defense against coercion. in other words, as long as you don't initiate the coercion, you don't have to fear coercion from me.

[The Virgin Terr]

i found the quote referred to below, as well as a few others i'll share now.

"experience ... is the only teacher. we don't need priests and we don't need analysts; we don't need mental crutches of any sort. more than anything what i criticize is their efforts to restore a maladapted person to a society which caused him to be maladapted in the first place. they want us to accept things the way they are. but things as they are are wrong."

"i think the cute approach to sex is on a par with the cute approach to the atomic bomb."

both of the above quotes are taken from the playwright henry miller, from his interview with playboy magazine i read in a book of compiled playboy interviews, PLAYBOY INTERVIEW VOL. 2 i highly recommend this reading, as i do the books from which the quotes below are taken. in it's early days playboy magazine interviewed some truly fascinating people. reading about them and their ideas was part of my early self directed education which led to becoming a freethinker.

"the salvation of the world lies in the maladjusted." -martin luther king jr., from p.101 of his biography, LET THE TRUMPET SOUND

'Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. the latter can't understand it when a man doesn't thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -albert einstein, from p.215 of WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN by bertrand russell.

i relate to all of the above. i am a maladjusted great spirit.

[PurpleNGold]

The maladjusted great spirit sets about changing his/her environment. That's why he/she meets opposition.

[PurpleNGold]

Also, as regards the shrinks. It's not always about making you fit in. It can be about providing you with a non-judgemental ear for your problems. You might be amazed at how much better you can feel (and how much more proactive you become) after letting a lifetime's burden off your chest. Just a thought.

[Rubber Nursey]

"thank you rn for being a convenient target to express my frustration with the choices women make regarding men. thank you very much. it's not your fault that eons of evolution dispose you to prefer strong aggressive males over intelligent gentle ones, as is the case with females of many species."

Ok Terry...I was just going to ignore the original comment you made to me, but this is getting beyond a joke. Firstly, there was absolutely no reason to bring that incident up - other than to 'put me in my place' maybe, and make me look like a victim. I fail to see the connection between what I look for in an LTR as a woman who is nearly thirty, and a one night stand that went bad when I was a teenager. (And for the record, that particular guy WAS the intelligent, gentle type...there was no indication at all that he would snap like he did).

Secondly, quit telling me what I'm looking for in a man! I am sick to death of having men on this board tell me how "all women" behave and what "all women" want. I am a woman, for fuck's sake! Don't try and tell me that you know ME better than I do!! You wanna know who I find 'attractive' on this board?? Joe Zop, Dickhead, Miller2K, Traveller and Philip Augustus when they were here, and PNG is making a pretty good first impression, too. I don't know what they look like, how old they are or how much money they make in a year - and I really don't care. They are the sorts of men that I would date...they are smart, funny, honest and compassionate, and treat everyone with respect. My decision to date someone is NEVER influenced by wealth or social status. And as a teenager I may have been attracted to a few 'bad boys' - like most girls are at some time - but as a woman, I want someone who is my equal, and my friend.

The topic of this board is prostitution - not my private life. Most of the personal experiences that I've mentioned have been brought up in the course of prostitution discussion. I have no problem with that, but I do not want my private life to become the BASIS for discussion. How I feel about dating while working, is on topic - what I'm looking for in a man, is not. Please stop trying to belittle me at every opportunity.

[Dickhead]

"blush" :)

[Joe Zop]

Thank you, thank you very much, RN, for responding to this issue. I've been doing my best to play nice with VT by not responding to his posts as he requested, but his comments on this have really strained my ability to stay civil and do so.

[PurpleNGold]

Awwww.... RN, you noticed me :)

Back to the morality of prostitution...

Okay... Another player in the "Is he a pimp?" game that we've been playing. What about the people who run sex show websites? You know where you pay to have cyber sex with some young chick? Are those people pimps? If they are, are they the condemnable pimp?

[PurpleNGold]

How about the ethics of prostitution? What defacto obligations does a working girl assume when she agrees to take money for sex?

Obviously, the rip off girls (take the money and dash) are wrong. But, what about the girls (and services) that take the money and then don't live up to assumed expectations?

Example: Guy calls an escort service and asks for a specific race/size/hair color, etc. Or, maybe the guy has called in response to a specific ad. The agency promises a girl that matches guy's specifications, or the one in the ad. The agency promises an 'all-inclusive' rate for a full hour. Different girl shows up. Girl demands an extra tip for a 'good time'. Girl gets the money, gives the guy a 15 minute strip tease, a hand job or even sex, but makes it a quickie. Afterwards, she's out of there as fast as can be.

Now, let's keep focused: the guy was stupid for letting the little head handle the negotiations (or lack thereof). That's not under discussion.

What is under discussion is what parts of this are unethical.


Agency delivered wrong girl
Girl demands more money
Girl implied more was on the menu than actually was
Girl left before the 'full hour' was up


Feel free to add more example scenarios. I was just trying to get the discussion rolling with this one.

[Joe Zop]

Personally, I see nothing "unethical" on the part of the provider under your scenario, with the possible exception of her implying there's more on the menu than there is, and there the devil is in the details -- I don't see in your scenario exactly where that happens, unless it falls in the "good time" category, which is a nice one-size-fits-all term. There's nothing in what you describe to at all say that the provider had knowledge of any agreement or promise made by the agency. One problem is in your definition of "assumed expectations" which is so broad and slippery as to allow for an indictment of any sex worker, no matter how amazing her activities or performance.

The agency is obviously engaging in a bait and switch by sending the wrong woman, but there's no way you can clearly fault the woman for this -- she would have to know it, would have to willingly take part in it, and, even then, she's not the one who made the promise.

The rest, from my perspective, fall into the category you don't want to discuss -- of engaging (or not) in clear negotiations with an independent contractor. If it's not defined, it's not agreed to, and therefore making moral or ethical culpability indictments is impossible. Part of the process is setting the price and the work, and not doing that means it's all he said/she said. Wanting more money and wanting to maximize profit while minimizing work is not immoral or unethical on the face of it, though it obviously may well be bad business.

This is different from a brothel scenario, where there are clear expectations and delineations of behavior, and where the woman has clear knowledge of those, and is far more in the status of an employee than a contractor.

[PurpleNGold]

I think the assumed expectations thing isn't as broad as you think. I'm talking about a girl who comes in knowing that the client expects full service when he hears 'Good Time'. She knows what the spirit of the statement is, and abuses the client's trust. Too me, that's unethical.

As for not wanting to discuss the client's stupidity. I just don't think there's anything to discuss. The client is clearly not thinking with the big head and he's leaving the door open by not negotiating up front. That leaves the door open to the grey area of assumed expectations.

[Joe Zop]

See, I don't agree. You defined lack of a good time as including "even sex, but" she "makes it a quickie" which to me is full service. Lousy maybe, but still full service. If you don't want to include that, the equation changes, but saying someone is unethical because they're a lousy fuck is a stretch to me.

The spirit of the thing to a provider isn't necessarily where the guy gets to pop as many times as he wants and take as much time as he pleases. The spirit of the thing is get the client off, and your examples mostly said that happened. A very large number of providers define it as one pop and it's over. Obviously, many guys exgaging providers are hoping for a better time that a quickie, but that's where actually setting the terms of the interaction comes into play.

As I said, it's lousy business, but I don't say unethical.

[PurpleNGold]

I said that she:


Gives a 15 minute strip tease
A hand job
Quickie sex


The idea is where is the line between unethical and bad business? Personally, I think that quickie sex is bad business given the implied promise. But, the less is unethical.

[The Virgin Terr]

png, i think psychology and psychiatry are legitimate professions that help alot of people, but i doubt if they are appropriate for me.

intolerance and coercion are really the same thing. the parent who forcefeeds a young child is obviously being coercive, or to put it another way, intolerant of the child's own desire to not eat, either because they aren't hungry or don't like a particular food. most if not almost all parents display such coercive intolerance in their treatment of their children, just like our governments are coercive and intolerant of individual citizens who deviate from their prescribed moral path in such things as sexual behavior and drug use. i don't know where to look to find anyone who isn't opposed to all forms of initial or pre-emptive coercion. i'm fatigued with this site, where clearly my views aren't respected. do you know of any therapists who can refer me to a planet where human beings exist and have somehow evolved differently so that the only proscribed behavior is intolerance? of course this is a rhetorical question.

mary kay letourneau is currently serving a multiyear prison term for the crime of statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). she was a 35 year old schoolteacher, mother, and wife in an unhappy marriage. she befriended a talented and precocious 12 year old pupil. over time the friendship became "romantic", and they had sex. she became pregnant, and it was discovered by her husband that someone else was the father, and eventually that her adolescent pupil was in fact the father. she was of course imprisoned for "victimizing" the hapless youth who "of course" was too young to know what he was doing, and how he was being taken advantage of by this monstrous "predator" with no previous criminal record. of course the legal system and all other "responsible" adult authority figures completely disregarded both mary and her young lover's protestations that they were in love and no abuse occured in their relationship. mary kay was released on bond including her assurance she would no longer "abuse" her lover, but of course passion and love trumped governmental oppression, and they were once again caught, leading to the current situation where lovers are forcibly separated, one labelled a "sex offender" and doing serious prison time, the other labelled a victim and forced to do his best raising their child without it's mother, and for everyone else the cautionary tale of their example, the same example made of heidi fleiss and thousands of other pimp/madames/prostitutes and mongers, and thousands of people who are currently imprisoned for possessing a "controlled substance" such as marijuana. that lesson is, the government owns your ass, and don't you ever forget it!

now, more intelligent and compassionate people such as joe zop and rn approve of statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws, backed by the irrefutable science and logic that says young people are too immature to make "adult" decisions like whether or not they want to have sex, and therefore cannot possibly consent to it (except, of course, if their chosen partner is equally immature, or marries them, in which case it's ok). being unintelligent and uncompassionate, it makes sense to me that the primary reason young people make foolish decisions regarding sex and relationships is because of a lack of experience, and statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws only ensure they can't get the benefit of older, wiser more experienced [artners in learning about sex and relationships. it makes no sense to tell them "you're too young to have sex, but if you do, it must be with someone who's also too young! the corollary to this thinking is only people who are "in love" should have sex, and young people are too young to be "in love".

stautory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws serve as good training for young people in teaching them that authority figures have no respect for individual autonomy, which will serve them well when they become legally recognized adults with scarcely any more autonomy than children have when it comes to the "adsult" world of sex. women can't dress or act provocatively, because to do so is an indication they want sex, and only wh*res want sex unless they have a partner they are "in love with". likewise, men can't openly sexually approach women they aren't "in love with", for to do so is to treat them like wh*res, in other words to disrespect them.

[The Virgin Terr]

joe zop, i never said i didn't want you to respond to my posts, only that i wasn't going to read them, which i didn't for awhile. i still avoid them at times, like i will now in anticipation of your usual fascist defense of the oppression of youth, and condemnation of adults who disagree with that oppression. your use of pseudo science to support your position, just like other pseudo scientific claims that are used to support right wing ideas such as the veracity of paranormal religious phenomena, or to counteract legitimate science in support of wiser environmental policies. like anything, science can be abused to support anyhting, such as german nazi claims of "aryan" racial superiority. face it, you have neither logic nor science on your side, only faith and dogmatic certainty in your own virtuosity.

just a little more personal perspective now on why i vehemently oppose statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws. anti-prostitution laws already serve to terrorize me into refraining from being open , honest, and unfearful when i meet an attractive woman. statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws serve to double my paranoia, since i'm attracted mostly to youthful women, and it's virtually impossible to differentiate a 20 year old from a 15 year old. therefore, i tend to feel "secure" (relatively speaking) in approaching women i'm interested in sexually only if they have obviously lost some of the bloom of youth, i.e. they're over 25 or 30. statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws are just another tool the government uses to effectively terrorize people into having negative feelings over their sexual desires. fear, fear, fear!

[Joe Zop]

and you have what on your side, vt? other than "faith and dogmatic certainty in your own virtuosity"?

then here it is, whether you read it or not.

the problem is not that you want respect for your views, it's that you demand agreement and acquiescence, and are as quick to label people who disagree with you as you say they are to label you.

but to you somehow that's not coercive. somehow a criticism of your views is a fascist attack, but you making grandiose and basically spiteful attacks on rn, venting your own frustration on people you don't really even know, and making judgements about their life choices, somehow that is ok. you are very good at dishing it out, but not so good when it's turned on you, and you don't give the same respect to which you feel you're entitled. disagreement and disrespect are not the same thing, but i will admit my respect for you has lessened when i read your attacks on the one woman who posts here.

and as far as mary kay letourneau, let's please not forget that vili fualaau, the student in question, when he became an 18-year-old, filed a lawsuit against the school system for not protecting him from letourneau's advances. he lost, (and there are indications that his mother may have pushed things) but it also indicates that as he reaches adulthood he has a somewhat different perspective on the events. to point to an at-risk kid, messed over by his mother, with his father in prison, as somehow being the "poster child" for injustice regarding statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is more than ludicrous. this kid's been abused by virtually everyone he's come in contact with, from his parents to letourneau to the system. heaven help us and heaven help our kids if that's the future.

the fact that you have trouble differentiating a 15-year-old from a 20-year-old says far, far more about you than it does about them. i don't at all share in your difficulty -- it's astonishingly easy to tell the difference, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and i come in contact with both age ranges frequently, and work with both. you can't tell the difference between the two, so in your logic you conclude there basically is no difference, as opposed to questioning your own inability to recognize one, and therefore to you, since you're sexually attracted by youth, keeping you out of sexual contact with them is somehow an injustice.

perhaps, sir, you are simply not as perceptive as you claim you are. and given that you've spent countless pages here detailing your frustrations in personal relationships, your inabilities to connect as you'd like to with women, as well as your general rage and hostility toward them for not recognizing the obvious depth of your ideas and brilliance, etc., tell me, please:

what would possibly qualify you to teach inexperienced children about relationships? it would seem, from reading what you post here, that all you have to teach is frustration and anger, and, as women, that they should understand that it's their nature to be *****s, that they should all be available for the right price, and that they should just hurry up and figure out what that is.

real visionary, that.

[PurpleNGold]

originally posted by the virgin terr
statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws serve to double my paranoia, since i'm attracted mostly to youthful women, and it's virtually impossible to differentiate a 20 year old from a 15 year old.

vt, you've got me worried about you. let me say that disagreement is not disrespect. i think you have a confusion there based on your previous post.

second, let me say that you've got me worried. the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old can be murky. hell, even between 16 and 18 year olds. but, 15 and 20? dude. that's a hard one to swallow. i've seen 15 and 16 year olds and thought, "damn! she's fucking beautiful." but, there has never been doubt in my mind about her age. and, subsequently, i've followed the previous thought with. i hope i get to meet her in a few years.

now, i agree that the current state of statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) laws are a bit ridiculous. at 18 and 1 day, a boy has sex with a girl who's 17 and 364 days. the parents find out and swear a warrant against the boy. ridiculous. but, a 45 year old man pops a 12 year old? come on. there's no question that the girl does not have the mental capacity to give consent.

also, i don't think the mary kay example is a good one for showing your argument. mary took advantage of her position as a much older adult and as the child's teacher. will the boy be traumatized for life? maybe not. was he mature enough to make such a choice? we can't say for sure. but, we can say that it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to protecting children from predators.

[Dick Johnson]

Originally posted by joe_zop
Wow, I'm glad I went to bed early (comparatively) before this thread erupted, as this was whack and I'd have no doubt stayed up all night playing! What fun!

But I still see the issue revolving around the twin towers of control and choice. I believe in true and genuine choice, which means people should have the right to make stupid choices also, as long as they're made freely and under scenarios where they understand the options and consequences, and they have enough control so that if they don't like the choice they've made they can make another, and where their choice doesn't unduly affect another. (This is obviously also a perspective that can fit to other areas, such as drug use.) So if a woman actually wants to give some guy a percentage of her income for nothing, understanding that's what it is, (be it PNG's entrepreneur or a significant other, where presumably the "nothing" is offset by other factors) that's certainly her choice. In the classic pimp scenario, though, this is accompanied by pressure and manipulation, which makes it less of a free choice -- clearly, few people are going to willingly do this without believing they're getting something positive in return. In the case of a brothel, a massage parlor, escort service, etc., there are plenty of clear upsides for the woman (in addition to various drawbacks, but that's true in all job situations) so the choices are arguable and defendable. In the case of a pimp (baby, I need some new jewelry) that upside is, as best, vague. And here's the key difference where I disagree with you, PNG -- an entreprenuer who collects a percentage has brought something to the table as well, whether or not they're participating on a daily basis, whether it's the environment, the opportunity, the brand, whatever. The pimp just brings the illusion and implication of such things. Every sex worker ought to be able to hire marketers, bookkeepers, security, anyone they want to work for them. (That's the entrepreneur model I prefer.) While like Dickhead I'm in favor of things being cheap, that doesn't mean I'm not all for every woman being able to make as much as she can.

Also, believing in choice doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to want to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) on the people who push choices I consider bad -- so while a woman has the right to choose a pimp, that doesn't mean I still don't think the pimp ought to be smacked.

And DJ, screw you, you self-important judgmental prick. I've changed absolutely nothing about my behavior or perspective except my opinion of and interest in engaging you. You're just a guy who craps on the floor, looks up and sees the sun shining, and says, "Wow, see what I did!"

Joe, you need to chill. I already gave you opportunities to make peace on this thread at least once but you seem to be a masochist. Well, joe_zop, I'm not sure if you were happy to go to bed early or was it my appearance on the same thread that scared you away.

Anyway, I find your so called "twin towers of control and choice" to be a mirage at best, and your usual self gratifying "look, I'm so righteous" gibberish at worst. Because it is not reality.

If it is a woman's choice to be with a pimp who takes her money, who treats her like crap, does it make it right just because it is her choice? Some prostitutes love their pimps, even though they are low life to us. What about a pros choice to use coccaine or heroin? Or a 15yr old's choice to sell her body for money? Are these to be encouraged just because it is the women's choice?

Now about control. I've known hos to relinquish control when they sign a contract to go work overseas for two years. They have no control over who they will or will not fuck, no control over the hours they work, no control over their earnings(they are kept by the pimps/managers) and are not allowed to ask for tips. But they tell me it is ok because after their contract is up, they get a chunk of money and go home to build a house. They also don't do drugs or blow their money away shopping or partying like they would if they were at home. One the other hand, it is far from uncommon to see working girls with control end up being old and broke in the sewers in Pattaya or elsewhere or are strung out on drugs.

So choice and control are both unrealistic fancy gibberish. You can't enforce it and you can't encourage it. Perhaps a better way to think is consideration for the women's interest.

A little bit of regulation is good. In many places even if prostituting is legal, solicitating and pimping is not.

On another note, why does joe_zop deny he's changed absolutely nothing about his behavior? Is it because he is self conscious that he did? The fact is that he have changed, and I have made him change. The evidence is in his post right before the one above, on March 5th 8pm. A short one! And now he yells and scream at me like a little baby. Did I make you cry joe_zop? Or perhaps joe_sob? Now he wants to change back to masturbating on and on in his dime store eloquency all over this forum. Why? Because it makes him feel good.

[Joe Zop]

Yawn -- Dick Johnson couldn't make a watch change, wouldn't have a clue if it did, and one of the most unchanging things around is Dick Johnson's obsession with the brilliance of the workings of Dick Johnson and his illusion that anyone changes anything based on his peurile postings. You should just go measure your Dick Johnson again, since that makes you happy. I don't need "opportunities to make peace" as I'm not the one who started with personal attacks, and if you think somehow my posting a couple of short responses is something that is brand new and based on your ravings, well, gee, how typical. You call on me to "chill" while posting on a message that's more than a week old and taking some fresh whacks? (Read ahead a bit -- see any other references to you? Clearly, you're the one who's not interested in letting things lie.) Do you tell the temperature outside by looking it up in history books?

Your examples are as ludicrous, meaningless, off-point and as much "fancy gibberish" as what you protest against. A fifteen-year old's choice? Where does that come from -- we were all obviously talking about adults. People old and broke in third-world countries? You're gonna fix that somehow by controlling their choices? Feed the hungry and stop the spread of AIDS worldwide while you're at it, ok? A little bit of regulation is good? Where did I say I was against that?

And your contractual example says nothing -- that's a choice made by a willing participant who understands the consequences of her action -- which is precisely what I advocated.

Work a little harder on that remedial reading course, DJ, and maybe you'll be able read faster and keep up. An ability to actually understand what you read would be a major bonus, but that's no doubt too much to hope for, based on past example.

[Rubber Nursey]

Please excuse my recent outburst.

Ok, there's a few too many topics going on at the moment, so I figured I'd just make a comment on PNG's and catch up later.

"Obviously, the rip off girls (take the money and dash) are wrong. But, what about the girls (and services) that take the money and then don't live up to assumed expectations?"

Firstly, I wanted to say that this is not a problem specific to the sex industry. This occurs in business across the board. What about the hairdresser who takes your money, then cuts your hair way too short? What about the doctor who charges outrageous consultation fees, and then refers you somewhere else because he can't work out what's wrong himself? Unfortunately, it's always a case of 'caveat emptor'.

Also, when men are horny, their "expectations" can sometimes be quite distorted. The receptionist says the girl is tall, blonde and busty, and you start picturing yourself having sex with Pamela Anderson. When you open the door and it's not Pammy, or she doesn't give you the porn-star type sex you imagined, etc, you are disappointed. Not saying that's ALWAYS the case of course - but it certainly happens pretty frequently.

[The Virgin Terr]

it should also be pointed out that the "victim" in the mary kay letourneau case was the aggressor in their relationship. he put the moves on her, not vice versa. it's a well documented case, with a movie that's been shown on the usa cable network starring penelope ann miller as the heinous child abuser. her real crime? acknowledging, and surrendering to a politically incorrect attraction. the real predators? the legal system and those who support it that insists that it must not be acknowledged by legally recognized adults that legally recognized children are actual human beings, capable of having sexual desires and possessing sexual attractiveness. oh no, we adults must protect the purity of the youth! even if in doing so we must deny the reality of their feelings as well as ours. it burns my butt that mary kay letourneau is in prison. it should also be pointed out that her "victim" didn't wake up the next day, month, or year and suddenly realize 'my god, i've been taken advantage of by an evil ancient temptress!' he remained adamant in his assertion that he wasn't a victim.

joe zop, i think you're a pompous, politically correct, self righteous jerk for your characterization in the past of non-coercive, harmless individuals like mary kay letourneau as predators.

rn, i'm disappointed in you. it was previously apparent that you favored joe zop over me, but to blatantly imply that he is more intelligent and compassionate is going too far. you've permanently lost some respect in my eyes.

png, i recently met a very attractive woman in a bar who i cautiously approached, because i thought she might be ****. she claimed to be 25. we disagree on age perception. with men it's usually easy to distinguish between 15 and 20, but with women who mature quicker there's little difference in my opinion.

joe zop, i lied. i did glance over your response. as usual, you have or claim to have a detailed acquaintance with the particular example i brought up, and find fault with my claims. acknowledged.

[Skinless]

Joe_Zop and D J: Both of you stop it. Joe, DJ has some valid points (of argument, his flaming you is out of line for many reasons). Your thing of control and choice IS bourgois crap. Korat glue sniffers or others I have met are not exercising choice and it is wrong to believe they or their pimps (fellow glue sniffers) are. And I don not like you saying otherwise bcause that makes you wrong. There IS a very large element of exploitation in all this and you should know that damn well. The BB One, as one example, (yes, her again but others would do equally well) is a victim of her beauty, her lack of education, her all. There are many more like that. Najene and the rest might also be victims but they and we can always walk away and well you know it.

DJ: Joe_Zop has a lot of good things to say. At one stage, he and I were just about the only posters on the Thai Women board. We spoke about mermaids and other important things. Joe_Zop writes for his own reasons, he goes into the Kangaroo:) and other bars for his own reasons, which are probably as stupid as the reasons we do what we do.

I don't normally post on this board or on the American women board as I have nothing to add to them. Just back off. Joe_Zop has important issues he wants to tease out and, as for the American board, his posts and Miller2k's are a breath of fresh air when compared to the self obsessed whiners who lurk there. If you don't like their converstation, just ignore it like I generally do.

Joe's posts on the Thai section are equaly valuable. He is not a Freeler; he supplies different information but no less valuable for that. Like Freeler, he would be worth meeting, but for different reasons. In that respect, it might be added that only he and the dreaded AdleZ lasted the meeting till the very end (the one you got up in the middle of your US night and toasted).

Joe_Zop is not a pompous ass. He searches for soemthing else. Shit. We have been through this before on the Thai board but in a much more civilized and adult way.

As the great Nibu says: peace, unity, mutual respect and less flaming. OK? END OF THREAD.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry - at no point did I say that Joe was more intelligent or compassionate than you, and you know it. I was simply listing some of the qualities of the men I named - as an example of qualities that I find attractive in a man. Did I, at any stage in my post, say that you didn't have those qualities? Did I "blatantly" compare you to those other guys? No.

And I find it hard to believe that you have 'lost' any respect for me - because it's been glaringly obvious for a very long time, that you never had any for me in the first place.

[Rubber Nursey]

I'm sorry Skinless, DJ, and everyone else who disagrees with Joe's definition of 'choice' - but I agree with him. Freedom of choice also means having the freedom to make the WRONG decisions. A young girl who is kidnapped, beaten, pumped full of drugs and then forced to have sex against her will, wouldn't be viewed by many as working by 'choice'. But what if a girl has CHOSEN to use drugs and then CHOSEN to support her habit with prostitution? What if she CHOOSES to work for a big ugly violent pimp, because she feels safer having him around? I can't say I like the scenario - and it's not one I would choose myself - but it IS her choice to make.

[Skinless]

sorry rn. i am not going to buy into this. i will simply make two points:

1. you and joe_zop are wrong and both of you should know better. you claim to be a perth based prostitute and activist. that being so, you should have seen how hollow this "choice" you speak of is. it is certainly not informed choice. there is also a degree of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)/statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) to it. and it is the exact same argument nambla etc make and it is the counter "argument" to what jackson says about having child sex here. by drugs, i mean heroin and that is a different league. joe_zop claims to have done time, to know people from all walks of life, priests etc.
that being so, he must know that to imply doing crack coke/heroin (and its consequences, such as prostitution for women who have not the "courage" to steal) equals choice is to [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) the english language.
2. just keep the argument civil everyone. joe_zop has valid points. point 1 is not one of them and i find it very annoying just as i found his dismissal of bb's pregnancy by some selfish lump of australian shit. (i am not being racist but a lump of shit who impregnates a vulnerable woman and boasts of it to his friends and then fucks off back to queensland is a lump of shit) like you (and me), he comes at this board with a particular set of baggage, beliefs and what not. he did meet the infamous adlez and enjoyed his time with him. most of us here will never meet. why not keep it civil and learn from others even if all we can learn is to agree to disagree?
3. ok, a third point. why not? it's not my bandwidth anyway. keep posting joe. your thesis will make some sense eventually but only if you cut that crap about choice. as you well know, playing with words and what if scenarios is a poor substitute for good arguments.
4. on a more serious note, i played some japanese ladies in 4 in a row at bkk airport and did very well out of it.

[The Virgin Terr]

i have just one more point to make re. the letourneau case, and then i'll cede this discussion to the other threads taking place. jz, if i was vili i'd be mad as hell at the system also, and i'd be willing to make any cynical attempt to make it pay for what it had done to somebody i cared about. to try to make it pay as it had made mary pay for the "crime" of acquiescing to my seduction of her.

[Dickhead]

mary kay letourneau is a [CodeWord126] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord126) and a sick fuck and i think vt has short eyes.

[Joe Zop]

Whoa, Skinless, I very specifically said I advocated informed choice, and people having a clear understanding of the consequences of their choices and the ability to change them. I never said that people should just be going out and using heroin or sniffing glue. (I've been with two people on heroin buys -- neither of which I knew was going to happen -- and I have nothing positive to say about anyone at all involved in that scene other than that the immense addictiveness of the drug is sadly very true. One of those situations was probably the most terrified I've been in my entire life.)

I also very clearly have always been talking about the choices of adults, not minors, and I resent both you and DJ spinning my argument otherwise. If I had said or implied as you say, VT would be embracing me as enlightened and on his side as opposed to pouring his own brand of scorn.

I take the basic tack that victimless crimes should not be criminalized -- so if someone wants to smoke dope that should be up to them, even if it's bad for them -- and that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. Ditto drinking, ditto smoking. Maybe not good choices, but ones that should be available -- and the latter are simply because they're defined as legal. And prostitution falls into that category as well.

Do I think someone is a complete idiot to have a pimp? Absolutely. Do I think, presuming they truly, truly know what they're signing up for and want it, that they should be able to? Yes, I do -- it's their call, not mine. I'm not into S&M either, but if people willingly want to play, that's their call. I want to be advised if people think my choices are stupid, but I don't want someone getting in the way of me making them. If someone chooses to be exploited, and they've got an understanding of what's involved, then it's up to them -- and that's true whether it's being paid a pittiance as a laborer, being in sex films, being a boxer heading for brain damage, or being a prostitute. (And this does not advocate lack of regulation -- people have to also be responsible for impact on others of the choices they make.)

Am I involved in exploiting them? Very possibly, and I completely admit that, as do you. I vote with my dollars, and don't give them to people whose choices I feel are horribly wrong -- I don't sleep with or give money to people who I suspect are going to take it to support a habit or give it to a pimp -- but it's their choice about how they want to live. You cannot stop people from being victims by forbidding them; only by informing them and being in charge of your own behavior. This is an example of our basic political difference -- I've said before that I fall squarely into the left side of the liberal camp, and I know you're on the other end of the spectrum.

You misread me, btw -- I never said I did time; I said I spent time working in a jail. (Sure felt like doing time, though.) I do come from the crappy side of the tracks, though, and the neighbors and friends I grew up with are generally exactly who we're talking about.

And if you felt I dismissed the BB one's pregnancy, I humbly apologize -- that wasn't my intention, and I have absolutely no disagreement with you about a guy who does that, boasts of it, and doesn't live up to his responsibilities. As I've written (and taken lots of crap for) in the American women section, I believe that guys are responsible for the kids they help create, no matter what the scenario.

I'll bow to your request and let the argument with DJ drop and will just ignore him henceforth. It wasn't me who began it, and it's not my interest to hang around this board to engage in flame wars in any event, and never has been.

Finally, VT, I'm sorry, but that story was all over the news and I read extensively about it. Hell, you couldn't escape it. I'm hardly going to apologize for that.

[Rubber Nursey]

"You claim to be a Perth based prostitute and activist. That being so, you should have seen how hollow this "choice" you speak of is. It is certainly not informed choice."

You can't possibly say that taking drugs is not an "informed choice". Granted, I can't speak for people in less developed countries - but everyone in Western countries knows the dangers and consequences of taking drugs. We are all subjected to drug education in schools, 'Just Say No' campaigns on TV and pamphlets in every doctors surgery, legal aid office, welfare office, etc. These people KNOW that drugs may not be the best choice to make - but they go ahead and take it anyway. I have never done drugs (in fact, I am quite 'anti-drugs'), but I believe in a person's right to do as they will with their own body.

"and its consequences, such as prostitution for women who have not the "courage" to steal"

You make it sound like most women would prefer to steal, than be prostitutes! Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, legal or illegal or whether the girl even likes the job or not - prostitution is a viable income option for women. I can steal a TV and get $50 for it from a pawnbroker, or I can have sex with a man and earn $200 an hour. Which option makes more sense if I have a $500 a day heroin habit to finance? No other job provides women with that sort of income, and still allows them time to go to school, look after their kids or hang out with their mates and shoot up.

Once they have made the choice to use drugs, they then have to make the choice of how to support their habit. They may seem to be 'trapped' by the cycle of drugs and prostitution, but the only ones holding them there are themselves. They could always make the choice to give up the drugs and get out of the industry. (Not saying that's easy of course, but it's their choice to make).

[Skinless]

Skinless Swan song: I bow out after this. It was just the senseless flame war that got to me.
1. RN: Heroin equals no choice. If you know nothing about that, count yourself very lucky. Stealing, mugging etc takes one form of "courage", letting fat fucks fuck you takes another. Heroin addicts who rob can make a lot of money coz they have to. Heroin is different from anything anyone who does not know of it knows. Joe_Zop will back me up on that. Many prostitutes also have low esteem and their way of life reinforces it. This is seen in places like Thailand all the time and is the reason most of them buy shit jewelry and end up broke and diseased. Many Australain brothels, I believe, ban heroin users, for very good business reasons. The argument/fact that prostitutes make lots of money is as old as the hills and as true for some of them as it is false for more of them. Heroin is different. And so too, perhaps, is a finely tuned caste society. There is NO ESCAPE from either.
2. Joe, you kick off with senseless Liberal shit. These people are beaten before they begin. Go back to your roots, cross those tracks again, pack a switch blade and look around. Wake up and smell the crack cocaine. I don't think we have any basic disagreement on this but I must confess that Liberal "Informed choice" shit sets me off. We are no angels here but we do not have to be devils incarnated. Indeed, on the idea of choice, you now stand full square with AdleZ who says the Thai ladies could do rice paddying, road laboring instead. Please do not think I am flaming you but talk of "informed choice" is red rag stuff to me. I am, of course, into the heart of darkness and I now know exactly where it lies. And, a minor point, I am not a far right nut.
3. I see our Thai Women section has picked up. Posterlion is posting poetry.
4. Now, be good, no more flaming. Ignore anyone near the bridge and don't talk to strangers.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by Dick Johnson
If it is a woman's choice to be with a pimp who takes her money, who treats her like crap, does it make it right just because it is her choice? Some prostitutes love their pimps, even though they are low life to us. What about a pros choice to use coccaine or heroin? Or a 15yr old's choice to sell her body for money? Are these to be encouraged just because it is the women's choice?


Yes
Yes
Unfortunately, at this age, you end up with the issue of maturity and that infringes on the quality of the choice, so no.
See Above


Just my opinions



So choice and control are both unrealistic fancy gibberish. You can't enforce it and you can't encourage it. Perhaps a better way to think is consideration for the women's interest.

A little bit of regulation is good. In many places even if prostituting is legal, solicitating and pimping is not.

Now you're getting inot an issue of who's the right person to say what's the best interest. Our government (mostly) thinks it is, we all pretty much disagree with there decision, no? If we didn't, then we wouldn't engage in the hobby, right? So, since we disagree, we think they are wrong. Therefor, we don't think they should be making this choice. So, then maybe it should be left to the woman? If not, then who?

[Rubber Nursey]

"RN: Heroin equals no choice. If you know nothing about that, count yourself very lucky."

Just for the record - I may have never used drugs myself, but I deal with heroin addiction every day in my work. I admit my opinions on heroin use are not based on personal experience, but they ARE based on the experiences related to me by heroin addicted street-based sex workers.

[Joe Zop]

Amen, Skinless -- H is just plain bad shit, and it has nothing to do with choice once it's got you good. It has all to do with need.

I'm hardly saying everyone has or uses choice, simply that it is my personal belief on how things should work. And that's true even on the bad side of the tracks -- perhaps even moreso, because if you're beaten before you begin then being empowered to make your own choices can be the only thing that gives your life validity and hope. People have greater and lesser amounts of options depending on how they're thrown into this world, and the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument clearly doesn't always hold water because there aren't enough boots to go around. So no disagreement that for some the job isn't an escape from anything, but that still doesn't render the choice invalid, because, hey, what is there that guarantees an escape from those circumstances? There are a million ways to generate low self-esteem, presuming, in fact, that it's not life's default position. :)

And again, I'm certainly not calling you a far right nut -- I've labeled myself, and referenced an earlier conversation where you described yourself as more to the right than me. Given how I've defined myself, there's a pretty broad range before you even get to moderately conservative...

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
Please excuse my recent outburst.

Ok, there's a few too many topics going on at the moment, so I figured I'd just make a comment on PNG's and catch up later.

"Obviously, the rip off girls (take the money and dash) are wrong. But, what about the girls (and services) that take the money and then don't live up to assumed expectations?"

Firstly, I wanted to say that this is not a problem specific to the sex industry. This occurs in business across the board. What about the hairdresser who takes your money, then cuts your hair way too short? What about the doctor who charges outrageous consultation fees, and then refers you somewhere else because he can't work out what's wrong himself? Unfortunately, it's always a case of 'caveat emptor'.

I know that this exists in business all over, and I think it's wrong. But, I don't think your examples are the best. The hairdresser cutting the hair too short is usually due to lack of skill. The doctor's fees are posted up front and it's better that he refers you rather than trying to treat you for something he's unqualified for (A partial refund would be nice.) The thing is, the doctor doesn't say... Oh, just give me some money and I'll make you all better. Everyone knows that doctors practice medicine :)

A better example would be fast food ads, where they show big juicy looking burgers in the ads (and on the menus) but the reality is always lacking.



Also, when men are horny, their "expectations" can sometimes be quite distorted. The receptionist says the girl is tall, blonde and busty, and you start picturing yourself having sex with Pamela Anderson. When you open the door and it's not Pammy, or she doesn't give you the porn-star type sex you imagined, etc, you are disappointed. Not saying that's ALWAYS the case of course - but it certainly happens pretty frequently.

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to requesting a petite asian woman, being promised that. But, when I open the door, A it's a 5'6" 200# bleached blonde white trash skank. Or the situation where there is one girl in a photo, and a different one shows up.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
I'm sorry Skinless, DJ, and everyone else who disagrees with Joe's definition of 'choice' - but I agree with him. Freedom of choice also means having the freedom to make the WRONG decisions. A young girl who is kidnapped, beaten, pumped full of drugs and then forced to have sex against her will, wouldn't be viewed by many as working by 'choice'. But what if a girl has CHOSEN to use drugs and then CHOSEN to support her habit with prostitution? What if she CHOOSES to work for a big ugly violent pimp, because she feels safer having him around? I can't say I like the scenario - and it's not one I would choose myself - but it IS her choice to make.

I completely agree with this. I was trying to make this post earlier, but I think yours was more concise.

The drug thing is definitely something where there is a huge difference between what is forced on a girl and what she chooses to get hooked on herself. There's enough education about drugs in the world today that ignorance isn't a feasible excuse.

[PurpleNGold]

originally posted by the virgin terr
i have just one more point to make re. the letourneau case, and then i'll cede this discussion to the other threads taking place. jz, if i was vili i'd be mad as hell at the system also, and i'd be willing to make any cynical attempt to make it pay for what it had done to somebody i cared about. to try to make it pay as it had made mary pay for the "crime" of acquiescing to my seduction of her.

okay. this is going a bit far. vt, you got your information from a usa sensationalist piece of shit program that was pro mary k.

think about it. a 12 year old boy has trouble seducing a 12 year old girl. you're trying to say that you believe this kid really managed to seduce a 35 year old woman? dude, get real.

and, you said you couldn't tell the difference between a 25 year old and an **** girl? you'd better hope i'm not sitting the jury when you come up for molestation because i'll be pushing for lifelong imprisonment with 'bubba' and 'tank' as your cell mates.

[The Virgin Terr]

rn, for what it's worth i respect you more than most people, and i particularly respect u for your activist work. i'm sorry if i came across differently, and i hope you'll continue to respond to my questions, because i have some for u now.

i was reading another wh*re's website earlier (i hope my use of the term 'wh*re doesn't offend u, i don't mean it to be taken that way, it's just a convenient, short word), some journal entries, one in particular that piqued my curiosity. it was from a time when she wasn't working, and she lamented it by saying how her sex drive is down (including a comment to the effect 'the more sex i have, the more i want it'), and what she missed the most actually wasn't the sex or money, but the good feeling she got from making her customers happy. so i'm curious: i know all women are different, but on the other hand, women as a group are different sexually from men, particularly in their capacity for sex. my question to you is: under optimum conditions, say, your as happy and stress free as you can imagine, under these conditions, how often would u prefer to have sex, like how many times in a week? i may have asked b4, but i don't remember. also, here's another question: say you have no one you're emotionally involved with, but have several paying regulars and one or two guys who you occasionally have sex with for free because they're very attractive. now let's say you're fairly horny, and not particularly in need of money at the moment (although of course you can always use it for a rainy day), and you have a choice between having sex with one of your regulars who is a decent lover and pays the going rate, or having it with the hot guy who doesn't pay, but you can't have both. which one would you choose?

as for any further discussion of **** consensual sex, i'm out of here. trying to discuss that topic here is like trying to argue in favor of prostitution at a site where everyone is absolutely closed minded against it. it's a waste of time.

[Dick Johnson]

I'll make a few quick points since it's late.

Firstly I'm a bit more sympathatic towards Mary Kay then some of you. Not that I'm saying what she did was right, just more sympathetic.

Next, I think this 'informed choice' thing is more bourgeois crap. Such choices should not be given to people. We should limit as much as possible supply and demand of hard drugs like coke, meth and smack.

(skinless is making a lot of sense after his heart of darkness tour.)
PNG, you scored 1 outa 4.

[Skinless]

Joe_Zop: "I'm hardly saying everyone has or uses choice, simply that it is my personal belief on how things should work. And that's true even on the bad side of the tracks -- perhaps even more so, because if you're beaten before you begin then being empowered to make your own choices can be the only thing that gives your life validity and hope".
Joe: should = bs. If you are beatend before you begin, you are beaten. Game over. Also, as this is not a polite debating society, go read the American boards again. See how they refer to crack hos. No blushing mermaids there.

RN: "RN: Heroin equals no choice. If you know nothing about that, count yourself very lucky."

Just for the record - I may have never used drugs myself, but I deal with heroin addiction every day in my work. I admit my opinions on heroin use are not based on personal experience, but they ARE based on the experiences related to me by heroin addicted street-based sex workers. This is not a valid line of argument because it uses uncheckable experiences as a crutch. .
There is no debate on this. Once heroin comes into the picture, talk of choice and the rest is pure and utter bs. The same reasoning applies in caste societies like Thailand. These women know they are beaten before they begin. This should be an exchange of views and an enlightening process for all.

DJ: I always talk sense. Oftehn here, I have been writing bs tosee what the response is. This is not bs and I intervened to stop dangerous bs. Now let me get ready for my fun at the weekend. Mother and daughter like me because I am a gentleman, a kinky and totally fucked up and irredeemable one, but a gentleman nonetheless. Thre is no debate on that either. Just another of life's realities. Oh lucky me:)

[Joe Zop]

If you're beaten before you began, then choice or no choice is completely irrelevant for anything other than your own sensibility. If you're fucked, you're fucked, and if you think somehow having a great scenario of societal control is somehow going to filter down to positively affect these same women, you're even more full of it than you say I am. Trickle down social policy based on telling people how they ought to live just means more annoying [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) raining from above. It changes nothing for those who are fucked from the get-go other than tell them again how bad they are.

And arguing should is what a theoretical discussion is all about. That's true no matter what side of the argument you're on.

Skinless, I'm well aware of what kind of debating society this is -- doesn't mean I have to play the game the same way. It doesn't take any effort for me to write "sex worker" as opposed to "crack ho" and I've clearly not been scared off the AW forum or anywhere else because the are some big bad nasties there.

Finally, again, I've never said I was in favor of hard drugs being made available to people -- that's a complete straw man argument, and a way of avoiding the actual issue that was being discussed, which was around a woman's right to choose to have a pimp. My one obtuse drug reference in that regard was referring to pot. Since everyone here is outing themselves on this issue, I should probably do the same and say that when I was younger I took pretty much anything put in front of me that didn't have a needle attached, with the exception of LSD, as I'm not a fan of chromosone damage. That included coke, opium, uppers/downers, etc. Thankfully, I was out of the scene before crack came along, or I'd have probably done that as well. I'm not at all saying it was smart, or that I recommend it because I most certainly do not, but it was the times and I did what I did. I've done nothing other than the very rare toke at a party for well over twenty years, and am now considered by most of my friends to be hopelessly straight in that regard. I would hardly set myself up as an example for how things ought to be done -- there are a number of people I hung with who simply aren't alive anymore because of their choices in this matter, or whose bodies are around but whose minds and souls are not. My hometown (Flint) is synonymous with drugs, senseless and terrible crime (remember the second-grader who shot his classmate, among others) and despair, and I grew up in the middle of it, and spent a long time there. So I'm not just talking out of my ass about things I don't know about -- I know far more about this than I wish I did, and no one has to convince me about societal drug effects -- my childhood neighborhood is now for the most part a long row of crack houses (at least the ones that haven't been torched or torn down.)

And btw, Skinless, I've read a reasonable amount of things on the connection between drugs and crime, and one thing that police say over and over again is that people who are criminals as drug addicts were generally criminals before they were drug addicts.

[Skinless]

Joe: I jumped in here, maybe unwisely for 2 reasons: the flaming (and now am I being flamed?)and the liberal bs about choice. Do we agree kids who grow up in crack houses etc, glue sniffers in Korat etc, have no choice? They are fucked before they begin. That is what some of the world's toughest cops have told me. Heroin creates its own dynamics and the dragon must be fed. They are great kids, considering the mountains of shit they have to contend with before they are even born. However, they have no hope.
I am not really interested in theoretical arguments of should and pimp and prostitute in an idealized environment. The only "pimp" scenaro I referred to was the down and out one of places like Korat where different dynamics, feral dyna,mcs if you will, apply.

I never said you said hard drugs should be available. I thought we were one on that. And as for prostitutes having pimps, what of it? No interest of mine, though the organized pimping one sees here in Tokyo of SE Asians is more evidence of exploiting those who cannot make choice. The yakuza take their passports off them and the Iranians handle them on the street. Pretty woman.

[Joe Zop]

Skinless, I'm definitely not trying to flame you. And of course there are people who have no choice -- that wasn't the point of the discussion. The issue of choice is about whether or not people should be given the opportunity to exercise it, not whether they are in circumstances to make that possible. This came from a discussion of pimping laws and how they affect sex workers options and relationships.

As far as the whole pimp thing -- earlier in this thread we had a fair amount of go-around about hard-core pimping scenarios, and the place there mostly wasn't consensus was about the precise way such guys should be ritually disembowelled.

And my response on the hard drugs issue was to DJ, who I clearly should just absolutely ignore.

[Skinless]

Definitely my last post here. Good Joe. I am glad we are ok on that. Lots of people talk about the wrong side of the tracks and they know Jack Shit about it. I exclude you or anyone else from that.
It could be argued that this board, certain threads in particular, are run by a few people just reinforcing their own beliefs, something like how Nambla operate. The American women board is a case in point. Many women are looking for love and good ol' J Skinless has been the provider on many a happy occasion. With a look at some of the people here (Prokofiev and some others excluded) it is easy street.
Now, go ahead and be nice to each other. Lean on each other, be nice to each other, give each other big hugs and kisses. Coz I can't be coming back in here again. And please remember it can be a nasty world out there. Count your blessings and be grateful you ain't in the other guy's shoes. Peace, love, unity, acid, heavy metal forever. Well not heavy metal but u get de picture. NOw time to go back and annoy Freeler. Bye. And thanks for the fish.

[Dickhead]

originally posted by the virgin terr

as for any further discussion of **** consensual sex, i'm out of here. trying to discuss that topic here is like trying to argue in favor of prostitution at a site where everyone is absolutely closed minded against it. it's a waste of time.

"short eyes" is another convenient short term. i hope it offends you and you get the fuck off the board before jackson bans you.

[Skinless]

joe zop: if people say you are dogmatic and rigid, you should take that as a huge complement. some things are plainly wrong, other things are plainly very wrong and if anything you have ever been told along the way lets you hold to that, be thankful.
we all hear of the devil quoting the bible for his own ends. taking ml king or fifth rate british philosophers out of contect does not a valid argument make.
the degree of extra exploitation in buying or renting a prostitute for a quick fuck is probably not all that much. the degree of extra exploitation in buying or renting a young girl or boy for a quick fuck is very substantial and everyone should know it. the amount of nambla freethinkers who are doing serious jail time for the most horrendous crimes against young children (murder slicing them up etc) is quite high and rveals more their position than all their sad quotes from alleged ****s. they are in a feedback loop where they tell each other it is ok to "fall in love" with young kids. a lot of the attraction to young kids is arrested development. that does not make it irght. it only puts the onus on the predator to grow up and let others grow up. the nicest thing about young teenagers is to watch them being young teenagers. they do not need older selfish fucked up people fucking that up on them by fucking them.

as regards mary whatever her name is doing the serious time, bad cases make bad laws. she is obviously nuts and is simply one of very very many people given a raw deal. beyond that she is irrelevant she is certainly irrelevant to the argument as to whether it is progressive, kool or whatever to fuck little kids.

now i am definitely out of here. i don't want to be seen to endorsing that shit. i might be sick but i sincerely hope i am not that sick.

[Joe Zop]

Well, I'm certainly not going to worry about being labelled dogmatic or apologize for my beliefs on sexual contact between adults and kids.

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm retiring from this discussion.

every one of us has suffered at the least, inconvenience, added expense, and added danger because of the prohibition of prostitution. probably virtually everyone in the world suffers as the result of various types of consensual behaviors that are banned and vilified, and u know what gets me the most about that? that the obvious solution to this problem, tolerance, favoring consensual behavior over coercive behavior in all circumstances, is embraced by VIRTUALLY NO ONE! virtually every one who suffers from some form of repression is in favor of some other form of repression, which is why virtually everyone suffers from repression. nobody gets the simple idea, the simple truth, that IF U WANT TO BE FREE, U MUST WANT OTHERS TO BE FREE AS WELL.

some of the responses to my recent posts as well as ones from quite long ago have been very disturbing to me. i suppose heretics have been tortured and killed through out history when mere intimidation didn't coerce them into conforming to required beliefs and behaviors. torture isn't garden variety violence, it's brazenly sadistic, an indication that the torturer has a need or derives pleasure from inflicting pain. some of the comments made in our discussions indicate that some of u here are that sort of person. the kind of person who would participate in a mob attack against a heretic, perhaps a burning at the stake. i simply won't associate with you. so long.

[Joe Zop]

Sorry you feel that way, VT, and as it happens, I do favor consensual behavior at all times -- for consenting adults. But the truth of the matter is that the particular subject you keep wanting to discuss, seek support for, and get horrified by the lack thereof is one that is expressly and specifically defined by Jackson as out-of-bounds. The fact that you may be, as you define yourself, a visionary with a different vision doesn't automatically make you either persecuted or right. It's ironic to see you reacting to hyperbole in such a way, given that you're highly prone to it as well, as your last post demonstrates...

[Dickhead]

Or to paraphrase, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[PurpleNGold]

vt,

you keep harping that you're a misunderstood, visionary, could-be worldchanger; in actuality your a transparent, myopic would-be ****.

did you ever stop to think that maybe there's a reason that even amongst hardened criminals--[CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127), murderers, the current president of the u.s.--****'s are considered an abhoration? kids are supposed to be kids. they aren't ready to make adult decisions like whether or not to let some fat fucking slob stick his anywhere near them for lunch money.

i believe in freedom of choice and speech, so i believe that you are entitled to espouse your views. but, i am glad that you find no solace on this board. maybe there's an underground board that you can find to discuss kiddie shit with your fellow fuckbags. i can only hope that some le agency is tracking your ip addresses and setting up a big sting to catch you all before you can harm any children.

[Joe Zop]

i've been thinking a bit about the language of prostitution, how charged it can be, and how that distorts the issue. for example, people always talk about a woman "selling herself" but of course that's not at all the case. she's performing a service which happens to involve her body as part of the service. in particular, the underlying presumption is that she has some expertise in the use of her body, and the quality of her services are related to this.

how is this any different from other professions where use of the body is innately involved? we don't speak of physical therapists, dentists, or actors as selling themselves, and their skill in using their bodies are critical to their work equation. the truth is that people give over control of their bodies in work situations all the time -- we consider that employment, not "selling ourselves." at worst, it's "renting."

naturally, labelling is part of the process of political and moral argument (a la pro-life/pro-choice, family values, etc.) what would be a better political label for this situation, something that might have the same punch as "selling yourself"? does one currently exist?

[Rubber Nursey]

That's why we call it 'sex work' here. To acknowledge that it is work (rather than a lifestyle or deviation) and that what we sell is a sexual service (rather than our bodies).

The terminology used to describe sex work/workers has always angered me. Why does a sex worker 'sell her body', but a catalogue model only sells the clothes? Why is it that mainstream movie stars who get their gear off during a movie are legitimate actors, but porn stars are exploited victims? A sports masseuse gives full body massages, but if you massage the penis as well, you're suddenly a prostitute? The very word 'prostitute' angers me...because it also means to use your skills or talents for an immoral/evil purpose.

The other thing that bugs me is the way the terminology usually shifts the balance of power from the sex worker to the client (which, in most cases, means from the woman to the man). For example, a sex worker ALLOWS men to have sex with her in exchange for money. Why don't we say that sex workers FORCE men to pay for the sex which they could have otherwise had for free? Or when sex workers are EXPLOITED by men who USE them for sex - instead of sex workers exploiting the MAN'S need for sex, and using HIM as a means of income!

The terminology used to described sex work is all about dehumanisation and disempowerment, for many different reasons. For example, a) separating sex workers from 'normal' women, so that they don't tarnish the pure and virginal image of the rest of the female species, b) ensuring that wives and daughters see sex work as a humiliating and degrading experience - rather than an empowering and/or financially viable one - so that women don't use it as a means to to seek independence from men, c) so that men are always seen to be in control of the commercial sex transaction (rather than being seen as being duped by women, or being led by their penis!), and d) if sex workers are seen as a whole other subculture - rather than individual women/citizens/human beings - it's easier for the Government to justify cruel and extreme legislation to control them, and use them as scapegoats.

[Joe Zop]

Well, I certainly object to being so horribly exploited, over and over again, by powerful sex workers! The damage it's done is close to incalculable :D

The problem I have with the term "sex work" (though I use the term sex workers because it seems the best available -- courtesan is too specific in many ways, even though it's one of the few with a somewhat positive aura) is precisely that it's too neutral -- virtually every other term out there is negative, and I think there needs to be something to balance and counteract that, some kind of two-word encapsulated positive argument. Pro-choice or pro-family are not neutral, they're statements in favor of a position. Sex work really is not -- it's like "urination" as opposed to "taking a whizz" in terms of being simply prosaic.

It's interesting that the power gets shifted to the client, but the blame really doesn't. Men are victims of their hormones, and women (except those few days each month where they are even less like humans than usual) are to blame for letting men sink to their natural depths. Pish tosh.

Your point on "allows" is one I really like. Like we'd say an electronic salesperson "allows" the customer to purchase an overpriced high-def TV or sportscar, when the truth is that to get such a sale, said salesperson might well be willing to engage in some of the precise same acts as a sex worker does...

[Dickhead]

I'm tired of being ruthlessly exploited too but from my point of view the term "sex work" is an oxymoron. Of course it is not my job but whether I am a customer or getting it for "free" (no such thing of course) it doesn't seem like work. Of course my job doesn't seem like work to me either; maybe that's why I like it.

[Dickhead]

JZ, please do not juxtapose car salespersons with sex workers. The latter are dedicated professionals while the former are just plain w h o r e s.

[Joe Zop]

Hah, careful now, being from the cradle of the automobile I might end up feeling compelled to rise to the defense of those fine supporters of the local economy. Um, well, nah.

[Rubber Nursey]

i guess the whole point of using a term like "sex work" is to underscore just how mundane and ordinary it really is. the community sees sex work as something evil; a deviation that women need to be protected from (or punished for!) trying to get people to see prostitution as "work" - just a job that people do to earn a living - is one of the first things that needs to be done in order to gain community acceptance.

at present, anyone who is "pro-prostitution" is seen by the community as being pro-[CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)/sex slavery/child abuse/drug use/etc. as such, we can't be seen to support 'prostitution' per se. we can only be seen to be supporting freedom of choice of employment - and prostitution has to be recognised as a legitimate form of employment before that can happen.

as far as a word to describe sex workers themselves goes, i think that's even more difficult. as you said, 'courtesan' is too specific, and conjures up a certain image. it could not possibly be applied to, for example, a street based worker giving $10 blow jobs. wh*re is embraced by some but offensive to others - and rightly so, because it's been used as a derogatory term for centuries (and not just to describe sex workers). working girl is commonly used through most of the western world, but it's a pretty silly term when you think about it, and not terribly descriptive. call girl, escort, etc, mean different things in different countries, and describe where they work rather than what they do.

i like the term sex worker, because it draws us all together. the one thing we all have in common - regardless of where we work or what 'status' we hold in the sex industry hierarchy - is that we provide sexual stimulation for money. "sex worker" has neither negative, nor positive, connotations. it simply describes what we do, and why we do it.

[Joe Zop]

i understand that, but when you want to rally troops to a cause you normally want to give them some enthusiasm, not put them to sleep :d while i understand the concept of being neutral as an attempt to de-fang a negative image, that's also kind of like trying to stop a flood by walking around with napkins; it doesn't provide a positive counterpoint to speed the process along. (i actually see the term as a kind on pc'ed version of working girl, the latter of which paradoxically has the same kind of neutrality weirdly combined with paternalistic condescension.)

the issue with wh*re is similar to racially charged epithets -- an attempt to take back the language and turn it on its head. it suffers, of course, from the same difficulties seen there -- it becomes a term only appropriate for certain people to use, in certain contexts, which means that while the appropriation is a political act that helps a group define its own identity and context, it's also an act in which the rest of the public cannot participate except either as observers or transgressors.

consider the difference between "sex worker" and, say, (and i caution this is not a serious suggestion -- just an example, something off the top of my head on my way through the first cup of morning coffee) "sexual relief provider" or maybe even "sex relief worker." relief has a positive implication pretty much no matter what it's attached to, as it implies some kind of positive outcome. the public understands generically what "relief workers" do and think positively about it. it's still not overly descriptive to the point of ruling out streetwalkers, escorts, etc. something like that would not only help defang negativity but work in the other direction of providing a more positive outlook on the work and workers.

while i agree that it's important to draw the community of "sex workers" together for political purposes (a sector isn't really a sector with the potential to use its power until it realizes it is) it's also important to invite those outside the community to be positive participants, as otherwise you're just preaching to the converted. the danger for many political movements is in focusing too heavily on their own needs -- that can work in situations of, say, racial discrimination, where there's a clear basic unfairness that most people who pause for a moment can acknowledge, but here you're working against centuries of moral ideology as well as legal precedent.

to put this from a customer or "john's" perspective -- if i go to a physical therapist, it's because i am being physically rehabilitated in some way; it's not neutral, but positive. "therapy" is another word with basic underlying affirmative implications, like relief. if i'm just someone who a "sex worker" works on, i'm genericized into being an automobile whose oil is being changed, without the positive implication of preventive maintenance being attached.

again, let me emphasize that i am not dead-set against the term "sex worker" as it's what i use and it's generally better than the alternatives -- i'm just wishing there was something better. there's a big difference between eating the one palatable thing on the local diner menu and being able to order something exceptional!

[Rubber Nursey]

personally, i'm rather partial to the term "sex goddess". :)

seems i'm not the only one who needs coffee to stimulate the brain cells into action. i read your post as i worked through (yet another) night-time coffee, and i thought a lot about what you said about groups "focusing too heavily on their own needs". you know what? i think that's exactly what i'm doing.

you made me think about part of a quote from an american activist that i read once (unfortunately i can't remember her name), which said that sex workers are "simultaneously prized and reviled". on the one hand, we are despised by a large percentage of the community as dirty and immoral. i have been to the public forums and read the letters to the newspapers - the absolute hatred that some of these people display towards us, can be truly terrifying. but on the other hand, our friends see us as mysterious and exciting - they ask us intimate questions and marvel at our sexual knowledge. many clients put us on pedestals and 'worship' us. housewives dress up and act like 'wh*res' to spice up their marriages.

i'm starting to think that maybe i like 'sex worker' because it neither makes us feel special, nor makes us feel bad. it just makes us normal. guess sometimes i'm just too close to the issue to see it objectively.

i'm still thinking on the replacement term issue. nothing is springing to mind. it's a shame 'sex therapist' is taken, because that's sure as hell what we do most of the time!

[Joe Zop]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to feel normal, but the enemy by and large are not the people who put you on a pedestal but those who see you in the gutter. Those are the folks you need to work against, and being neural or normal isn't good enough to counteract the harm they do. That hatred you describe is where the real work needs to be done, as if you neutralize that you get rid of the opposition to legal and social changes you want to see.

It's natural that groups under fire tend to look first to themselves, but (speaking as a consultant who sometimes works with groups on articulation of mission) that's a method, not a mission. A group that speaks only to its own members can be marvelously supportive and important, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's effective in a public political sphere.

And while "Sex Goddess" clearly is appropriate in your case, I'm not sure that one stretches any further than courtesan to cover all those who need it... :)

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
I have been to the public forums and read the letters to the newspapers - the absolute hatred that some of these people display towards us, can be truly terrifying.

I believe that these same people often indulge in the very acts that they decry. Hell, you may even have a few of the letter writers as your clients and don't know it.

[Joe Zop]

RN (presuming you're still monitoring things) I've got a question for you based on your overall knowledge of the scene. Do you have any idea or statistics on what percentage of women in the game in a given city are from out of town? Given the social stigma and potential for being put into uncomfortable situations it's obviously understandable that someone wouldn't want to be hooking in their hometown, but I'm curious to know if anyone's ever thought about quantifying things. It certainly seems to be the case in a large number of places I've been, with the corollary that oftentimes sex workers seem to be from small towns (not exclusively so by any stretch, of course, any more than everyone being from somewhere else) which leads to all kinds of possible issues about lack of connection to social structures or knowledge of available options as well as the safety of anonymity. I seem to recall that you grew up on a farm, for example, and most of the sex workers in Thailand also come from rural agrarian areas -- which might be seen to parallel how things worked in factory situations, with people moving from country to city for specific jobs or opportunities.

As a side note on the whole familiarity thing, I'm curious -- did someone you know ever come into the place you worked? And if so what was the upshot?

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by joe_zop
As a side note on the whole familiarity thing, I'm curious -- did someone you know ever come into the place you worked? And if so what was the upshot?

Joe, just wondering. Ever have a session with someone you knew? I ask because there's a lady I know who could seriously use extra money, and is fairly promiscuous anyway. I don't want a long term relationship, so I've never participate in what has been offered. I'd like to though, and thought that explicit monetary exchange would make the thing a no strings attached affair. Just don't know how to approach the situation.

[Joe Zop]

I've basically only had two situations where someone I knew previously was involved -- and I more or less avoided the issues of both, to be honest.

The first didn't involve boinking -- it was just a topless place where a friend of my youngest sister's (who I'd also known as a waitress at a favorite watering hole) decided to work. This was a place I'd hung out at for years, so it was probably more my "home turf" to begin with than hers, and I told her who the good people and customers were. It was a bit uncomfortable for us both to start with, and I offered to just find another bar, which she wouldn't hear of, and then we finally both just relaxed about it. The problem was that someone else we both knew found out she was working there, and was, frankly, a complete pig about it, revelling in coming in, demanding she dance for him, basically mauling her and revelling in her discomfort, and then even bringing in other social friends so he could get the same kick in a different way. It was clearly a control thing, very much related to the whole social stigma thing we've discussed here regarding prostitution, and he did it in spite of me conveying how unset it made her (which she and I, and separately he and I talked about.) It was surprising, really, because in most other ways this was a really great guy who I knew very well, but this revealed a really hostile streak which made me look at him differently. (I found out later that his relationship of fifteen years with his live-in partner, who was a radical feminist, was starting to unravel, so part of it was acting out -- not that that made things any fairer or easier for the woman here.) It got to the point, actually, where she complained that I wouldn't have her dance for me though I would most of the other girls, so I mostly said, fine, here's the tip money, just sit and talk. Was just a little too strange, as I couldn't help remembering her as the twelve-year-old friend of my sister. She, on the other hand, got a little return pleasure in playing seduction games and enjoying my discomfort. It was harmless enough, and we both knew it was just play.

The other time was with someone I knew from my general neighborhood who later told me she was escorting, and the offer really wasn't about a strictly sexual/financial relationship, but a true affair with emotional involvement, which I unfortunately didn't think would be healthy for either of us, so I declined. (Not that I didn't seriously think about it -- she was bright, gorgeous and took great pleasure in describing herself as highly oversexed.)

I give the first example simply because dance bars are the closest thing my area has to brothels in terms of quasi-public spaces where quasi-sexual activities take place. Not really the same, but as close as can be to a "surprise" encounter. I've never, say, ordered an escort and had the person show up be someone I know.

In your case, is the woman a working girl or are you thinking that offering money would make it crystal clear what the parameters are? If the latter, how is that not received as an insult, given the stigma that is still attached to prostitution, particularly in the US?

[PurpleNGold]

That's the problem I'm facing.

This lady is just a neighbor with whom I've shared jacuzzi time. She's nice, flirtatious, has a reputation for being more than just a tease, and has made it known to me that she'd be happy to prove her rep to me. But, she's also a bit of a ditzy, dependent type who I'm afraid would cause trouble if the relationship got any deeper than talking in the Jacuzzi.

But, like I said, I know she has some very difficult financial troubles. I'm not into giving away money, and I'd really like to sample what's on offer. But, I just don't know how to broach the subject of pay-for-play without it being a serious insult and/or becoming a scandal.

It'll probably never amount to anything because I just don't think there's a tactful way to go about it. Bummer because she's pretty hot.

[Joe Zop]

I think you said it all right here: "she's also a bit of a ditzy, dependent type" as that's the core of the issue. The money isn't likely to change the latter end of the equation in and of itself, as that can just be another form of dependency. It's not like there's not a long history of men having mistresses and women having sugar daddies, but that's a different level of relationship than pay-for-play since it usually involves some degree of emotional attachment as well. Seems like the only way to proceed is a frank conversation saying, "I think you're hot and would love to tumble with you but I'm absolutely not interested in a relationship or any strings whatsoever" (which, of course, but doesn't guarantee anything in terms of how she's truly going to take things.) If that works for her, and things work for you, then saying, "look, I know you're having trouble, why don't you let me pay for X" becomes the non-insulting way to say I'll give you money as long as we're doing it. That gives you room to backpeddle as having your intentions misunderstood if she takes offense and gives her room not to consider herself as doing it for money.

Of course there are no guarantees about how someone is going to react once things get started if they're a dependent type, but that's true in any relationship.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hiya guys :)

Yes Joe, I've certainly still been "monitoring" things here, but I haven't really had a chance to sit down and respond lately. Things have been totally out of control here with all the political bullshit, and I guess by the time I sit down on my computer after work, I'm all 'prostitutioned out'! LOL

Ok, so...out of towners. Well to be honest, I rarely worked with anyone who grew up in a rural area. I was pretty much the only farm girl in most cases. Some girls were from other states - some on working holidays and many from South Australia where the prostitution laws are even more harsh than in WA - but there weren't many that were from regional Western Australia. Most were city girls, born and bred.

I don't know much about rural America, but most of rural Australia is very - how can I put this nicely - 'traditional'. Men drink beer and work farms, women get married and have children...and sex workers, Asian people, homosexuals and cafe lattes don't even exist. Prostitution isn't something that country women are ever really presented with, and moving to the city to become a sex worker certainly isn't something that they would normally set out to do (as may be the case for rural Thai girls, etc). Keep in mind though that a lot of Americans seem to classify any town with less than 100,000 people in it as a 'country town' - I am talking about towns with a population of well under 1000! My town had a population of 150!! Everyone knows everyone's business, so you grow up striving to maintain 'good girl' status in the eyes of your community. And prostitutes - who you have only seen on seedy American movies - are NOT good girls.

As for whether I was ever caught out in a brothel - yeah, a few times. Once, would you believe, was when my ex-husband was at the caryard across the road and he saw me walk out to pick up the girls' lunches from the deli! We told him that I was only there visiting a friend who worked there. In my mini skirt and knee-high boots? Yeah, right. Did he believe it? Hell no! I had to leave that parlour immediately and change my working name...

Another time a guy came in that I thought I recognised, but I figured that I must have just seen him around the traps, so I saw him anyway. After we had SEX - he tells me that he just worked out why I looked so familiar, and that he's friends with my ex-mother in law! The only good thing was that he was married and he was scared to death that his wife would find out...so he would definitely never say anything to anyone.

I've also been caught a few times by 'friends of friends', but (thankfully) it's always been at either the beginning or the end of my shift, when I was in jeans chatting to the receptionist as if I was just visiting a friend. All the places I've worked in have had security cameras set up, so that the girls can check who the guy is before doing an intro in case she knows him. It's essential in this place - Perth is a very small city!!

And here's one that didn't happen to me, but happened to a girl I was working with. She was engaged (to someone who didn't know she worked) and she was only working for a couple more months so that she could go into the marriage debt free and with some savings, and guess who walked in - the best man! Luckily for her, the best man was also married! I haven't seen her for a while, but apparently the wedding still went ahead - bet that was a bloody uncomfortable day for all concerned!!

[Rubber Nursey]

And PNG - in my opinion, "ditzy, dependent types" do not make good hookers. Until you said that she was the dependent type, I would have said take the chance and offer her the cash. But you don't want to have her falling in love with you for either the sex, or for helping her out financially in her time of need.

I think the difference is that a sex worker expects you to pay her for sex, so the money has no 'hidden meaning' when you hand it over. This girl you're talking about, on the other hand, would probably be 'grateful for your kindness' and think that it means more than it does. That can only lead to disaster.

[Joe Zop]

A fair amount of the US is still pretty traditional and conservative, too, RN, and in the smaller areas there's still the labeling fears as well, though I think the general impact of the media, Hollywood, etc,. has offset things a bit and filled lots of heads with the desire to be the sexy beast. I certainly don't expect that those growing up in these areas are going to act out while there, but I've run into an awful lot of smaller-town women in the big city.

Still, regardless of the city/country split (and given the percentage of people in Oz who live in one of the cities versus the country, I suppose that's not surprising) I'd be curious to know what percentage of women in the trade come from out of town.

The security camera thing sounds like a great idea, very sensible. Do women working there usually have their antennae up keeping an eye out for people they know, or is it a rather minor concern? In the instances where someone sees someone they know and keeps out-of-sight, what find of after-effects are there? Does one say to another, whew, that was close, as that was so-and-so, or do they keep it to themselves? Is there any discussion or curiousity regarding the sexual aspects? The wedding story is something else -- I don't know that I'd be as worried about the wedding as much as vowing I'd never let the best man and groom go out drinking together ever again, as who knows what tales get told when someone is in their cups!

Since you mention him seeing you, how much did/does your ex know about you being in the trade? How does that affect things?

You always talk about Perth as being a small city -- which is ironic considering where you're from -- but isn't the population over a million?

(Sorry for so many questions, but it's been dead in this thread and you're the resident expert, so I figured I might as well...)

[Dickhead]

One time in college a buddy of mine gave me a gal's phone number and said she was available for oral sex (only) at a price. I called her up, we negotiated, and eventually I gave her my address to come over. She said, "Wait a minute. XXX East XX Avenue? Right across from XXXX Park?" I said "Yeah, what's the problem?" She said, "I think I know you. Is this Dickhead?" At the same time, I recognized her voice: "So and So?" She said "oh my God" and hung up. She wasn't in any of my classes but we had the same major and were in the honor society together. I had hosted some functions at my house and she had been there a few times.

The next semester, she WAS in two of my classes and so we talked about it. She said her mother was a prostitute who had dragged her all over the country growing up and that her grandmother (maternal) had been a prostitute as well. She said she was trying to "break the cycle" by being the first one in her family to go to college (high school valedictorian, bright gal, VERY sexy and KNEW IT) but that if she couldn't earn some fast cash she would have had to drop out. I told her I didn't give a rat's ass and hadn't told anyone and she was quite relieved.

So I spent the whole semester trying to get in her pants and never could, but we became good friends. The next semester after that (the semester we both graduated), we didn't have any classes together and she finally gave it up for one long, memorable weekend but then she ran away and hid (metaphorically speaking) for reasons that remain unknown and unclear.

Her mom came to graduation. The mom was actually quite a bit closer to me in age than the daughter (I was an older student). I fucked her for money and so did a few of my friends. I am still in touch with the daughter from time to time and she has indeed "broken the cycle" and etched out a fine career in our mutual profession. I've always wondered if she knows I fucked her mom. Our tenth reunion is next year and if I go and she is there, maybe I'll let it slip out. She is married (I don't intentionally do married gals, EVER) and has gotten quite chubby according to her (haven't actually seen her since graduation) but GOD she was HOT back then.

Also in college I was getting a blow job in a park at night and a bicycle cop snuck up and busted us and it was a rookie cop who had graduated the previous year and knew me because I officiated all the intramural sports. The gal was the most notorious hooker in this small town and was pretty skanky. He let us go but I was pretty embarassed, but only because she was skanky!

This is why I don't like living in a "small town," no matter what its population is.

[Joe Zop]

Of all the professions one expects to see passed down through several generations (doctors, police, etc.) prostitution isn't generally the one you'd think about, but I suppose it makes a great deal of sense that it would be so.

Great story, DH, thanks. How did you approach the mom? Just say, "Your daughter tells me you're in the trade, how much?"

[Dickhead]

The mom was a pretty hard core pro; obvious signs for those who knew what to look for, of whom I was undoubtedly the only one present upon this occasion! She dressed up or down or appropriately or whatever for the ceremony and the banquet afterwards. I approached her towards the end of the banquet after she'd had a few (I was on the wagon at the time) and asked her if she wanted to go out. On the way to the bar I just said something like "What it would it take to get you to sleep with me?" and she countered with a monetary figure.

Then gentleman that I am, I asked her if she wanted to stick around for the weekend and make some more money. She said she did so I hooked her up with a few of my friends who were hard up for pussy. It was damn hard to get laid in that town, hardest place I ever found in my life, which was amazing for a college town. It's not really a "college town" in character, though, an old mining and ranching town and very conservative. Most of the chicks at the college who liked to screw were granolas and they just aren't my type (need to bathe more). I was a BMOC and basically led a double life the two years I was there, honor student by day and low-life bar crawling *****monger by night. Everyone on campus thought I was real straight even though I was baked all the time.

Sometimes I miss those days, but not often.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by RN
And PNG - in my opinion, "ditzy, dependent types" do not make good hookers. Until you said that she was the dependent type, I would have said take the chance and offer her the cash. But you don't want to have her falling in love with you for either the sex, or for helping her out financially in her time of need.

I think the difference is that a sex worker expects you to pay her for sex, so the money has no 'hidden meaning' when you hand it over. This girl you're talking about, on the other hand, would probably be 'grateful for your kindness' and think that it means more than it does. That can only lead to disaster.

Yeah, this is what I'm thinking (and pretty much what Joe said too). I just keep having this nagging down in the shorts, so I guess I am lucky for self-control. I'm sure, ten years from now, I'll look back and wonder, but for now, I'm gonna let this one lie and save for another trip to Thailand.

[PurpleNGold]

Originally posted by joe_zop
Great story, DH, thanks. How did you approach the mom? Just say, "Your daughter tells me you're in the trade, how much?"

That's a great question for a great story. DH, you are the man!

[Dickhead]

PNG writes:

"That's the problem I'm facing. This lady is just a neighbor with whom I've shared jacuzzi time."

And no one thinks to ask the most important question: Is he buying or just renting? If the latter, fuck her and then move if there's any problems. Very simple.

Or better yet, fuck her and then move regardless. Preemptive strike, as Richard Thompson would say.

[PurpleNGold]

Dickhead, you were on a roll last night. This one, and the post in the TJ section got a hearty guffaw out of me.

[Joe Zop]

Gee, Dickhead, I thought you weren't a Bush fan. Your "scorched earth" approach on sexual relationships sounds an awful lot like US foreign policy :D

[Dickhead]

To say that I am not a Bush fan is similar to saying that Hitler was mean to a few Jews.

[Allen Eire]

Jesus Dickhead that was quite a profound statment. If you do not mind I have a question(s) for you in the PV, Mex section

Thanks