prostitution off-topic branch thread

(continued from http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=467273)


there's certainly no shortage of evil whores in the world, but I wouldn't recommend fucking any of them.

imho, it would be better for both hooker and client to have at least a little bit of positive emotional connection

prostitution can be dangerous for the prostitute (rape, robbery, beatings, kidnap, murder) and also damaging physically (feeds a destructive addiction, std's) and emotionally (feels used, is involved with prostitution because they're messed up in the first place), not to mention having to go to jail if they're caught.

it can also be damaging for their clients, though usually mostly financially and in terms of std's. clients will sometimes face prosecution for participation, but not so often. I suppose clients can also feel used or otherwise have a negative experience

so all around, it's good to try to avoid the negative aspects and try to have a mutually positive experience

 

I don’t disagree that it’s good if you can form a connection of some sort and have both parties engage in a mutually enjoyable experience.

I also just want to note:
Prostitution is not illegal in all parts of the world. The STD risks are way overblown due to scare tactics. And the only way I see anyone having financial problems would be if their use turns into abuse… but the same thing can happen to people who gamble and use drugs too.

 

so you're saying to go to nevada where it's legal and somewhat regulated?

 

The risks of STD's are very real, so I think it is wise for health organisations to scream from the roof tops about condom use. Something like HIV is not an easy virus to contract, even if condoms are not used. You would have to be very unlucky to get it if you do use protection, so use it!

I have a friend who is an escort. She earns a very good living, and while she does not enjoy it, she does not hate it either. She is very educated about sexual health and is very professional. She would never put herself, or her clients at risk, and therefore a man would be far safer having protected sex with her, than he would be having unprotected sex with a one night stand type of girl, who sleeps around and is not a safety first type.

She has never been abused, she does not use drugs and is a very stable nice girl. She is not heartless with her clients and builds a friendly relationship with her regulars. These are the type of clients she likes, it is easier for her, and for them.

 

I went to TJ with some friends and one of the guys wanted to get a bj from a hooker, it's kind of a "thing to do" down there.

Anyway while we could tell he was thoroughly enjoying it, what he didn't see (and what we all saw from a distance) was that she had a nutsack hanging down from her skirt. So if you go that route, please check the goods.

 

Wrong on both counts. Johns are constantly cheated, robbed and beat, scammed, and victims of the old bait-and-switch coming from hookers, pimps, and undercover cops. Not to mention the fact that they constantly fall in love and that love is unrequited.

There are sting operations that focus exclusively on johns. Johns' sentences are typically much higher than hooker's since the latter are still seen as 'victims' for being women. No such thing happens with trannies or gay sex workers. In Sweden it is legal to be a hooker, but illegal to be a john. Now, that makes sense...

Where are you getting your facts from, might I ask?

Yes, they are. And it gives government an excuse to appropriate tax money to intervene in people's personal lives and prosecute ridiculous sting operations.

The joke is on these stupid campaigns. There isn't a single john or hooker who isn't infinitely more well-educated about STD risks than the general population. It just so happens that my tolerance for risk is different from that of married couples...

It's none of your business if I contract an STD. Now, go cook dinner, take care of the kids, pay your mortgage and all that miserable stuff, you condescending bastards.

 

thats just fricking awesome.. :2thumbsup:

 

Oldest bussiness in the world and if they give themselfes free to devotion/danger it's gonna be their own fault in any way. Responsibility for the own life shall be taken

 

Sounds like a deal to me. As long as it's consentual, everybody leaves everybody else alone and everybody minds their own business.

How's that?

---------
You self-important, nosy, busybody, bleeding-heart liberals might do well to heed H.L. Mencken's words:

 

well, guys can get ripped off or robbed

I don't know much about nevada, but I bet it's overpriced. regular std testing is probably good though

free consensual sex is probably best if that's what you're into. for a lot of guys, prostitution is more appealing, either because of how they feel about relationships or the options available to them

I think that there are lighter and darker sides to prostitution. What your friend is doing sounds pretty positive. the regular kind of relationship sounds like the best

I never said that clients don't get cheated, robbed or scammed

I think that this may vary from state to state. One of the defenses given for Eliot Spitzer is that if he had been a regular guy, he never would have been prosecuted.

it's not anyone's business if you contract one, but if you spread one, it's a public health issue. contracting and spreading tend to go together

 

Being robbed of a few hundred bucks doesn’t spiral someone into financial peril.

No, but you implied that it's the prostitutes who constantly get taken advantage of… which couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

of course. and winning the lottery is better than working.

 

lol, it's not that hard to get laid, is it?

 

I would say it was your inference rather than my implication.

World wide, I would say that the prostitutes get the worst end of it, if you factor in human trafficking.

the general rule is that whoever is the most vulnerable gets the worst deal. at least some of the time, that's the clients

 

and its clearly not the clients that are the most vunerable

 

Bullshit. If I have HIV, guess how I'm going to spread it? If you fuck me without a condom or an HIV test. It doesn't spread through the air.

Abstractions like 'society' and 'public' are always just an excuse for preternaturally entitled hypocrites to find what's ado about other people's private lives.

Human trafficking is human trafficking. Prostitution is prostitution. They are separate and distinct. This would be the same as factoring in drug dealing with acting, since so many Hollywood actors are users.

The fact that you "factor in" human trafficking with prostitution reveals your hypocrisy right along with the feminist groups that are now on a crusade alongside right-wing Christian groups who want to collide the UN definition of the two activities as if they were one and the same.

rape
statuatory rape
assault/battery
human trafficking/slavery

NOT PROSTITUTION

Those are all in the penal code already as separate crimes. Just like tax evasion and loan-sharking are, though they may coexist. What pathetic impotents like you are trying to do is always throw them in there as though they were intrinsically linked with the consensual exchange of money for sex between adults.

It's time for the shower, bubba...you're just going to have to live with the fact that some people have more fun in bed than you.

In your teeny tiny little head.

 

you can still get an std even if you wear a condom, and even if the condom doesn't break (allegedly that's the case with some of the bacterial std's).

while you have a point in so far as people are usually willing participants in sex, I don't think that this always means that it's just between you and them.

so what if you have HIV and someone down the line passes it on through rape? what if you pass HIV on to a girl who is pregnant?

what if you had a drug resistant viral strain and it killed 100 million people? what if you passed on a virus that mutated into a form that's not transmitted exclusively sexually?

people who are against the legalization of prostitution may use std control as their excuse, but really legalized, regulated prostitution would probably reduce the rate of std transmission, imho.

the particular question of whether or not it is someone's right to get (and therefore likely transmit) and std is a separate issue. I don't like the idea of someone being forced to not do something, but neither do I think it is accurate to say that one has a right to transmit std's any more than one has the right to start fires on private property without restriction

 

i'll stick with my own head,cos theres nothing vunerable about them. the clients are the least vunerable in it.

 

You can hit yourself upside the head with it as much as you want. Saying it like a broken record doesn't make it so. Not any more than me smoking a jay and telling a tree that I am a Hapsburg. Or, a lunatic in the asylum who thinks he's Moses.

The difference between one and the other is that the risk is consensual. Rape is already punishable by law, much like your arson red herring. Precisely because they are not consensual.

If you can't grasp that, you can go on wishing to make the world as harmless as a daytime nursery all you want. It won't change anything especially since you could never make any actionable law to apply your vague notion of 'right' short of Stalinism, and you know it.

 

prostitution and human trafficking are distinct, but related. I never said that all prostitution was human trafficking. However, the vast majority of human trafficking is for prostitution. That is a relationship that is not purely coincidental, as in your analogy.

If you would like me to be more precise, I might amend my earlier statement to read

"World wide, I would say that the prostitutes get the worst end of it, if you factor in human trafficked prostitutes"

Cherea, I think you are getting emotional about this issue, which is why you are resorting to personal attacks