Apparently, it is true that a conservative is someone who believes nothing should be done for the first time.

You are referring to only one kind of prostitute, Bill55AZ. The street-level curb-crawler who is often saddled with either a pimp or a vicious drug habit and often both. Taking the most overt and pathetic example of prostitutes and many who pursue that line of work through coercion or addiction is hardly representative of the diversity in sexwork.

Being in a very small minority doesn't bother me. Being a critical thinking person who isn't afraid to go beyond the status quo has always put me in a small minority.

Most changes don't begin with mass movements. It always takes a few individuals who think outside the box and are not satisfied with applying the same old shopworn "solutions" to intractable problems. Nor does it impress me all that much when right-wingers smugly sneer, "Well, the majority of people feel the way I do."

The majority of people don't think very well, very deeply or very much. They're just as happy to chow down on a Big Mac and nod off to "American Idol." Most people at one time thought burning witches at the stake was a good idea or that slavery wasn't so bad or America would never elect a Catholic president. Simply because the majority hasn't embraced a new idea hardly invalidates it. Radical thinking rarely waits for popular support. You can challenge and question the legitimacy or even the necessity of prostitution, but you can't get rid of it with laws, shame or apocalyptic diatribes of how it will destroy marriage, break up families and take the flouride out of the water supply.

Just because our paternalistic, sexually repressed culture has its undies in a bunch over the notion of consenting adults paying to play doesn't seem to have put a crimp in the demand for a little hedonistic blowing off of steam.

At some point even the lazily dozing masses are going to want the moralists, the Big Daddy Government types and anti-sex zealots to get the hell out of their bedrooms.

People like having sex. Some people have to or want to pay for it. Someone will provide the supply to meet the demand. Laws, morality, marriage, children and the church haven't done a darn thing to change that fact.

You might as well try to outlaw gravity as try to regulate the libido.

At some point, those "American Idol", "Big Mac" eating "moralists" have to buy into your concept that prostitution is something that should be legal. Our rule of law requires that the majority of our citizens (through their representatives or through the ballot box) agree with that change. I will point out (again) that the citizens of Berkeley, California, hardly a bastion of "sneering sexually repressed right wingers", rejected a referendum legalizing prostitution by an overwhelming majority.

I don't see how the pro-prostitution movement is going to win hearts and minds of the people who ultimately determine our morality/legality by denigrating them as rubes, backwards witch burners, unsophisticates, and, as you put it, "anti-sex" zealots. Perhaps that's one of the root causes for the decline of the democrat party? It's inherent arrogance??

People do like having sex. It's a powerful force within human nature. And specifically BECAUSE of that fact, all civilizations (with rare exceptions) have put social rules, regulations, customs, mores, and LAWS regulating that activity.

We can't regulate gravity because that is not a human behavior. But sex is. We don't regulate human emotion or human drive. But we do regulate behavior. One can't just steal if one sees something that one wants and the emotion of envy motivates him. One can't assault or otherwise harm an individual just because they "dissed" them and their anger was evoked. And, one can't just jump into bed at the drop of a hat because one feels an attraction (unless, of course, you are the democrat President of the United States between 1992 and 2000) because of their "libido".

I maintain (as do several others in this thread) that prostitution ultimately does more harm than good because it attacks one of the fundamental ties that keeps married couples together. Why is that important? Because that's the fundamental building block of the family and the family is the foundation of our society.

In my view, when that family structure is undermined, the society is undermined. I believe that our 50% divorce rate overall and the 70%+ out-of-wedlock birth rates within the "African American" demographic of young women, are direct causes of social pathologies such as crime, drug use, low educational achievement, and general misbehavior. Like it or not, those statistics are directly correlated to people having sex out of the confines of marriage.

Prostitution is just another factor that undermines the family. If a guy is out there getting it from a "sex worker", then he's not at home with his wife building bonds that could keep them together. And, a woman who provides sex is NOT seen as an enlightened visionary who lives by a higher standard of morality, consciousness, etc. She's seen as a "ho"; a second class citizen if one wants to be generous. She's seen as a piece of "meat", and "object" and something to be used and discarded.

What the liberals of today don't seem to appreciate is that the sexual revolution of the 1960's and 1970's was fought, and we all lost. A 50%+ rate, record out-of-wedlock birth rates, teen crime, epidemics of STD's, and the breakdown of the family in many areas were the result.

Yeah, but people sure had a good time. They did what "felt good" independent of the consequences. At some point, however, maturity has to prevail if our society is going to avoid implosion.

Being in a very small minority doesn't bother me. Being a critical thinking person who isn't afraid to go beyond the status quo has always put me in a small minority.
My children tried some of that, when they were teens. They found out that responsible parents know the difference between critical thinking and wild ideas.
We parents think of their safety and regulate their behavior. I am sure you did the same at times.

Most changes don't begin with mass movements. It always takes a few individuals who think outside the box and are not satisfied with applying the same old shopworn "solutions" to intractable problems. Nor does it impress me all that much when right-wingers smugly sneer, "Well, the majority of people feel the way I do."
True, about good things, and bad things. But this is not a change. It is setting free what is only partly contained. Can we assume that we should release probation requirements of sex offenders next?
The majority of people don't think very well, very deeply or very much. They're just as happy to chow down on a Big Mac and nod off to "American Idol." Most people at one time thought burning witches at the stake was a good idea or that slavery wasn't so bad or America would never elect a Catholic president. Simply because the majority hasn't embraced a new idea hardly invalidates it. Radical thinking rarely waits for popular support. You can challenge and question the legitimacy or even the necessity of prostitution, but you can't get rid of it with laws, shame or apocalyptic diatribes of how it will destroy marriage, break up families and take the flouride out of the water supply.
You say radical thinking, I say self serving, selfish, self absorbed, etc. thinking. Society runs on its own rules, set up over time, using the best wisdom available. A new idea that society initially rejects has to grow slowly in their minds and then may get accepted. That isn't all bad. Progress is slow for a reason, but what you want isn't progress.
Just because our paternalistic, sexually repressed culture has its undies in a bunch over the notion of consenting adults paying to play doesn't seem to have put a crimp in the demand for a little hedonistic blowing off of steam.
We are repressed? Doesn't feel or look like it. There are almost as many porn channels on TV as sports channel. You have to pay extra for them, tho, and I am too cheap for that.
At some point even the lazily dozing masses are going to want the moralists, the Big Daddy Government types and anti-sex zealots to get the hell out of their bedrooms. I never found any of those types in my anxiety closet. Yours must be full of them.

People like having sex. Some people have to or want to pay for it. Someone will provide the supply to meet the demand. Laws, morality, marriage, children and the church haven't done a darn thing to change that fact.
No, the best we can do is keep a loose lid on it. A little control is all we can manage, and society accepts that.

You might as well try to outlaw gravity as try to regulate the libido.
Don't worry, old age is quite successful at regulating the libido. The personal demons of the perpetually horny do ultimately fade away.

Hello. I'm new in this debate site.
Should we legalize prostitution? An answer to a question will lead to another question, and after reading replies to this question, some questions hit me on the head
1. Would you let your mother to be a prostitute?
2. Would you let your wife to be a prostitute?
3. Would your sisters to be prostitutes?
4. would you let your daughter to be a prostitute?
Someone has answered no to the question "would you let your daughter to be a prostitute?" and this sounds like "I don't care about those fools who let her daughter to be a hooker. Hell I just wanna have some fun. And if someone would willingly or not let his/her daughter to satisfy me, why would other persons or institution forbid him?"
This sounds a bit egotistic/egoistic but that's what we all are. We were brought up that way

1. Would you let your mother to be a prostitute?
2. Would you let your wife to be a prostitute?
3. Would your sisters to be prostitutes?
4. would you let your daughter to be a prostitute?

Welcome to America's Debate Meem. You're asking the age old question of what to do if your family members do something you don't like. I can answer those questions.

1. Nobody really has moral authority over his or her parents. Parents often do things that embarrass their children. But there is a difference between child abuse and simply doing something embarrassing.

2. As far as the wife is concerned, that would be adultery if she had sex with another man whether she gets paid for it or not. Adultery is a different sin from prostitution.

As far as questions 3 and 4 are concerned, you can't really stop them if they happen to be grown adults. If they are grown adults and choose to be prostitutes, the family has the right to demand that the clients use condoms and demand a safe working environment. And with the demand for sex being high, someone's daughter has to do it. There's many unpleasant jobs that require someone to do.

I admit that there were some selfish reasons why I supported legalizing prostitution. I still hold my view on this issue. The demand for prostitution arises partly when a man is so poor on his social skills that he can't even date an ugly girl. Socially, I have rough edges. I either come off as a Mr. Nice guy or come off as a Jerk. And to those who view prostitution as a terrible sin, would you rather have men pollute their minds with pornography?

So, reward should be given for fear of the populace? A man can not interact with the rest of the community in proper venue so we must provide them with the means to do something that they shouldn't be doing if they can't properly form a relationship? Seems a bit socialist to me; provide to everyone equal opportunity or else. Sometimes there should be no equal opportunity. This is no attack against you, and I apologize if it seems as such: but I find most people who are socially outside of the norm are simply too shy to take a risk and become the social butterflys the rest of the world is...

I do view prostitution along the lines of a terrible sin, and no, I would not want them at home looking at porn. But what is prostitution but porn brought to life? The double-edge sword of this could not be more deeply planted into the gut of this issue if it tried. But, you have to take the good with the bad. I would rather their perversions be addressed in a private venue than having prostitution becoming a trade that would someday be advertised for on television commercials, billboards, newspaper ads, etc.

It is legal in several countries in Europe, Holland amongst them, and i have seen no "harm" in it so far. It also produces quite a deal of jobs. The positive effects are far beyond any negative ones (according to me). It would also give the woman a safety net such as health insurance and so forth.




I would say it does not harm anyone more then anything else would.



Extra Tax money for one. Better control and more safety for the woman (and men). And like i said earlier, bigger workforce.

I'm confused. Is skeeterses really asking for you or some type of government program to assist him in sexual exploits? I don't think he's making the argument that anyone has to be a prostitute, whether they want to or not.

The reason why many women go into prostitution is that its so high paying. There are many women out there that need money and don't have a high school degree! Their choices are between making minimum wage scrubbing floors and pressing buttons at McDonalds, or making $100 dollars per trick! A high paying job with absolutely no barriers of entry should be flooded with participants. In fact, if the government did legalize prostitution, I bet the prices would fall somewhat dramatically because there would no longer be an artificial shortage (a large increase in supply).

So, for a self proclaimed libertarian, I'm surprised you would consider prostitution to be socialist at all! The women would provide themselves without any intervention; just the customer and supplier could make this happen.

When shy men are in the market for a particular need, money will drive many women to that market. Theres absolutely nothing socialist about that.

I answer to my morals and principles above that of any political affiliation. Women should not be allowed the free-trade of their bodies to the extent prostitution would allow or condone, it invites the degradation of both women's roles and the way this country perceives both commitment and every facet of the female's image in this country. Women would become mere sex objects that any man could pay to spend one night in the throughs of passion with her, it is not a logical solution to take if we are really trying to keep the playing field leveled between the sexes.

How is the exploitation of thier bodies any more or less harmful than any job that puts yourself in even greater PHYSICAL danger- for instance, crab fishing is the most dangerous job on the planet- it not only exploits your body, but your life as well- why isn't that outlawed as well? I fail to see any difference at all. Well, except you are far more likely to die or be permanently disabled, and have a much shorter career, as a prostitute. I would rather have any member of my family be a high priced prostitute than a crab fisherman in the Bering sea- I know, I have been there, and you are seriously playing Russian roulette every time you go out. What about the NFL? Or modeling? both flagrant, and one dangerous, exploitation of thier bodies- why is it worse if it is merely sexual, instead of disabling and life threatening?

Or would I rather have a family member as a prostitute or a soldier in Iraq? I believe enlisting in the military under this regime is far more immoral than prostitution, not for the enlistee, but for the exploitation of our military and the needless killing that befalls them. Has 1500+ prostitutes been killed in America since the invasion of Iraq, and tens of thousands injured, thousands permanently so? I think the military is an honorable profession, but right now is not the time to join- I am not downing the soldier here- but pointing out the exploitation of young poeples lives by less than honorable poeple- and I don't think the exploitation of prostitutes is worse, that is for certain!

Women shouldn't be allowed??? Are you purporting to protect women? So were the Taliban by demanding that women completely cover themselves, lest they become the objects of male lust. During the original "white slavery" hysteria in the 1800s (on the heels of the Contagious Diseases Acts in the UK and the US), the Greeks decided to "protect" their women by not "allowing" them to travel without a male chaperone and proper documents. How thoughtful of them.

Women who choose to make themselves commercially available do not consider themselves degraded. I do not consider my role as that of a degraded person. Quite the contrary- I am practically worshipped by the gentlemen who avail themselves of my company. Your issue with my profession is simply that- your issue.

And there is nothing "level" about a playing field which does not "allow" a woman do do with her body as she chooses.



And some of us choose to be sex objects during certain hours of the day- and we are paid very handsomely for it. Happens all the time- has for millennia. And those of us who choose this way of life also choose very selectively who has access to our bodies. It isn't as though I am a public bus and have to carry anyone who wishes to ride.

...

I respect your view on this issue, but I have strong objection against your opinion about socialism. It feels like a marginalistion of this ideology. I am a SOCIALIST, I was brought up in a socialist family, my parants are socialists, my sister is socialist, even my grandma is a socialist! I was brought up with a critical view on traditional and religious morals and principles and was taught to have an open mind towards society and all its aspects. (maybe that is one of the problems why I do not always understand U.S. policies or opinions )

I am proud of my little country, because of its liberal views on social problems.
On euthanasia, prostitution, drug use, gay marriage and prostitution, Dutch law is the cutting edge of Western liberalism!

I hope you understand, why I had to react when you bodly stated that in some cases there should be no equal opportunity. This statement goes against every principle of my own believe-system.

P.S. did you know that most custumors of the prostitutes in Amsterdam are NOT Dutch! It are the tourists, from countries that have strict rules regarding prostitution, that make most use of prostitutes! Did you know that legalising prostitution was made on strong arguments: it decreases the number of sexual orientated crimes, it reduces illegal and forced prostitution, it benefits society through taxation etc.etc.etc.

I can only think of one situation to which this discussion leads: an animal state, literally. With prostitution legalized, your grandma, mother, sisters, and your other female sibling roaming on the streets as body-sellers--forgive the language--you can only think of a country filled with man-animals ('so what!' I can hear someone yell from the top of his lung 'isn't that what we all are? Animal in the most literal sense?). Geez, I can almost hear one of Skeeterses' peers told him how 'good' his mother was when he had her.
Do not tell that you can localize prostitution--or its INFLUENCE. People don't act that way. You tell your subordinates at office not to spit on the floor they'll spit in the flower pot, under the tables, or any other place hidden but forbidden. And you said to YOURSELF the law has prevailed!
I certainly do not wish to live in an animal state. I do not want family ties and community strength demolished by--legalized or not--prostitutiton.

Welcome to the site Meem...But, uh, none of those questions have any bearing on the debate. I wouldn't want my mother, wife [whom I don't have] or sister [whom I don't have] or daughter [whom I don't have] to smoke, watch porn, buy French products or become Yankee fans either. Whether or not you would do something is not the legal benchmark. If that was the case, then everything would be illegal. So again, we have to ignore the "eww" factor here, and once we do that, we can see that there is no legitimate reason not to legalize prostitution.

CP

Thank you very much ConservPat for giving your comment on the 'eew' thing. Of course the 'eew' is sometimes very subjective but I do not see how it is subjective here.
My point in saying the 'eew' thing is obvious.
I think moral is still one of the basis of Law. I think that one of the functions of law is to minimize, if not to demolish, all transgressions and the effect of them to society. I think that, in law, maximum effort has to be done to reach even the minimum result. Because, after all, in reality, you can only minimize trangressions and their effect.
I have told you the reason why I object to legalizing prostitution:
1. It will ruin family ties.
2. It will create animal country.
The reason why free-sex hasn,t brought this country into bestiality is that the 1. idea hasn't evolved in sufficient time, 2. it still needs other 'ingredients', and 3. there are still many of those conservative 'jerks' who are yelling at our ears, talking 'craps' about moral.
Someone has said that a change needs time and he has perfectly showed the example.
So we already practise free-sex, and we have these 'naturalists' on our beaches, and we have homosexuals, and we have Angelina Jolie who said that she was sexually attracted to her brother, we have homosexual churches, and so on...
Not too long, we will have these people barking at court of law, pleading to 'have their marriage with horses and apes legalized', with all its consequences--this may happen in Sweden or the Netherlands..
Is this too extremely bull-*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***-ish? No, I do not think so.
The thinking that homosexuality is medically and psychologically OK was started in 1973 by the American Psychiatrists, inspired by Freud. Then in the beginning of the 21st century we have this pastor, with the highest religious rank in a religion that is supposed to detest homosexuality, openly said that he was a homosexual.
I am a conservative and I am 'optimistic' that these things I said will happen.

Welcome to the board Meem. I'm a bit confused by your last two posts.

Are you saying that a man who goes into a bar, picks up a woman, takes her to a motel, has sexual relations with her and gives her $25 bucks for carfare is going to lead to the demise of the family structure, create a "animal country" (whatever that is), lead to the legalization of both incest and bestiality and rampant acts of homosexuality (horrors!)?

Or can this descent into Sodom and Gomorrah be avoided if the man keeps the $25 bucks in his pocket and drops her off at her place? What is it exactly that is setting you off here? Unmarried acts of sex between consenting adults or paying for unmarried acts of sex between consenting adults?

Inquiring minds and all that...

I know what you're saying but...do you have any proof of either of those two? If you do, then surely you'll agree that everything else that ruins family ties [like divorce, adultry, alcohol, etc] should also illegal.


I'm entirely clueless as to how the legalization of prostitution would bring about bestiality; can you explain that to me please?


Again, I'm confused. What is the connection between homosexuality and prostitution? What proof are you willing to offer that allowing someone to pay for sex will lead to the moral breakdown of society and the extreme popularity of beastiality, incest and inter-species marriage? It seems to me that if someone makes a claim like that, then he/she should have a bajesus load of fact or evidence to back it up.

CP

And i will ask you some questions regarding your objections.



In what way?
How do you mean "family ties"?, Is this only included for married people? (and not people living together with children?).



In what way? Germany is not an "animal country", nor is Holland. Nor is Sweden (its illegal to buy sex. But OK to sell in Sweden)


Also, what about Alcohol? And other drugs such as Tobacco, snuff, painkillers? I presume these are also included in the same theme? Or?


ADDED:

I almost missed this fantastic quote... Really? So Swedes and Dutch marry Horses and Apes? Or how do you mean?

And for the statistic, There are more stable "Families" (couples living otgether, and having children) in both Holland and Sweden compared to United States (for example), (they may not be married, but this does not constitute a must for the ' family' brand in these countries).

Welcome to the board, Meem!


Honestly, Meem, do you think that every woman on the planet would suddenly be overcome with the burning desire to make her body commercially available? Specifically on the streets? Roaming? Somehow I doubt you honestly think this.

I am sorta confused on this one. So are you saying that even if the law stated that employees shouldn't spit on the floor, they would still spit- just elsewhere? (i.e., the flower pot, under the tables, etc.?) If this is the case, then wouldn't that same logic carry over to prostitution? So as the law states that there should be no prostitution, people will (and do) still do it- in the flower pots, under the tables, etc.

I apologize for not responding to your questions or objections promptly.
Nighttimer, I think it was explicit that I meant both: the free sex (or 'adultery' to use the long-forgotten, now meaningless word) and the prostitution. In the case you mentioned, if this man was the only man living on earth and the woman likewise, then it won't be a problem. But the man is obviously someone's brother or son and the woman someoen's sister or daughter and this is the problem.
How will it ruin family ties?
A simple definition: Family tie is the tie that holds a father, a mother, and a son as family.
Legalized prostitution will worsen the negative effects adultery has brought to our society and family. Adultery perfectly teaches us to be indifferent, simple-minded, and somehow 'bestial' or 'savage'=we tend to consent to our animal instincts without taking human consideration. So we do not care about fidelity, commitment, or love. And if our spouse or legal wives or husbands (I use this term because EricStanze implied that there are this illegal (=not legalized) wives and husbands) speaks spitefully about our having affair with another person, we could dump him/her and his/her children and make him/her another single parent.
Bestiality according to Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionarry of Current English is quality of being like a beast, brutish, or savage.
An animal country is a country in which there is no love family, no love, no moral, and also one in which sexual relation is extremely degraded that one can do it with any person (even your mother) or anything (a horse or an ape). In this hypothetical country people have no love, instead they have sexual relation and partnership. They have no family, they have seniority (i.e your father is merely your senior, someone older than you). They have no moral, they have rule.
In this hypothetical country marrying an ape is just another ordinary, everyday thing.
This country may come to existence after we have normalized all trangressions. For what is the point in prohibiting men to marry apes or horses when you have allowed adultery, homosexuality and homosexual marriage, pornography, naturalism (or public nudity), and other trangressions/perversions?
You would probably ask: and you believe this whole fantastic idea will happen just because we legalize prostitution?
My answer is obvious: No, but I believe it will happen when (1) legalized prostitution is combined with other elements: free sex, homosexuality, incest, naturalist movement, and others I do not know of, (2) the idea of deconstructing moral has pervaded this country, and (3) all conservatives and their groups have died or converted to the other side.
In short, I am saying that by disagreeing with legalizing prostitution, we are taking preventive action against God knows the wildest situations all weirdos--or maybe some of us, secretly) have been dreaming of.
ExistentialHedonist, you are correct and that is what happens in the real world. But I don't mean the Law is useless. I just mean that people will find way in beating the Law, that some people will disobey, that people will find faults/flaws in the Law

Question: ever been to the Red Light district in Amsterdam? Ever heard about the fact that this old part of Amsterdam is one of the most loved parts of Amsterdam by the people of Amsterdam. (not that they visit the prostitutes, people like it because it is so lively and interesting and ..... safe! Pimps will do everything to make sure there is no trouble at their doorsteps and there is more than enough police partoling this area.) Last time I checked I still didn't live in a zoo, but maybe that's because I am product of this animal society.

Thanks for the response Meem. I believe you're putting forth a "slippery slope" argument and I don't find it particularly convincing. You are saying that if X happens (legalizing prostitution) then Y and Z (destruction of the family unit and rampant illicit and abnormal sexuality).

I would suggest that (1.) the family structure is already under assault for reasons that have nothing to do with prostitution and (2.) abnormal and illicit sexual behaviors have always been present in the minds of human beings. But repressing prostitution will not stop the floodgates of aberrant sexuality from being opened. If you're on this board you're familiar with the Internet and there is no greater source for explicit and weird sex than the Internet. If you can dream of it, there's probably a website devoted to it.

Prostitution did not create lust and carnality. It merely services it. That is free enterprise at work.

The slippery slope argument here is particularly weak because prostitution has been with us as long as there has been sex. Not everyone wants to have sex the same way as everyone else. Some prefer to go to a trained specialist than a merely competent amateur. Enter the prostitute.

Neither law nor religion nor any other artifically moral construct has long pacified the human libido. You may consider it giving in to our baser "animal instincts" for men to seek sexual gratification outside their marriage (and it is primarily married men who patronize prostitutes), but there is a deeper and more complex reasoning process at play here beyond a itch in their Fruit of the Loom underwear that compels a man to seek out paid companionship.

[/QUOTE]Neither law nor religion nor any other artifically moral construct has long pacified the human libido[QUOTE]

I do not know about the 'has long pacified' Nighttimer, but I know that in Hindu or Islam or Catholic they have this certain religious activity called fasting. I have seen that this activity has made a significant result in 'pacifying' human libido.

[/QUOTE]You may consider it giving in to our baser "animal instincts" for men to seek sexual gratification outside their marriage (and it is primarily married men who patronize prostitutes), but there is a deeper and more complex reasoning process at play here beyond a itch in their Fruit of the Loom underwear that compels a man to seek out paid companionship.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I do not understand this. What might that 'deeper and more complex reasoning' be?

This is a question I can answer with a level of experience. In my business, which is this business, right now, may not always be, but I see men that suffer a lack of intimacy in their marriages, in their minds. In my experience the male is a bit oddly different from the female. He suffers lack of love through sex as the expression of love, intimacy and his connection to life and his partner when she cannot for (medical or psychological reasons) , does not ( I just dont need sex as much as you do or the kids are just making it impossible, Im tired), or outright refuses sex with him, ( too many kids, you just dont turn me on, Im too tired, bored or I just cannot bear you heaving on top of me for hours).
I can testify that as a call girl the men I see are desperate! Not for SEX but for a womans body to feel and cuddle up to and someone that for an hour or two will just make them feel alive. Yes, they want sex. Man has biological drive. But I will swear to you that the men we see as call girls, not streetwalkers, but hotel visiting, website internet only call girls see out of town salesmen, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, engineers, pilots, actually we see everyone, and they mostly want the company of a pretty woman that for a time will make them forget all their troubles. They want to hear us talk, they want to know they can still get a woman off. They want to feel attractive and they want a warm body they can hold for a time, a short time.

Most men want an escort to stay longer, just to hold her after the fact. I feel this desperation all the time. Many men have hard times at home, problem kids, problem lives. They hire for their needs other than have affairs. Its a small compensation for real intimacy but they choose this not to destroy their marriages.

Then, to be fair, there are men that are just decadent and superficial. Their wife put on 50 pounds since their 2 kids and he just cant be bothered with her. Or those , and this is a strange thing about men, find a kink and they will be into it. Feet, leather, submission, urine, beatings, porn, lesbian, barely legal or illegal, teacher/student, nurse/patient, Older neighbor/young want to.... you name it, men are into it.

I have said before that prostitution is this countries best kept secret. A world of its own SO vast but only, and there are many here who know, just how many are involved in one or another aspect of this business. Id go SO far as to say, its the biggest business going these days that reaches across all class and cultural lines.

Excellent post, Artemise!

It is true- our brand of this business is worlds apart from the street business, where a momentary furtive groping/coupling takes place in a hurry in a car or an alley, or a cheap motel. That is purely for the itch in the Fruit-of-the-Looms.

When men search out women like us online, a lot goes into their deliberation as to whom they will choose to see. Many consider first looks, others consider personality (which they glean from a companion's website, or from her participation on several message boards where the companions interact with potential clients). Then they make contact to establish compatibility. Either way, it is usually a carefully thought out decision, and once it is made, anticipation of the date sets in. They look forward to it like highschool boys do their first date. And they are so very appreciative of the woman they have chosen (in most cases- some men, as Artemise pointed out, are selfish and shallow).

In my particular case, a gentleman cannot have my company for fewer than four hours, and I insist on being taken to dinner. So the men who see me will not have a problem being seen in public with a woman- and this tends to cut down on the numbers of married men who patronize me. My friends take me to 5-star restaurants and they stay at 5-star hotels (often in suites). We have engaging conversation over dinner, and really get to know one another, and develop chemistry. The most common element in my dates tends to be the need to cuddle. I have been very fortunate in that I have never had a selfish date.

Artemise is right when she describes the reasons men seek out our services. It is a desperate need to connect. Think about it- humans need contact with other humans for survival. As I said earlier somewhere in this thread- a recent study found that just to be healthy, humans need 7 hugs a day. This has fostered a professional hugging industry- where certain corporations actually hire "huggers" for their employees. (Hochschild, 2003) Women can easily get the contact they need by hugging their own mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends. But men have a much harder time (particularly in this crazy anti-sexual climate, where a man can be in trouble for embracing his sixteen-year-old daughter). Who do they get contact from? If they are married, perhaps they can get it from their wives, but if as Artemise mentioned above, their wives are not receptive to the man's embraces, and even pushes him away, then what? And what about single men? Maybe their mothers or their sisters if they live near. But the point is that men have a harder time achieving their physical touch quota than women do. I will say, however, that there are many women out there who suffer a lack of human contact as well. This is not a good thing for a human.

One of my very first dates was a beautiful man from Canada. He had been married for several years, and once their children were born, she lost interest in physical relations with him. She made him move into a separate room. When I was with him it was the first time in 3 years he was with a woman in a physical way. He dearly loves his wife and children, and did not want to leave them, and so he finally came up with a solution to his frustrations. He had tried counseling, but she wouldn't hear of it. She even told him to go get a girlfriend.

This scenario is sadly much more common than I would have thought. I didn't enter this occupation until my 30s, and had my own presuppositions about why men see professional companions. But being in the industry has been a very interesting education. I only wish more physically-deprived women would take advantage of commercially available affection. No- it is not a cure-all for what ails everyone- but it sure helps in the meantime.

If people had more sex and love in their lives, and less judgment, I am certain we would have a much more peaceful world.

I do not believe you are correct in this assumption. However, my opinion on a peaceful world is unimportant at this time. What is important is the fact that sexual intercourse with a prostitute is rarely born from the need for love. A man or woman uses a prostitute, and yes I do mean use, to derive pleasure from. The person using the prostitute is either impatient in the wait for a real partner or is unhappy in their current partnership, in which case there are alternatives to using a prostitute to have false respect given.




You offered this statement earlier. So sex, regardless of its source, automatically includes respect and love? The only form of sex that births those traits is a real partnership. Even if you are a regular to one specific prostitute: you have neither intimacy nor respect, in those sorts of relationships the only thing you are is money. Prove to me that I am wrong.

No, of course not- usually young men out to "get some" have no interest in respecting the "gotten" one. She is simply one among many "conquests." And rape includes neither.

But I do believe that any human interaction which includes respect and unconditional love (or "unconditional regard" for anyone who might have a problem with the word "love") is a much nicer experience for both parties involved- be it your grocery store clerk, your bank teller, your facialist, your professor, your boss, or your waitress. And, mostly, your sexual partner- be they paid or unpaid. That, after all, is the most intimate exchange of human energy, and therefore the most intense. Sex in an atmosphere of respect and love is nothing short of sublime.


I respectfully disagree. I have respected and loved almost every man I have ever been with- and almost every human I have ever interacted with. Let me explain my definition of "love." I love everyone- I have no problems loving people, even those I don't know. As a child, my parents had to keep admonishing me to not talk to strangers. I loved strangers! People fascinate me. Every human walking on this planet is a gift to be unwrapped. Every person is layers and layers of experiences- all different from my own and always interesting to me. My own personal goal is unconditional love, and I strive to live that goal every day.

So loving the men who see me comes absolutely naturally. You would be amazed at the intimacy shared between paid companions and their lovers. If you have never partaken of professional companionship, you would have no idea what Artemise or I are talking about, but your ignorance of a thing does not make it nonexistent.

About 75% of the men I date are men who are established friends- meaning they are repeat dates. I have ongoing email correspondence with several of them. We share stories, feelings, and opinions, and we look forward to each others' correspondences. We recommend books, restaurants, and movies to each other. A few of my email friends I have only seen once, and will unlikely see again due to the fact that their location and careers do not bring them to Las Vegas. But I have made lovely friendships with them and we continue to correspond, with an occasional phone call.

I derive great pleasure and fulfillment from what I do, and I find it very rewarding. And not just financially.

But even beyond the professional aspect of intimacy, before I became a paid companion I had quite the prolific sex life. I love sex, and that combined with loving people in general made for a very exciting and fulfilling sex life. I still keep in touch with most of my lovers- scattered across the planet in 30-some-odd countries. I have been invited to their weddings, graduations, family reunions, etc. They are always welcome in my home and I in theirs.

But with none of these men do I have a "partnership." Nor would I want one- with anyone at the moment. I am fiercely independent, and have no desire to compromise my independence by being tied to a "partner." I am fulfilled in my life- happy, joyful, full of love and passion and a burning desire for knowledge. I go where I choose, see who I choose, and stay however long I choose. I am beholden to nobody. No one controls my schedule or my life but me. Someday that may change, but for now I have no reason to wish for my situation to change. I am madly in love with my life as it is!

(edited to add:)

VDemosthenes, have you ever "used" a prostitute? If the answer is yes, then you are entitled to your opinions and feelings on the form of your interaction. But your interaction with your prostitute is only yours, and is hardly a basis for extrapolating that to all peoples' interactions with all prostitutes. I guess I find your statement a bit unsubstantiated, and being in the industry, mostly untrue. If the answer is no, that you have not "used" a prostitute, then I would ask how you came to your conclusion. Can you provide a resource for that statement, or is it simply your opinion? Which, of course, you are always entitled to.

Do you "use" a waiter/waitress? After all, s/he is just the means by which your commercially purchased food comes to your table. Do you "use" the teller at your bank? After all, s/he is just the means by which you conduct banking business. Do you "use" your barber? After all, s/he is just a body who cuts your hair.

I would venture to say- now be sure to let me know if I am erroneous in my assessment- that you give respect and regard to those who wait on you at a restaurant, bank, or those who cut your hair.


Did it ever occur to you that not every human being's sole purpose on this planet is to find a partner? And did it ever occur to you that not everyone who wants to have sex needs a committed partner to do this? And that rather than wait to find a compatible sex partner with whom one has the same general goals, perhaps it is much easier and more efficient to seek out professional companionship? People do what they feel they have to do. That is their choice.

Yes, but can you providing your definition of unconditional love fulfill the need of your client? Can you holding love out for them to take really give them the love they need to be happy? The brief love you give them cannot mend a broken heart nor sustain a healthy one.




I agree, every person has a story and I am eager to learn it. However, I do not need to see any more of them than I am entitled to knowing in the seconds or minutes prior to conversation. I believe you can give the same amount of love by simply talking to a person rather than willingly fulfilling not their need for love but their need for sex. Do you agree?



I admit, I do not know the feeling, period. Yet, I do not allow myself to be trapped into thinking that real love, perhaps passion, which is merely desire aflame, ever occurs between client and provider.




Your independence is truly a compliment to your personality. However, while you may love, your love is not returned by any of these people in the sense that it will keep you in love with that specific person for the rest of your/theirs lives.




I am fourteen. I have no problem admitting that I do not want sex before marriage (and since I am never getting married that isn't a problem ) and I find myself often sitting disgusted with conversation going on with some of my classmates. My conclusion is based upon practical experience and human observation: humans cannot gain even a hint of respect or real love unless it is fully devoted to them. Knowing that affection is split and only a small percentage is given to them is an underlying cause for depression. If you truly consider yourself helping to heal or provide happiness to these men I would ask you to consider what the knowledge of your occupation does to the mind of the man: knowing that every time you have sex, your affection for that person is cut ever smaller. You cannot love people in slices, it takes a whole person to love another person, and prostitutes are divided people in that sense, and believe me, I have nothing but utmost respect for you. Even though it may not sound as such.




A waiter provides food. A teller provides money that is yours in the first place. The barber, along with a waiter or a bank teller, provide services that any other person in their occupation can provide. Your comparison does not hold water on the grounds that these occupations do not provide love- they give you things that are yours to take/do. Sex is something that humans do not have to do, it is what many enjoy doing. A prostitute gives a few minutes of his/her time to an angst-ridden soul, so what? I agree, it is a service, but it is a service a real partner could easily, more easily, provide.




I respect everything because everything, if not at the time, is going through something I cannot understand and is due proper treatment. But, my definition of proper treatment will never dictate me having sex with that person because they cannot get love anywhere but in the heat of the moment.




Everyday. I do not want to get married. I never want children, it is my choice, indeed you are correct. I did not say that it is or should be a human's sole purpose. What I did say was that real love should come from marriage not a non-marital relationship. Efficient to whom? You certainly are not advocating rewarding impatience with reward? Sex is no longer something shared between two married people, and that is a shame. Sex is something we flaunt and wear on our sleeves, it cannot work like that. People do not have to do anything, my dear ExistentialHedonist, you give humans credit for having programming, and this is false. You are the only person who can dictate your feelings and you can certainly control them if you dictate them.

Why should "real love" be required before a consenting man and woman have sex? Vdemos, isn't it enough that EH is being selective about her clients and insisting that her clients use condoms?

Some men simply are never going to find that perfect woman and if a man does marry a woman just for the sake of having sex, then its not "real love" either.

Real love doesn't exist in my humble opinion. But, that again, is just my view of the world. There should however be a real connection before a person has sex with another person. Being selective does not preclude the need for a real bond for an actual relationship to be meaningful.

I do not see your point. Any person can find someone willing to have an actual non-paying relationship with them, love in the equation or not. A day-to-day bond that consists of real conversation and events other than sex would be the type of relationship I am speaking about in this particular instance.

You may answer to your morals VDemosthenes, but the law doesn't. I, personally, find prostitution to be immoral, yet I believe it should be legal [along with a whole host of things that I find immoral but should be legal]. And that is because there is one sure fire, simple way to satisfy your morals and have legal prostitution, don't solicit or "buy" a prostitute! It isn't the government's job to stop people from doing things that our representatives see as immoral. Second of all, and ExistentialHedonist covered this one pretty well, but, they shouldn't be allowed to? Grown people should be allowed to do anything they want that doesn't harm others, and it is not the government's place to protect them from their own immorality, legally speaking.

CP

VDemosthenes, I'll put this as delicately as possible. It is apparent to anyone who reads your posts that you are a very mature young man and write with an intelligence that belies your age.

However, you are fourteen years old. Just as your body is still maturing and developing so is your belief system. There are some matters that only the passage of time permits genuine wisdom to be imparted. The private affairs of consenting adults behind closed doors is within that realm.

You are very opinionated about prostitution and what sex should and should not be, but despite your obvious powers of articulation there is a logical fallacy in your remarks about sex and marriage.

You say you don't want to get married. Do you ever want to have sex? You seem to disapprove of sex outside of marriage, but who ever said marriage was a requirement to engaging in sex? Marriage is an artificial construct born out of law, morality and religion. Not everyone believes in "one-size-fits-all" solutions.

Prostitution is nothing to celebrate, but I do not believe it deserves condemnation. There are millions of men and women stuck in unhappy, loveless, sexless and joyless marriages. Some can seek shelter in drugs, porn, work or other countless diversions. Some will seek comfort in the bed of a paid companion.

ExistentialHedonist and Artemise did not have to reveal themselves as sexworkers. They chose to because they understand that while they can't convince everyone they are normal, healthy, well-adjusted women engaged in an activity society views with dread, confusion and disapproval, they may convince someone this is so.

I hope I have not insulted you, VDemosthenes as that was not my intention.
However, I would encourage you to be flexible, not rigid, in forming your beliefs and I dearly hope you will allow yourself to doubt the correctness of your positions from time to time. If not necessarily regarding your own decisions about sex and marriage, then at least for those made by others that conflict with yours.

I dislike ganging up on people terribly outnumbered in these forums, but your latest post just had to be responded to. As such, I won't cheat you out of a response from our last exchange.

Your "morals and principles" would restrict a womans freedom to use her body in whatever way she pleases. In order to make this into law, which by the way, is what your doing, incorporating your ethics into law, you must substantiate why your perception of a females role is necessarily better than the one prostitutes opt into.

However, if we agree that morals and principles are somewhat subjective, this argument will be impossible for you to win. Some women would prefer to be a prostitute rather than a housewife. Would you deny them this, based on subjectivity?

And, to emphasize my disdain for imposing your ethics on others, I find it amazing that you, with utter clarity, know the most suitable female role by which all women should live. Furthermore, I again find amazement that you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that prostitution is necessarily a degradation to a womans societal role in general. Cherish this gift, for it is possessed only by you and god.

So, let me see substance. Why must women live the way you chose them to? Furthermore, why must, if we accept your morality as true, punish by law a womans choice to degrade her body?


Why is this a necessary function of sex? Would you deny two consenting humans from mating because of their exchange of money rather than your vague reference to some type of ethereal bond? And why is this bond so important, so necessary as opposed to a plethora of other views, that this connection must be maintained by law.

EH usually does try to establish a real connection with her clients. She mentioned that many of her clients are also good friends of hers. Many conservatives assume that there can't be any meaningful relationships between prostitutes and customers simply because a prostitute has to divide her time with other customers. Psychiatrists also have to spend time with other patients. Does that mean that a person can't talk to a psychiatrist about personal problems? I hope I'm not comparing apples to oranges but many professional prostitutes do act as counselors and friends as well as provide the bedroom service.

WOW, Im glad I realize im talking to someone who is 14. That changes things somewhat, per my response, not your intelligence.

Grown men (and women) have needs that become really prevalent from their teens on. There is a constant biological urge (testosterone induced I believe) that if not satisfied makes a man downright unhappy. Sometimes agressive and mean. Sometimes just depressed. Sometimes on the hunt to 'fix' it in any way possible. Men often get married to make sure this need is taken care of regularily, hopefully with someone compatible whom they love, sometimes not. The happiest married people get lots of sex, love and understanding, but sometimes it doesnt happen.

I would hope that every young person , every person finds love in every sexual encounter, before or after. But in all reality, the world just does not turn that way or millions of people would not be paying for companionship and millions providing it. For that matter, nor would millions be standing around in bars looking for an easy conquest.

I will say that there is respect going both ways in this (monetary) exchange, most times, on the higher levels and with older men. My picture as a prostitute is not as perfectly pretty as E.H. but , neither is any job without its down moments. For the most part, men of professions and those in need respect us, (although clandestinely) and we respect them, for many reasons. The most prevalent being a reasonable exchange of needed services, with certian boundries acceptable to both, a contract as it were. I will not ask for a relationship, nor that you change your present living status by emotional attachments, and you will pay for my time, I, making myself available for that time by , well, being available with no strings.

Here are some recent, personal examples of men who seek out companionship, where there is intimacy and respect on both sides:

A mans child at 16 years old got into a bad accident, both partners suffered emotionally. He must work all the time in a job away from home to preserve his health insurance, she is devastated and taking care of the child. This will now be for life. There is no intimacy an hasnt been in the home in 3 years. He lacks a feeling of love towards him as provider. I respect this person and give him more than sex but hugs, lots of hugs and strokes. He can barely stand me to leave, but he knows I must leave, and that is what he pays me to do.

A very successful man was widowed, his wife had cancer. He is now single and lost at 53 years old. Every woman he meets has an agenda, he percieves, his money.
He does not want to marry a goldigger, but wants female companionship. He chooses 4 and 5 hour dates, a little female touch and one who wont hawk his fortune, and gets by for the time on a little party, not love but affection. He will of course marry again because he cannot be alone. I am interim, but functional.

A long time client with Parkinsons. He has tried Adult Friend Finder and other internet dating places, has been scammed a few and by Russian mail order brides. Noone wants to embark on a new relationship with a really sick guy. I may be his only female companion and may be until the time he no longer can live alone and will be put in a home. The money he gives me to help me pay my living, to be available to him is of his least concern because he is going to die early, and all he wants is a pretty woman while he can still touch one. I have come to love him and will be his friend for life.

Ill end that here to not be lengthy about mutual respect.

Noone can imagine how many lonely men there are living in America. Some in marriages some single. It DOES take a certain kind of female to absorb other peoples pain, loneliness which often converts to sexual need in men.
Thats not to say there are just not some hedonist players out there, there are. But is that OUR problem?

The problem I see here is about womens rights to do what they want, and male control over that right, while absurdly providing a demand that begs for a supply! As sure a hypocrisy as I have ever seen.
It it societies hang up on sex, akin to homosexuals not receiving their rights based on who they have sex with. Not that intimate relationships are complex and without possibility of judgement because so many scenarios are possible in human sexuality.
Sex of any kind as law, or objectionable by law is truly puritan. We are saying that some sex is objectionable by law. Sodomy is objectionable if men do it to men but not with heterosexual couples. If I receive rent from a married man its ok, if I am only doing it with one, but not with many. Its ambiguous. Its sex law. Sex law only applies to some and not others. Sex laws are simply absurd. Sex is not a matter of State.

Sex is like the air we breathe and the water we drink, a need. We are built that way, we are like rabbits biologically in that we are in heat all the time. Men are built and urged to conquest and propagate continually, late into their 70's, far beyond where women hit menopause in their 40's and 50's and (sadly for them and their mates) their sexual desire declines. Or they just get tired of their men.

I could go on at length about prostitutes being teachers. Men come all the time wanting to know what it takes to please a woman, how to please their woman, which is the thing they want most in the world. They always want ME to be pleased, they need to know they are doing the right things. In old times the prositute was she that taught a young male how to make love in order to do it better after marriage.

If I hadnt been in the business I would not have known this, but I can assure, and Ive said many times, this is not a womans crime but a dire supply/demand situation based on the male drive and need.
Intitially an equalizer to male vs. female wages, now it is a matter of choice for women.

The female has a bizarre ability to feel for men, even though men have let us down in many ways. They inact these laws, which really go after the lowest common denominator to prove they are getting tough on crime, yet secretly come to us with all their problems. Politicians, businessmen, salesmen, lawyers, doctors, pilots, cops, firemen, fishermen, railroad workers, everyone except those that cant afford it. Men are PROLIFIC users of the sex industry in one form or another but are extreme hypocrytes when it comes to law.

So, therefore a given, prostitution and the sex industry is not an enviroment or people that hate or disrespect men, but have attended to them regardless of the hypocrisy of the laws inacted by them. In the last 100 years of politics, it is men that have disrespected women and continue to do so, not just illcit women who they dote upon, but the females they deceive, being their wives, yet vote against the legalized prostitution they are engaged in.
Male is a difficult position to be in it appears. Cant decide on morals vs. cock.

I love you, Artemise!

(Emphasis mine)

Excellent points, and I am happy you included women too. For so many thousands- yes- thousands of years, women have been the brunt of male hypocrisy, zealotry, and domination by brute force and violence. It is no surprise that this continues in a more "civilized" world with current sex laws, the enforcement of which always falls hardest on women and men percieved as effeminate (gay men). It seems to be a subconscious male urge to maintain (violent) supremacy on the food chain (this has roots in prehistory-see this). The male-dominant system is reproducing itself at every turn, starting with little boys being told not to cry because only girls cry. Then they grow up to learn to see women as conquests (using deciet to conquer by saying anything to get into her panties), and to resist commitment and anything emotional. Almost every film these days, along with countless TV shows, show unquestioned male-dominance, far too often reinforcing this by containing rape scenes, male-to-female violence, and female weakness. Even the films in which women are shown to be the strong ones, the model of dominance persists. And seemingly "harmless" films such as "You've Got Mail" perpetuate this: The big, powerful, male-owned superbookstore subsumes the gentle, small, community bookstore, the woman giving in to the man both economically and sexually (again, by male deceit). This "power over" social system is buttressed by violence and uses that to quash any "power with" system that attempt to emerge. And it has so far been successful, although it is being challenged now more than ever before.

Finally many women and men are seeing the downward spiral this dominant model produces and are working against it. And part of this is that having had to suppress their sexual urges for millenia for fear of being labelled "whore," more women are demanding sexual equality in articulating their physical desire. Men do not have more sexual desire than women, but we are conditioned to believe so. (This is in direct contradiction with the notion of woman as a dangerous carnal creature responsible for the downfall of man- but dominance is not necessarily logical.) So while male promiscuity is deemed acceptable- and even honored by terms such as "stud," Cassanova," etc., female promiscuity is punished by law and by words such as "whore" and many others I most likely am not allowed to post (although Nighttimer dod so several posts back). Thus more and more women are becoming consumers of the sex industry. See these articles:
Sex-starved Japanese wives get men on prescription
Male prostitution booms in Thailand
Bangkok recruits Jamaican studs
Sex-deprived Japanese women find help in squad of volunteers

This is soooo true. And this is why only certain women can do this job successfully. Contrary to hysterical notions of legality or decriminalization causing women to rush into prostitution, most women do not have the wherewithall to do what we do. We possess a very special and valuable gift.

This is because in male-to-male sodomy, a man is placed in a submissive position, and this is unacceptable to the male-dominance model. So this is punished. But when women assume the submissive role, it is seen as "natural." So that wouldn't be illegal.

So true!! But I would argue that this goes much farther back than 100 years. Think back to the witch hunts, and even beyond.

Sorry everyone. I lacked a computer for a few days and so I'm back... obviously.


ConservPat:



However, morals shape the laws of the country we live in. Anything can be legal, but it is the things that are viewed as dangerous that are not. Prostitution can be harmful and I'm sure I'll be covering that later on in this post.



Any such institution is a direct provocation of people's morals, which does not seem to register with many people nowadays. I cannot find a concrete statistic on the percentage of people who approve of prostitution but I would hazard a guess and say that those who do are in the minority. Many people plant the idea that prostitution, that premarital sex itself, is of little consequence. This is false. Prostitution can cause problems medically, mentally and if a disease is passed, a fatal problem.

nighttimer:



Do not let my age inhibit your response.



My belief system is no different than yours. With age comes the knowledge, as you grow your beliefs are changing, correct? While we may be at two different stretches of that path, our destination is still the same. Passage of time does not give one the accurate picture of a situation. I have two consenting adults, I have a consenting adult sister, their lives are their lives, fact. I agree, what occurs in their lives is up to them to maintain, does that mean that they should take up with prostitutes simply because they are all consenting?



My views on marriage and sex are the same, if that means not having sex simply because I do not believe in marriage that is a sacrifice (or a freedom) that I can keep based on my views. Not everyone has to believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to this topic. What is really at stake for prostitution and later relationships in life is the fact that it can ruin potential for one. Any person who uses a prostitute runs the risk of that turning away or damaging a partner of a real relationship.



I would never argue otherwise. A prostitute can be the smartest woman or man on the planet, and both prove to be up there on that scale, but I do not approve of their profession. Other than that I have no problem with the individual EH or Artemise.



Flexibility is a virtue, my beliefs on countless issues changes often when new data is presented that makes me question that belief. However, when no new evidence can come of this debate other than what has already been presented, my own opinion on this issue is rigid. One more thing, I have no problem with other's choices, it is in this forum that we voice an opinion on such selection, fact?


BecomingHuman:



I find your argument to be a recycled feminazi tactic. Women hold the power of their bodies, just the same as men. Regardless of their gender, prostitution has the same consequences. Show me a court case where ethics are not incorporated into law and then I will admit my weakness.



Then you and I have different views on what is impossible. However, that is besides the point. No I would not, you are not asking about the moral dilemma of such a choice. You can apply this question to a Dogcatcher or a Neurosurgeon, choosing one profession over the other is fine, it is the moral weight of a profession that would truly impact my response to your question.



I think you are reading too much between the lines on this one. Women do not have to do anything. I stand by what I have previously said, women should never be allowed to let men use them like that. And did I ever once address the issue of punishing a woman for prostitution other than what she might already be living? I do not ask you to accept my morality, simply hearing it would suffice.



Mating is not simply having sex, my friend. Mating is producing a child, which, correct me if I am mistaken, does not often happen during paid-for-sex. Because, this bond you seem to think so useless provides a relationship beyond sex. Something that two people can enter and mutually respect one another, one encounter does not make that bond, a lifetime sometimes cannot. It takes a great amount of patience to pull off a good relationship, do you have such patience?

skeeteres:



I have addressed this already.


Artemise:



My age shouldn't effect your response at all, please do not let it in the future.

I have read your post and commend you for your effort but your argument has been used several times during the course of this debate. The