Full Version: Should we Legalize Prostitution?
Hello folks! Long time no see. Been preoccupied with the so-called 'real' life.
First of all, Artemise, I must say that you are the only prostitute or call girl (I do hope this won't offend you. I couldn't find a better word) I met that is proud of her profession.
Prohibiting women from being prostitutes does not mean that they are immature, lack-of-knowledge-and-experience, or even stupid, children. Yes we have the right to use our body in whatever way we want, but we must admit that we want the Law to restrict our using of that right in order that it wil not damage our other rights. Hence the use of safety belt to prevent us from damaging our right to be safe.
I think that in any discussion we must think of any possible effect of whatever thinking we want to express. My describing the 'hypothetical animal country' is myu way of putting forth one of the possible (regarldless of its probability percentage) effects of legalizing prostitution.
First of all, Artemise, I must say that you are the only prostitute or call girl (I do hope this won't offend you. I couldn't find a better word) I met that is proud of her profession.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Oct 24 2005, 07:40 AM)
This quote to me tells all:
Not allowed by whom? I dont see any female run governments around abouts calling for an end to prostitution. In fact I see hardly anyone calling for an end to it except during local election time as hitting on the lowest common denominator as a publicity stunt to get 'tough on crime'.
Are women still children to be dictated to as daughters of the State, in not being allowed to be used? Well if that were the case we might start changing a whole lot of so-called degrading $8 an hour jobs for women and making them illegal as well. I guess we women still dont have the intelligence to know what we want? But are to be cared for by the benevolent and mostly male government?
QUOTE
I stand by what I have previously said, women should never be allowed to let men use them like that.
Not allowed by whom? I dont see any female run governments around abouts calling for an end to prostitution. In fact I see hardly anyone calling for an end to it except during local election time as hitting on the lowest common denominator as a publicity stunt to get 'tough on crime'.
Are women still children to be dictated to as daughters of the State, in not being allowed to be used? Well if that were the case we might start changing a whole lot of so-called degrading $8 an hour jobs for women and making them illegal as well. I guess we women still dont have the intelligence to know what we want? But are to be cared for by the benevolent and mostly male government?
Prohibiting women from being prostitutes does not mean that they are immature, lack-of-knowledge-and-experience, or even stupid, children. Yes we have the right to use our body in whatever way we want, but we must admit that we want the Law to restrict our using of that right in order that it wil not damage our other rights. Hence the use of safety belt to prevent us from damaging our right to be safe.
I think that in any discussion we must think of any possible effect of whatever thinking we want to express. My describing the 'hypothetical animal country' is myu way of putting forth one of the possible (regarldless of its probability percentage) effects of legalizing prostitution.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 12 2005, 02:49 PM)
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.
The family structure is already under assault for reasons that have nothing to do with prostitution? If I frequent a call girl like Artemise and because of that I decide to leave my family for her, wouldn't you say that prostitution does assaults family ties? I still maintain that most divorces are caused by our indifferent of the sacredness and the importance of a family. And this is because you can have sex with virtually anyone who wants to have sex with you (dictionaries call it 'adultery'). Let me emphasize that it is not about the 'doing' but the effect of the doing to our mind/mental. With birth pills being legalized, venereal deseases (including AIDS) curable, apparently the only factor to look at as to why our ancestors (and God, if you are a believer) prohibited aultery and prostitution is the effect of it to our mind.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 12 2005, 02:49 PM)
Prostitution did not create lust and carnality. It merely services it. That is free enterprise at work.
Yes, it services our basic, animal instinct. The difference between us (human) and other animals is that we gratify our needs/animal instinct after thinking about the consequences of the gratification. We see to it that the gratification of our needs will not cause damage to ourselves or other men. SO if we don't do it, enter the animal world. Of course we do not drastically change into animals, but we train ourselves to think and act like one in some parts of our live. And if we continue to do so, this animal thinking will annihilate our human mind.
I'm sure that you've seen the various statistics research on how the action movies on television have caused many children in this country to be agressive, hence the rating of the tv progrsms: PG, R, etc.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 12 2005, 02:49 PM)
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.
I am certain that you HAVE NOT SEEN all the rituals in all existing religions. Libido is one of animal instinct and we can restrain it, just as we can to our needs to eat and drink. That's why I told you about the Fasting thing.
No I do not believe the 'deeper and complex reasoning' thing. Artemise explanation is a subjective, personal experience and does not cover even the leawst percentage of the men who frequent prostitutes. When we talk about law, we talk about the majority, keeping in mind that there is no such thing as absolute in this world
Last, I do not understand why you make a simple thing become so complicatingly complex.
QUOTE
. Yes we have the right to use our body in whatever way we want, but we must admit that we want the Law to restrict our using of that right in order that it wil not damage our other rights. Hence the use of safety belt to prevent us from damaging our right to be safe.
Meem, we have a right to waive our rights, don't you think? That seems pretty fundamental to me. For example, we have the right to remain silent when arrested, but we can waive that right. I don't think it's right to pick and choose which rights are waivable...Wouldn't you agree?
QUOTE
If I frequent a call girl like Artemise and because of that I decide to leave my family for her, wouldn't you say that prostitution does assaults family ties?
The federal government has no authority to protect "family ties". So this argument is irrelevant.Meem, I'm missing the main point of your argument, so far, what you've given us has had no bearing because this is a legal issue, not a moral one. So, may I ask for clarification on your main point?
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Nov 10 2005, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE
. Yes we have the right to use our body in whatever way we want, but we must admit that we want the Law to restrict our using of that right in order that it wil not damage our other rights. Hence the use of safety belt to prevent us from damaging our right to be safe.
Meem, we have a right to waive our rights, don't you think? That seems pretty fundamental to me. For example, we have the right to remain silent when arrested, but we can waive that right. I don't think it's right to pick and choose which rights are waivable...Wouldn't you agree?
Meem, we have a right to waive our rights, don't you think? That seems pretty fundamental to me. For example, we have the right to remain silent when arrested, but we can waive that right. I don't think it's right to pick and choose which rights are waivable...Wouldn't you agree?
I am not certain whether I fully understand this quote. I said
QUOTE
Yes we have the right to use our body in whatever way we want, but we must admit that we want the Law to restrict our using of that right in order that it wil not damage our other rights
What I mean by this quote is that the government has the right to restrict our using of our right to prevent us from damaging our or other persons' right. And by the 'safety belt' thing, I mean that we have the right not to wear things we do not want to wear. But because our not wearing or fastening our safety belt will cause damage to our right to be safe (i.e we could severely injure ourselves if an accident happen), the government has the right to force us to wear/fasten the belt.
Furthermore, the government has the right to prohibit us from injuring, or worst killing, ourselves, let alone injuring other persons. The government has the right to forbid someone consuming mariyuana because the thing will injure the person's health.
As with legalizing prostitution, the governmetn has the right to forbid women from using their bodies as 'merchandise goods' on the basis that their trading of their bodies will cause damage to them and other citizens of America.
QUOTE
. I don't think it's right to pick and choose which rights are waivable...Wouldn't you agree?
In several cases, yes it's not right to pick and choose which rights are waivable. But in most cases, it's necessary even obligatory.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Nov 10 2005, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE
If I frequent a call girl like Artemise and because of that I decide to leave my family for her, wouldn't you say that prostitution does assaults family ties?
The federal government has no authority to protect "family ties". So this argument is irrelevant.Meem, I'm missing the main point of your argument, so far, what you've given us has had no bearing because this is a legal issue, not a moral one. So, may I ask for clarification on your main point?
The government has authority to portect the strength of its citizens' moral and mental. The government has authority to forbid anything that will cause any danger to its citizen, be the danger physical or psychological. We allow government to undertake the rearing of children living in situations that cause problems to their physical or psychological growth. Surely we can demand it to protect family ties.
Furthermore, the weakening of family tie will cause the weakening of a nation as a whole.
As to your claim that my argument is irrelevant, I think moral is one of the basis of the Law. A change in moral will cause a change in law vice versa. And the chenge will affect social life. Surely there must be consideration on technicalities when we talk about law, but it must not hinder any citizen from expressing what he considers right or wrong in a plain and simple way.
QUOTE(Meem @ Nov 10 2005, 03:47 AM)
The family structure is already under assault for reasons that have nothing to do with prostitution? If I frequent a call girl like Artemise and because of that I decide to leave my family for her, wouldn't you say that prostitution does assaults family ties?
No. What I would say is if you frequent a call girl like Artemise and you decide to leave your family for her ALL of the responsibility for your actions fall upon you. The customers seek out the sexworkers, not the other way around. It's all about supply and demand. You demand. They supply.
Sorry, Meem, but that's a weak cop-out. That's like saying the only reason someone is an alcoholic is because the bartender pours them a drink.
You can't avoid responsibility for your decisions by pushing the weight on somebody else. Prostitutes don't look to snatch happy husbands away from their doting wives. The husbands and boyfriends go looking for them, not the other way around.
QUOTE
No I do not believe the 'deeper and complex reasoning' thing. Artemise explanation is a subjective, personal experience and does not cover even the leawst percentage of the men who frequent prostitutes. When we talk about law, we talk about the majority, keeping in mind that there is no such thing as absolute in this world
Last, I do not understand why you make a simple thing become so complicatingly complex
Last, I do not understand why you make a simple thing become so complicatingly complex
Artemise speaks from "subjective, personal experience" and that invalidates her opinion? Hardly. What are your musings based upon besides your own subjective, personal experience and why should it carry any more weight than the viewpoints expressed by Artemise?
If I were writing an article about how prostitutes interact with their customers I would rather go to a authoritative source for an expert opinion than someone who only has a vague grasp of the situation.
If you think I'm making a simple thing so "complicatingly complex" Meem, I don't think you've read through this entire thread. It's exceedingly complex and there's nothing simple about it.
Oh, and I don't think she'd mind me pointing this out, but ExistentialHedonist is also a escort and like Artemise, pretty much satisfied with her job.
QUOTE
I am not certain whether I fully understand this quote. I said
You essentially said that we have a right to safety and prostitution ruins that right. First of all, I don't buy that but hypothetically, let's say it's true. My point is that we have the right to waive our rights, for example, when/if we're arrested, we have the right to remain silent, but we also have the right to waive that right.
QUOTE
What I mean by this quote is that the government has the right to restrict our using of our right to prevent us from damaging our or other persons' right. And by the 'safety belt' thing, I mean that we have the right not to wear things we do not want to wear. But because our not wearing or fastening our safety belt will cause damage to our right to be safe (i.e we could severely injure ourselves if an accident happen), the government has the right to force us to wear/fasten the belt.
Furthermore, the government has the right to prohibit us from injuring, or worst killing, ourselves, let alone injuring other persons. The government has the right to forbid someone consuming mariyuana because the thing will injure the person's health.
As with legalizing prostitution, the governmetn has the right to forbid women from using their bodies as 'merchandise goods' on the basis that their trading of their bodies will cause damage to them and other citizens of America.
Furthermore, the government has the right to prohibit us from injuring, or worst killing, ourselves, let alone injuring other persons. The government has the right to forbid someone consuming mariyuana because the thing will injure the person's health.
As with legalizing prostitution, the governmetn has the right to forbid women from using their bodies as 'merchandise goods' on the basis that their trading of their bodies will cause damage to them and other citizens of America.
Meem, you're saying that as if it is fact. If, in fact, the government has the authority [governments don't have rights] to limit what we do with our bodies, then surely you'll be able to point out where in the Constitution they are given that authority. Because that part of the Constitution is non-existant, I will reiterate my claim that the government has no authority to regulate what I do with my body. Again, unless you can cite the Constitution and show me where the gov't is given those authorities, what I quoted above is baseless.
QUOTE
The government has authority to portect the strength of its citizens' moral and mental. The government has authority to forbid anything that will cause any danger to its citizen, be the danger physical or psychological. We allow government to undertake the rearing of children living in situations that cause problems to their physical or psychological growth. Surely we can demand it to protect family ties.
Furthermore, the weakening of family tie will cause the weakening of a nation as a whole.
As to your claim that my argument is irrelevant, I think moral is one of the basis of the Law. A change in moral will cause a change in law vice versa. And the chenge will affect social life. Surely there must be consideration on technicalities when we talk about law, but it must not hinder any citizen from expressing what he considers right or wrong in a plain and simple way.
Furthermore, the weakening of family tie will cause the weakening of a nation as a whole.
As to your claim that my argument is irrelevant, I think moral is one of the basis of the Law. A change in moral will cause a change in law vice versa. And the chenge will affect social life. Surely there must be consideration on technicalities when we talk about law, but it must not hinder any citizen from expressing what he considers right or wrong in a plain and simple way.
First of all, cars can endanger citizens, and they are very legal. But that strays from my main point, which is, the government does not have the authority to protect the "strength" of its citizens morals. And yet again, unless you can tell me where in the Constitution that specific authority is given to the government, that claim is unsubstantiated.
CP
Krenn, your entire, long argument is one huge strawman.
First you set it up by suggesting that there would be contractual problems with the legal trade in sex for money. Then you suggest that, because no contract would be entered upon, there would be many legal problems such as unpunishable rape, breach of contract claims and frivlous lawsuits. (you just managed to describe the entire corporate landscape...do you oppose big business as well?)
Anyway, there is no such contractual problem as you predict. Our economny/society is rife with examples of unwritten and unspoken contracts, none of which fly in the face of our legal system. Of course there will be situations where either the prostitute or the "john" feels they have been victimized in the transaction. Those cases exist now. Only, at present with no legal method of rectifying the problem, people use force to get justice or get none at all. Were prostitution legal we could let our courts make sense of this type of contract and define it in terms amenable to our existing laws. There is no conflict here, only in your imagination. Courts have been making sense of contracts for a long time now. Why would they be unable to do it here?
Lets look at an example. You go to the local swanky restaurant and use the services of the valet. You hand the girl your keys and get a ticket in return. They drive off and go cruising in your car, using a half tank of gas. Do you have a legitimate complaint? If you were to drive up to any other stranger, hand them your keys, and walk away smiling they would have a reasonable argument in court saying that they were not stealing the car if they drove off in it. At a valet station, on the other hand, there is an expectation of a service which is conseidered reasonable based upon your location, their uniform and the ticket you receive. There is no sign saying, we will only park your car, we will not go cruising in it.
There is no reason to believe that this logical framework cannot exist in a brothel as well, or in a private exchange in a hotel for that matter. "No" still means "no" because rape laws exist apart from prostitution laws. Same with assault and battery.
It seems logical to me that both parties in such an exchange would be allowed some "reasonable expectations" during the "transaction" and a court of law can easily sift through the subtleties should it come to that.
Because the rest of your argument relies upon the "fact" that there is no way to mete out a contract for such an exchange I find it without base.
edited to fix typo as usual
First you set it up by suggesting that there would be contractual problems with the legal trade in sex for money. Then you suggest that, because no contract would be entered upon, there would be many legal problems such as unpunishable rape, breach of contract claims and frivlous lawsuits. (you just managed to describe the entire corporate landscape...do you oppose big business as well?)
Anyway, there is no such contractual problem as you predict. Our economny/society is rife with examples of unwritten and unspoken contracts, none of which fly in the face of our legal system. Of course there will be situations where either the prostitute or the "john" feels they have been victimized in the transaction. Those cases exist now. Only, at present with no legal method of rectifying the problem, people use force to get justice or get none at all. Were prostitution legal we could let our courts make sense of this type of contract and define it in terms amenable to our existing laws. There is no conflict here, only in your imagination. Courts have been making sense of contracts for a long time now. Why would they be unable to do it here?
Lets look at an example. You go to the local swanky restaurant and use the services of the valet. You hand the girl your keys and get a ticket in return. They drive off and go cruising in your car, using a half tank of gas. Do you have a legitimate complaint? If you were to drive up to any other stranger, hand them your keys, and walk away smiling they would have a reasonable argument in court saying that they were not stealing the car if they drove off in it. At a valet station, on the other hand, there is an expectation of a service which is conseidered reasonable based upon your location, their uniform and the ticket you receive. There is no sign saying, we will only park your car, we will not go cruising in it.
There is no reason to believe that this logical framework cannot exist in a brothel as well, or in a private exchange in a hotel for that matter. "No" still means "no" because rape laws exist apart from prostitution laws. Same with assault and battery.
It seems logical to me that both parties in such an exchange would be allowed some "reasonable expectations" during the "transaction" and a court of law can easily sift through the subtleties should it come to that.
Because the rest of your argument relies upon the "fact" that there is no way to mete out a contract for such an exchange I find it without base.
edited to fix typo as usual
QUOTE
Artemise speaks from "subjective, personal experience" and that invalidates her opinion? Hardly. What are your musings based upon besides your own subjective, personal experience and why should it carry any more weight than the viewpoints expressed by Artemise? [Nighttimer Nov 11]
I can accept this. And finally we agree on something. Based on this, I can also say that this
QUOTE
What are your musings based upon besides your own subjective, personal experience and why should it carry any more weight than the viewpoints expressed by Artemise?
is a subjective claim. And like what you said in this quote
QUOTE
If I were writing an article about how prostitutes interact with their customers I would rather go to a authoritative source for an expert opinion than someone who only has a vague grasp of the situation
I can also claim that your understanding of this prostitution issue as a vague one. The following is an example
QUOTE
The customers seek out the sexworkers, not the other way around. It's all about supply and demand. You demand. They supply.
And they demand that we demand, by advertising. Anybody 'used to the real life' will know that any business will hardly survive without advertisement. And these prostitutes (or the owner of brothel house/whoremaster) do advertise (e.g prostitutes on the street wearing 'provocative' apparel say to passers-by: 'Hey mister, wanna have some fun?). What I understand from the above quote and your other post, you make it as tough prostitution were passive, customer-waiting 'service business' and this is not the slightest true. They will not run the business if nobody comes to them.
QUOTE
If, in fact, the government has the authority [governments don't have rights] to limit what we do with our bodies,...[ConservPat, Nov 11]
Authority is just another name for right. Authority is the right that is given by the majority of people to the executive/government to do their executive activities in serving the people. May be for some, the use of 'right' in place of 'authority' is misleading but I just want to emphasize that the government is under the people, it rules because the people allows it to.
QUOTE
Meem, I'm missing the main point of your argument, so far, what you've given us has had no bearing because this is a legal issue, not a moral one. So, may I ask for clarification on your main point? [ConservPat, Nov 10]
QUOTE
Because that part of the Constitution is non-existant, I will reiterate my claim that the government has no authority to regulate what I do with my body. Again, unless you can cite the Constitution... [ConservPat, Nov 11]
The fact that this thread falls under the category of 'Principles and Personal Philosophy' is quite a paradox. You can not talk about 'Personal philosophy, morals, principles' when it comes to discussions on legal matters, as what ConservPat said above.
I will reiterate my reason of objecting to legalizing prostitutiton:
1) It will ruin family ties
2) It will make an animal country
I must admit that both are hypothetical. Let's say that they are also 'moral argument' but it is because that this is a discussion on 'Principle and Personal Philosophy'.
Furthermore I want to object to your objection that since this is a discussion on legal matter , we must put aside moral, philosophycal consideration. I object to your objection that moral consideration cannot be a base for a legal discussion. Moral is the fundamental base of any law. Saying that law talks about what is legal (according to the majority of people in which it exists) and what not is like saying that law talks about what is morally right and wrong.
The only way to get a new ruling of law accepted by the majority of the people is by opening doors for debate on whether it corresponds to moral.
I may add that the legalization of homosexual status was made possible due to the consent of the majority of the citizens of America: that homosexuality is morally alright.
But again if you think I am making this up, may I ask why do you think we could not discuss moral in any discussion on legal matters?
QUOTE
Oh, and I don't think she'd mind me pointing this out, but ExistentialHedonist is also a escort and like Artemise, pretty much satisfied with her job [Nighttimer, nov 11]
Thank you for providing me with this information, Nighttimer. But I think you misuse the word 'escort'. Escort according to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English has nothing to do with prostitution. What I want to say is that I was honest when I said that I couldn't find a better (and un-misleading) word, I wasn't being sarcastic.
QUOTE
If you think I'm making a simple thing so "complicatingly complex" Meem, I don't think you've read through this entire thread. It's exceedingly complex and there's nothing simple about it.
The reason why I said that this is a simple thing is that because prostituion is just about a man or woman paying other person of the opposite sex to have a 'sexual activity'. The paying is the dividing line between adultery and prostitution. What encourages this persons to buy the 'sex service' is because they want/need to have sex, regardless of whatever kind of sex service they. My point is want' or 'need' can be controlled.
What I understand from your and Artemise's and other persons' explanation on 'the deeper and complex reasoning' is that because of that 'complex thing' prostitution is inevitable (do correct me if I'm wrong). Sexual need is one thing and prostitution is another.
I'd like to put forth some 'way-out'. We can weaken sexual drive by fasting and Buddhists say (if I'm not mistaken) by decreasing the consumption of meat and other 'sex-arousing' food.
How about polygamy? Obviously it's very un-American or even un-Christian but for those who still consider adultery and prostitution 'repulsive' or 'degrading' I think polygamy is one of (if not the only) respectable and honorable ways of eschewing 'indecent' gratification of sexual need. Moreover some religious denominations have been practising it since the very founding of America.
Last, I'd like to comment to this quote:
QUOTE
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.[ExistentialHedonist, Oct 12]
Do you seriously think that with the inevitable SOCIAL 'adjustment' of the status of prostitution following the legalization of prostitution, with the amount of money circulated in the prostitution and pornography business, with the intensifying power of capitalism, with the so many dream-traps spread in this 'fashion-spirited' present-day world, your mother, your sister, aunt, grandmother and any other of your female siblings will not be tempted to try 'joining' the prostitution business?
QUOTE
Authority is just another name for right. Authority is the right that is given by the majority of people to the executive/government to do their executive activities in serving the people. May be for some, the use of 'right' in place of 'authority' is misleading but I just want to emphasize that the government is under the people, it rules because the people allows it to.
No, there not the same at all. An authority can be revoked or altered, a right is absolute.
QUOTE
Furthermore I want to object to your objection that since this is a discussion on legal matter , we must put aside moral, philosophycal consideration. I object to your objection that moral consideration cannot be a base for a legal discussion. Moral is the fundamental base of any law. Saying that law talks about what is legal (according to the majority of people in which it exists) and what not is like saying that law talks about what is morally right and wrong.
Ah, yes, the "the majority thinks it's wrong" jazz. The majority of people thinking it's wrong is irrelevant. The majority of people thought that inter-racial marriages were immoral back in the day. This is a clear cut example of the majority infringing on the natural rights of the minority. And believe me, I have a moral take on this issue. I have moral problems with governments who scoff at the law. And I'll ask again, since you haven't answered, where is the government given the authority to regulate sex between consenting adults? If you can't answer the question it is because the government doesn't have the authority to do so. If that's the case, then the government is breaking the law...Which seems pretty immoral to me.
QUOTE
But again if you think I am making this up, may I ask why do you think we could not discuss moral in any discussion on legal matters?
Because popular morality is frequently unjust. Laws are supposed to be just and should be based on logic and reason, not morality. As I pointed out before, a lot of things have been considered moral by the majority that are immoral now [slavery, maybe] and a lot of things have been considered immoral by the majority that are now moral [speaking out against the government]. Popular morality is corruptible and is extremely dependent on the environment. Plainly, pop morality is fluid and can be used to infringe upon the rights of the minority, which is exactly the opposite of what law is supposed to accomplish.
But back to my main point...Is the government given the authority to regulate sex between consenting adults?
CP
QUOTE(Meem @ Nov 14 2005, 06:38 AM)
Thank you for providing me with this information, Nighttimer. But I think you misuse the word 'escort'. Escort according to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English has nothing to do with prostitution.
Well, according to Dictionary.com the word "escort" has quite a bit to do with prostitution.
One or more persons accompanying another to guide, protect, or show honor.
A man who is the companion of a woman, especially on a social occasion.
A person, often a prostitute, who is hired to spend time with another as a companion.
So you're welcome for the information, Meem, but I didn't misuse the word.
QUOTE
What I understand from your and Artemise's and other persons' explanation on 'the deeper and complex reasoning' is that because of that 'complex thing' prostitution is inevitable (do correct me if I'm wrong). Sexual need is one thing and prostitution is another.
I'd like to put forth some 'way-out'. We can weaken sexual drive by fasting and Buddhists say (if I'm not mistaken) by decreasing the consumption of meat and other 'sex-arousing' food.
How about polygamy? Obviously it's very un-American or even un-Christian but for those who still consider adultery and prostitution 'repulsive' or 'degrading' I think polygamy is one of (if not the only) respectable and honorable ways of eschewing 'indecent' gratification of sexual need. Moreover some religious denominations have been practising it since the very founding of America.
I'd like to put forth some 'way-out'. We can weaken sexual drive by fasting and Buddhists say (if I'm not mistaken) by decreasing the consumption of meat and other 'sex-arousing' food.
How about polygamy? Obviously it's very un-American or even un-Christian but for those who still consider adultery and prostitution 'repulsive' or 'degrading' I think polygamy is one of (if not the only) respectable and honorable ways of eschewing 'indecent' gratification of sexual need. Moreover some religious denominations have been practising it since the very founding of America.
Hoo-boy. Where to start?
I never said that prostitution is inevitable. Prostitution is like air. It simply IS. Find a time when the profession of selling sex wasn't with us if you can, Meem. It doesn't exist. Sexual need is the engine that drives the machinery of prostitution.
Perhaps if you are successfully in ridding the planet of steaks and Big Macs the sexual drive of human beings might diminish, but I seriously doubt that's going to quash the libidos of horny males.
There is nothing indecent about gratifying a sexual need. Not as long as it's between consenting adults and it's a private affair. What grown folks do behind closed doors is all of their business and none of mine. It certainly is no business for the government, the church or anyone else who isn't one of those consenting adults.
What makes you think people are so desparate to arrest their sexual desires, Meem? Despite what the self-appointed moral guardians say I've yet to read where invading hordes of prostitutes are going door-to-door shouting "trick AND treat" and dragging happily married men out of their homes to copulate with in their front yards while the neighbors look on in horror.
I don't want my sexual drive |weakened" by someone else and their own dubious morality and their need to superimpose it upon mine. My mom and dad raised me once. I'm not looking for Daddy Government and Mommy Church to do a retrograde tune-up.
I have to admit to shaking my head in disbelief that someone who opposes prostitution because it will supposedly "ruin family ties" and "create a animal country" advocates polygamy as a better option. What's worse? A guy who cheats on his wife by getting a quickie during a overnight stay in Chicago with a hooker or one who has separate wives and families spread all over the country? Where the hell does a Dad like that spend his Christmas at?
Polygamy sounds like a sweet deal---for the man. At least in prostitution there is some empowerment to the woman who commands a fee for the services she renders.
QUOTE
And they demand that we demand, by advertising. Anybody 'used to the real life' will know that any business will hardly survive without advertisement. And these prostitutes (or the owner of brothel house/whoremaster) do advertise (e.g prostitutes on the street wearing 'provocative' apparel say to passers-by: 'Hey mister, wanna have some fun?). What I understand from the above quote and your other post, you make it as tough prostitution were passive, customer-waiting 'service business' and this is not the slightest true. They will not run the business if nobody comes to them.
I'm afraid you misunderstoond me again, Meem. I never said prostitution was a passive biz. But I don't think even the most desparate curb-crawler is body slamming johns to the sidewalk and jacking them for their cash. Of course prostitutes advertise. Some by strutting around in thong underwear and some on high-tech websites.
So what? It is a business after all.
These posts keep me on my toes and somewhat laughing for various reasons.
I have to reiterate that prositution, that means the demand and continuation is so widespread and prolific its suprising anyone claims there is a 'majority' against.
I think there is a public persona against and a huge majority 'secretly for'. If not millions of women across this country would not be gainfully employed. Its not just this, its the entire sex industry (porn, strip clubs, sex stores, magazines) kept alive, the biggest business around. This business is driven by whom? Is there some denial here about the male drive? SO who is this majority which is against? Hypocrites?
Most of us on my level only advertise by internet. That means I have a website and a few ads on Escort only sites. That means someone HAS to come looking to find me, it means you already HAVE to know where to go to find me, and Im hard to find casually. Once again Im a least case scenario as I have no sexy photos on the net, no nudity. Ive only ever had a head shot, (the same one thats on AD's introductions from way back) and I have no photos on my website, not one. Its all text! If this is not passive, I dont know what is. Im also 44 years old, well beyond some hot cutie any married man simply cannot resist, inspiring his closeted urges by the text on my site.
No, I am a good companion who takes care of business so that the client can continue to take care of his family.
Man has needs, if they are not taken care of he will find a way, especially after 35 years old. Its a basic truth. Some may turn Buddhist, some to Christ, some will suffer, some are different and consider marriage sacred no matter what. MANY are just not strong enough or believe their time is wasting away, and good sex is part of that time. Every man knows his penis will eventually fail him and he does not look forward to that day and does not want to waste away waiting.
Let me say this as a side. Most men I have ever met consider their penis to be a measure of themselves, their manhood is very basic to their very view of life and is connected to use of the penis. They express love and intimacy this way. I have often considered doing seminars for women because they do not understand this basic reality. A man must use his penis or feel less of a man.
This is a VERY complex issue, mostly because noone can really figure out why men have such high sexual needs, distain them (in public display) but continually, and secretly satisfy them in this way, hiding from all society- in a wierd love/ hate relationship with themselves, lying all the time about it. I believe (contrary to you Meem) that if prostitutes were not available many more marriages would end in affairs due to this drive.
I have lots of philosphical opinions on the reasons for this which may be that some men do not know how to feel intimacy beyond sexual expression, have not learned how to feel deeper love, are coddled to as boys and learn selfishness at a young age so babies in the home and lack of attention makes them turn elsewhere, or power issues which make a sense of entitlement, or the financial capacity to buy female service as a luxury item, or a sense of conquest as part of biology (why men cheat). I know too many men who can never tell the truth to the women they love about their true sexuality for fear of reprisal. But that does not change the reality that men by the millions are buying, denying, lying and pretending and almost all say they are not getting enough sex at home.
There is no majority, just a big fat secret society.
To be fair:
I Have heard of a complaint of this sometime back in Denmark or Holland, but I dont know the validity of it and have never heard another. I see this could become a horrific possibility left unchecked.
Somewhat ignoring the issue of legality, Im trying to get over the hump of denial, which really is a first step.
Either 'fix' the reason why men seek out sex in so many industries or stop punishing the women who meet the demand. Its both male demand and lying that causes women to be punished for sex work. Instead of regulating THEMSELVES, they try to regulate the female. Can anyone see how absurd (yet typical) this is?
I have to reiterate that prositution, that means the demand and continuation is so widespread and prolific its suprising anyone claims there is a 'majority' against.
I think there is a public persona against and a huge majority 'secretly for'. If not millions of women across this country would not be gainfully employed. Its not just this, its the entire sex industry (porn, strip clubs, sex stores, magazines) kept alive, the biggest business around. This business is driven by whom? Is there some denial here about the male drive? SO who is this majority which is against? Hypocrites?
QUOTE
And they demand that we demand, by advertising. Anybody 'used to the real life' will know that any business will hardly survive without advertisement. And these prostitutes (or the owner of brothel house/whoremaster) do advertise (e.g prostitutes on the street wearing 'provocative' apparel say to passers-by: 'Hey mister, wanna have some fun?). What I understand from the above quote and your other post, you make it as tough prostitution were passive, customer-waiting 'service business' and this is not the slightest true. They will not run the business if nobody comes to them.
Most of us on my level only advertise by internet. That means I have a website and a few ads on Escort only sites. That means someone HAS to come looking to find me, it means you already HAVE to know where to go to find me, and Im hard to find casually. Once again Im a least case scenario as I have no sexy photos on the net, no nudity. Ive only ever had a head shot, (the same one thats on AD's introductions from way back) and I have no photos on my website, not one. Its all text! If this is not passive, I dont know what is. Im also 44 years old, well beyond some hot cutie any married man simply cannot resist, inspiring his closeted urges by the text on my site.
No, I am a good companion who takes care of business so that the client can continue to take care of his family.
Man has needs, if they are not taken care of he will find a way, especially after 35 years old. Its a basic truth. Some may turn Buddhist, some to Christ, some will suffer, some are different and consider marriage sacred no matter what. MANY are just not strong enough or believe their time is wasting away, and good sex is part of that time. Every man knows his penis will eventually fail him and he does not look forward to that day and does not want to waste away waiting.
Let me say this as a side. Most men I have ever met consider their penis to be a measure of themselves, their manhood is very basic to their very view of life and is connected to use of the penis. They express love and intimacy this way. I have often considered doing seminars for women because they do not understand this basic reality. A man must use his penis or feel less of a man.
This is a VERY complex issue, mostly because noone can really figure out why men have such high sexual needs, distain them (in public display) but continually, and secretly satisfy them in this way, hiding from all society- in a wierd love/ hate relationship with themselves, lying all the time about it. I believe (contrary to you Meem) that if prostitutes were not available many more marriages would end in affairs due to this drive.
I have lots of philosphical opinions on the reasons for this which may be that some men do not know how to feel intimacy beyond sexual expression, have not learned how to feel deeper love, are coddled to as boys and learn selfishness at a young age so babies in the home and lack of attention makes them turn elsewhere, or power issues which make a sense of entitlement, or the financial capacity to buy female service as a luxury item, or a sense of conquest as part of biology (why men cheat). I know too many men who can never tell the truth to the women they love about their true sexuality for fear of reprisal. But that does not change the reality that men by the millions are buying, denying, lying and pretending and almost all say they are not getting enough sex at home.
There is no majority, just a big fat secret society.
To be fair:
QUOTE
All the case worker has to do is reccomend that the women become a prostitute. She's qualified: she has sexual organs. She probably has prior experience in sex, and if not, brothels will be HAPPY to offer on-the-job training. It pays well, and it's easy for the case worker to set up.
This is sexual coercion and sexual harrasment. but now that prostition is a legitimate ,legal, activity, such coercion and harrasment is ALSO perfectly legal.
Perhaps a regulation can be issued prohibiting that, but it will only be one evil policymaker away from being overturned. And brothels might file equal protection suits DEMANDING that their profession be included in literature offered to welfare women as to what compromises valid work opportunites.
This is sexual coercion and sexual harrasment. but now that prostition is a legitimate ,legal, activity, such coercion and harrasment is ALSO perfectly legal.
Perhaps a regulation can be issued prohibiting that, but it will only be one evil policymaker away from being overturned. And brothels might file equal protection suits DEMANDING that their profession be included in literature offered to welfare women as to what compromises valid work opportunites.
I Have heard of a complaint of this sometime back in Denmark or Holland, but I dont know the validity of it and have never heard another. I see this could become a horrific possibility left unchecked.
Somewhat ignoring the issue of legality, Im trying to get over the hump of denial, which really is a first step.
Either 'fix' the reason why men seek out sex in so many industries or stop punishing the women who meet the demand. Its both male demand and lying that causes women to be punished for sex work. Instead of regulating THEMSELVES, they try to regulate the female. Can anyone see how absurd (yet typical) this is?
Geez.
One of my biggest mistakes that I left questions unanswered. But I want to put forth a question to this forum "Can we discuss this'should we legalize prostitution' topic using moral considerations?"
One of my biggest mistakes that I left questions unanswered. But I want to put forth a question to this forum "Can we discuss this'should we legalize prostitution' topic using moral considerations?"
QUOTE(Meem @ Nov 16 2005, 07:34 AM)
Geez.
One of my biggest mistakes that I left questions unanswered. But I want to put forth a question to this forum "Can we discuss this'should we legalize prostitution' topic using moral considerations?"
One of my biggest mistakes that I left questions unanswered. But I want to put forth a question to this forum "Can we discuss this'should we legalize prostitution' topic using moral considerations?"
Absolutely.
Be prepared, however, to have people express different moral systems than you express.
In my moral system, exchange of sexual activities for money (or any other consideration) is not inherently immoral. Precautions should be taken, however, in all sexual activities to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Also, nobody should be forced into any kind of sexual activity. ("Force" here would include such things as economic desperation, as well as deceit, as well as physical and emotional force.)
For these reasons, I support legalization and regulation of prostitution. Regulated prostitution will reduce the victimization of sex workers. It will also reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases in prostitution. Surely having regulated brothels and independent professionals is much better than having unregulated, victimized streetwalkers, which is what you will have, always and everywhere, whenever prostitution is illegal.
If prostitution were legal, safe, lucrative, and respected (as it should be, in any sane society), I would be proud to have my (non-existent) child be a prostitute. Sex workers provide people with joy. If they do so out of genuine free choice, if they do not harm themselves or others, they provide a positive good to society, and should be thanked.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 16 2005, 01:20 PM)
For these reasons, I support legalization and regulation of prostitution. Regulated prostitution will reduce the victimization of sex workers. It will also reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases in prostitution. Surely having regulated brothels and independent professionals is much better than having unregulated, victimized streetwalkers, which is what you will have, always and everywhere, whenever prostitution is illegal.
I absolutely agree. I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but there are many prostitutes even in Islamic countries like Iran, where the penalty for that is often death by stoning. That anybody is willing to be a prostitute under those conditions proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that we can never eradicate it and that there even in strict religious theocracies also is a demand for services offered by prostitutes.
QUOTE(Meem @ Nov 10 2005, 01:47 AM)
No I do not believe the 'deeper and complex reasoning' thing. Artemise explanation is a subjective, personal experience and does not cover even the leawst percentage of the men who frequent prostitutes.
Meem, I am just curious as to how much you know about the men who "frequent prostitutes"? How would you know the men Artemise describes "does not cover even the leawst percentage of the men who frequent prostitutes"? Perhaps you could inform us as to whether or not your profession or hobbies place you in a position of knowledge regarding prostitutes and their clients? If not, I would contend that Artemise has a far greater knowledge of "the men who frequent prostitutes" than you do, and thus you have no grounds to make your claim above.
QUOTE(Meem @ Nov 10 2005, 03:47 AM)
The family structure is already under assault for reasons that have nothing to do with prostitution? If I frequent a call girl like Artemise and because of that I decide to leave my family for her, wouldn't you say that prostitution does assaults family ties?
Nighttimer posted a lovely reply to this. I would add that nobody forces you to place your penis in anyone.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 11 2005, 05:33 AM)
Oh, and I don't think she'd mind me pointing this out, but ExistentialHedonist is also a escort and like Artemise, pretty much satisfied with her job.
I don't mind at all!
Artemise, that was another brilliant post.
One day people will start to actually listen to the facts: there is a high demand for sex work in various sectors of the industry. If I am not mistaken, it ranks third in global trade, surpassed only by guns and drugs. And even this is debatable, as some estimates say the global sex industry has surpassed the global drug trade. And it most certainly isn't because Artemise and I are placing flyers on your car windshield.
QUOTE
That anybody is willing to be a prostitute under those conditions proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that we can never eradicate it and that there even in strict religious theocracies also is a demand for services offered by prostitutes.Carlsen Nov 16
To the first post, the following is an explanation by Artemise on Nov 16
QUOTE
Some may turn Buddhist, some to Christ, some will suffer, some are different and consider marriage sacred no matter what. MANY are just not strong enough or believe their time is wasting away, and good sex is part of that time. Every man knows his penis will eventually fail him and he does not look forward to that day and does not want to waste away waiting.
Most Americasn are Christian, but most of these Christians commit adultery, drink alcohol, consume drugs, buy porn things. And the fact that Catholics and Protestants in the Netherland could not 'force' the government to prohibit prostitution does not mean that the religion allows prostitution or it 'fails' in regulating the behavior of its believer. The explanation is simple: the believers can not control their 'want' or 'need'. And they are still believers. One can sell dope in America, be caught by the police in doing that, and still considered a citizen of America.
Even the government of Iran, if what Carlsen said is true, is fully aware that the legalization of prostitution is against Islamic teaching.
And sadly, some individuals take advantage on this fact: become a conspirator (i.e provide service that help these believers) in doing those sins. And Artemise as you find my post is 'amusing', I'd like to say that I find it 'mind-boggling' that you are fully aware of the fact that the religions of your customers prohibit adultery and yet you still help them in doing that. religious perspective, you are just like dope-dealers. You do not provide 'help'
QUOTE
I never said that prostitution is inevitable. Prostitution is like air. It simply IS. Find a time when the profession of selling sex wasn't with us if you can, Meem. It doesn't exist. Sexual need is the engine that drives the machinery of prostitution.Nighttimer Nov 15
I object to this. Sexual drive
QUOTE
is
'like air', not prostitution. The fact that prostitution has been with us for many centuries does not entitle you to claim that it is like air. Alcohol and drugs have been around for ages, would you say that Alcohol and Alcoholism and dope and dopeys are inevitable things?A society CAN survive without prostitution if the 'machineries' (Law, Moral, etc) have been fixed. Those machineries must not only prohibit but they must also provide solutions or way out.
The difference between animals and men in gratifying their sexual needs is that men have this social institution called marriage (and love and fidelity etc). In this institution the rights of the bride and her groom is equally acknowledged.
Based on this, polygamous marriage is much more honorable than adultery and prostitution.
I will continue later.
QUOTE(Meem)
A society CAN survive without prostitution if the 'machineries' (Law, Moral, etc) have been fixed. Those machineries must not only prohibit but they must also provide solutions or way out.
Meem, could you explain how these machineries might work? Are you suggesting that the Church or the Government start to arrange marriages and run people's sex lives?
QUOTE
And Artemise as you find my post is 'amusing', I'd like to say that I find it 'mind-boggling' that you are fully aware of the fact that the religions of your customers prohibit adultery and yet you still help them in doing that. religious perspective, you are just like dope-dealers. You do not provide 'help'
I have no idea about the religious beliefs of my clientele, most times I dont even know if they are married until I meet them. That is a personal matter that they just dont mention when making an appt.
If the religion of clients prohibits them from engaging in adultery and they do so anyway, is it my business to regulate their behavior? Im not a Nanny for grown men, I am not a preacher. Its a preachers job to shepherd his lambs.
Perhaps something is inherently wrong with religion or the preachers, that cannot keep their faithful (or often themselves) in line with religious idealism. I cannot change that.
Obviously there is a hypocrisy somewhere, but its not mine.
I completely understand your perpective and wish the same things you wish for people: Deep comprehensive relationships, total understanding between partners, undying love and fidelity. But wishing simply does not make it so- and regulation by The State of people sex lives will never make it so.
In my learned experience, oppressing these things leads over-time to all kinds of kinks and fetishes and psycho-sexual illnesses and a 'leaking out' in weird forms.
I think its always been very bizarre that people in the US accept great degrees of violence, but sex and nudity is so taboo. As a result we have excess of obsession with superficial sex, breasts and the perfect female body and male sexual performance that is not necessarily normal or healthy.
A society that has created male enhancement drugs over finding cures for life threatening diseases, many women getting breast enhancements to be more attractive is already a sign of this opression and obsession.
A healthy attitude towards sex and acceptance of our bodies 'with genitals' which provide pleasure as a sacred and beautiful thing, dropping the 'sex and sexual parts of the body are dirty' attitudes would go so much farther to helping relationships survive than Puritanical ideas regarding sex, hiding it like a big secret or State sanctioned regulation ever will.
Just my opinion.
QUOTE(Meem @ Dec 1 2005, 09:41 PM)
QUOTE
I never said that prostitution is inevitable. Prostitution is like air. It simply IS. Find a time when the profession of selling sex wasn't with us if you can, Meem. It doesn't exist. Sexual need is the engine that drives the machinery of prostitution.Nighttimer Nov 15
I object to this. Sexual drive
QUOTE
is
'like air', not prostitution. The fact that prostitution has been with us for many centuries does not entitle you to claim that it is like air. Alcohol and drugs have been around for ages, would you say that Alcohol and Alcoholism and dope and dopeys are inevitable things?A society CAN survive without prostitution if the 'machineries' (Law, Moral, etc) have been fixed. Those machineries must not only prohibit but they must also provide solutions or way out.
Good grief, Charlie Brown. Will this thread ever end?
Meem, please don't tell me what I am "entitled" to claim, okay? You can accept it or reject it and I'll be happy either way. Just don't try to tell me what I can and cannot say and we'll get along fine.
As regards prostitution, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, masturbation or whatever other evil you might refer to, I'll ascribe ALL of it to two words: human nature.
People have sex with people they're not married to, barely know and don't even like particularly. People start drinking as soon as the bar opens and don't leave until it closes. They go to Las Vegas and blow the mortgage, the college fund for the kids and Grandma's Social Security check at blackjack table. People will shoot, snort, smoke, inject, inhale, swallow and put in their body all kinds of chemicals so they can get high.
People drive too fast, eat too much, sit too close to the television, vote Republican and buy Hillary Duff albums. They do all kinds of things that are bad for them; mind, body and soul.
Face the fact Meem that nobody is trying to make you accept the existence of prostitution just as I don't want any part of your moral beliefs or solutions. They may work fine for you, but keep 'em to yourself. I'll live quite happily without it.
As will sexworkers and their patrons.
QUOTE(Meem)
A society CAN survive without prostitution if the 'machineries' (Law, Moral, etc) have been fixed. Those machineries must not only prohibit but they must also provide solutions or way out.
I told myself to stop posting in this thread...but this is way too juicy of a quote. You speak of law as a "machinery" that keeps society alive...yet, in order to do so, you are saying that the government should break the law. It is illegal for the Federal government to regulate sex between consenting adults, yet you say that the government should do so in order to preserve law and, therefore, society. This seems exceptionally hypocritical to me, what is your explanation for that, Meem?
CP
Should prostitution be legalized? Yes. While it's not a life I would choose for myself, I think women who do choose it should be allowed to live in peace.
I tend to agree with Artemise about being leery of regulation, although for health reasons it seems to make sense.
I tend to agree with Artemise about being leery of regulation, although for health reasons it seems to make sense.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Dec 3 2005, 01:27 AM)
QUOTE(Meem @ Dec 1 2005, 09:41 PM)
QUOTE
I never said that prostitution is inevitable. Prostitution is like air. It simply IS. Find a time when the profession of selling sex wasn't with us if you can, Meem. It doesn't exist. Sexual need is the engine that drives the machinery of prostitution.Nighttimer Nov 15
I object to this. Sexual drive
QUOTE
is
'like air', not prostitution. The fact that prostitution has been with us for many centuries does not entitle you to claim that it is like air. Alcohol and drugs have been around for ages, would you say that Alcohol and Alcoholism and dope and dopeys are inevitable things?A society CAN survive without prostitution if the 'machineries' (Law, Moral, etc) have been fixed. Those machineries must not only prohibit but they must also provide solutions or way out.
Good grief, Charlie Brown. Will this thread ever end?
Meem, please don't tell me what I am "entitled" to claim, okay? You can accept it or reject it and I'll be happy either way. Just don't try to tell me what I can and cannot say and we'll get along fine.
As regards prostitution, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, masturbation or whatever other evil you might refer to, I'll ascribe ALL of it to two words: human nature.
People have sex with people they're not married to, barely know and don't even like particularly. People start drinking as soon as the bar opens and don't leave until it closes. They go to Las Vegas and blow the mortgage, the college fund for the kids and Grandma's Social Security check at blackjack table. People will shoot, snort, smoke, inject, inhale, swallow and put in their body all kinds of chemicals so they can get high.
People drive too fast, eat too much, sit too close to the television, vote Republican and buy Hillary Duff albums. They do all kinds of things that are bad for them; mind, body and soul.
Face the fact Meem that nobody is trying to make you accept the existence of prostitution just as I don't want any part of your moral beliefs or solutions. They may work fine for you, but keep 'em to yourself. I'll live quite happily without it.
As will sexworkers and their patrons.
Either I am a complete idiot or we don’t share the same knowledge on Semantics and Syntax, Nighttimer. You have told me twice that I misunderstood your idea. And this last post of yours is the third of your responses to what (it seems to me you) you consider misunderstandings on my part.
So, in all fairness, would you kindly reiterate your whole idea on this topic in order that I may respond to it without making the irksome misunderstanding?
I admit that I haven’t read all of your posts; You may even have noticed my posts are written hastily. I do not have as much time as you do to read all the posts carefully
And I apologize if my last post seems to tell you what you are entitled to claim.
You may have noticed ConservPat that my knowledge on the Law is mainly (at least in my opinion) philosophical. I dodged the questions that refer to the American Constitution, and all the stuff lawyers do.
We DID Not agree on whether the government should interfere in the private live of the people. I did not answer you last post, if you still remember it, because alas I object to most of American jurisprudence products and system.
So, I am not willing to discuss the ‘practical’ side of the Law (e.g questions like ‘which part of the constitution agrees to your idea that…?’). But I will happily answer questions like ‘why do you think that the law should…?’
We DID Not agree on whether the government should interfere in the private live of the people. I did not answer you last post, if you still remember it, because alas I object to most of American jurisprudence products and system.
So, I am not willing to discuss the ‘practical’ side of the Law (e.g questions like ‘which part of the constitution agrees to your idea that…?’). But I will happily answer questions like ‘why do you think that the law should…?’
I understand what you're saying Meem. My whole point is how can you possibly separate what the law "should be" from what the law itself legally can be? That's my main objection I think.
CP
CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.