Poll: Should Prostitution be legalized
Yes, free from government and tax
Yes, with reasonable constraints and regulations
No, because it's immoral/dehumanizes people/causes psycological trauma
No, it's against my religion
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Legalizing Prostitution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2016, 07:07 PM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(15-05-2016 06:50 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 06:24 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Maybe they married you for your money. Tongue

Maybe so, lol. But I didn't say I always had money, entrepreneurs fall flat on their asses a lot too, as did I. Lost my ass twice, once in each marriage. Both men stuck with me til the day they died anyway. So, no, not particularly worried about that. In any case, I don't think it would have mattered. They did their parts and they did it well. And no, I am not talking about sex, I am talking about being a good partner (with benefits).

Yeah...life is often a trade off. Big Grin


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(15-05-2016 07:07 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 06:50 PM)Dom Wrote:  Maybe so, lol. But I didn't say I always had money, entrepreneurs fall flat on their asses a lot too, as did I. Lost my ass twice, once in each marriage. Both men stuck with me til the day they died anyway. So, no, not particularly worried about that. In any case, I don't think it would have mattered. They did their parts and they did it well. And no, I am not talking about sex, I am talking about being a good partner (with benefits).

Yeah...life is often a trade off. Big Grin

I guess you could call it a trade off - I had their backs and they had mine. In the end, that's all that matters.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
15-05-2016, 08:07 PM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
The problem I see with defining prostitution so broadly that it covers the exchange of sex for the obtention of something else is that it be resonned that everyone is a prostitute no matter their gender. We all offer sexual services in exchange of something else that another person wants or need. It becomes a pointless word. Prostitution is job before anything else and implies someone who doesn't systematically want to have sex who offers sexual services anyway in exchange of money in a semi professionnal setting.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution



[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
16-05-2016, 05:27 AM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(15-05-2016 05:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I will just send the video it should give a summary





my bad

Again, this is just a video. I'm sorry, but if I can't have specific citations for everything mentioned, it's not worth anything.

(15-05-2016 05:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Now it is possible that they did exist before, but my point is about it slowly rising. Which is why I brought up herbivore men. You see Japanese men weren't always like this, and like ya said it is still a new phenomena. Now I am open to the fact that relationships and even marriage for men could rise in the future, but it seems not to be the case.

Just because it's happening in Japan it doesn't mean it's something genetic or biological or that it will happen anywhere else. Japanese people also live long. It doesn't mean anything to us.

I never claimed that relationships and marriage will rise, I'm pretty sure the opposite will happen, but not just for men. Because, you see, if men don't want to get married, who will the women then get married to?

The more liberal our society becomes, the more people feel free to avoid commitments that were the norm in the past. People. Not men.

(15-05-2016 05:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Blush Did I mention I suck at communicating? I should have add a correlation it has relation with, casual sex and oxytocin. Now guess who releases more oxytocin? Female humans.

http://www.darionardi.com/BulletinArt9.html

This link has zero sources for all its claims and your claim is not even based on the link. Females do not actually release more oxytocin but their estrogen enhances some of its actions. That's very different from what you're claiming here.

(15-05-2016 05:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  This hormone is pretty much the "love" hormone. This is the hormone that is known to make women want to cuddle after sex.

It also helps for both men and women when it comes to staying together and even raising children.

http://www.smart-publications.com/articl...ve-hormone

This article also has zero sources and is also promoting "alternative health" and offers links to buy oxytocin with unsupported health benefit claims? Which is, well, potentially even dangerous? What the fuck?

(15-05-2016 05:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  However men have a lower relationship with oxytocin, thanks to testosterone and the male equivalent to oxytocin, vasopressin.

During casual sex oxytocin still activates the same way it would during intimate sex. This is why you might here the stereotype that women fall in love after sex(though this isn't true). However women do have a small feeling of wondering about him, however they get over it quickly.

Even so, this doesn't have anything to do with your original claim that casual sex is getting harder to find. And even if females get attached to the males they have sex with, they still have a brain and they know it's not smart to ask for any commitment just because they felt something.

(15-05-2016 05:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Well the context of that was women not wanting to be lonely because men don't want (or have to) commit. This was the point of it. Again I am bad at communicating.

Sure, but as I said, your post included more than one generalization. It was full of them actually.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2016, 05:34 AM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(15-05-2016 05:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The way I see it, most women have done it -- they just accepted dinner or gifts instead of cash. Drinking Beverage

Accepting dinner or gifts and having sex with the person offering them is not actually prostitution. It is, if your aim was the transaction itself. But if you just go on a date and the guy insists on offering you something (and it can be rude not to accept it sometimes or they insist to the point of ridiculousness) and then you end up liking each other and you have sex (not offer him sex, we're talking about mutual satisfaction) then I don't see how it is prostitution. Especially if you end up in a relationship after that.

If you see it as a transaction and aim to give sex for what you get, yes, it is a kind of prostitution. But claiming that every woman who has accepted dinner and had sex is a prostitute, well.

If we're gonna stretch it that far then, consider this:
Some prostitutes get paid just to keep a man company, not necessarily having sex with him. So, when I go out with a male friend and he insists on buying me coffee and we spend the evening talking, even if we're not attracted to each other, is that prostitution? Yeah, didn't think so.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like undergroundp's post
16-05-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(16-05-2016 05:34 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 05:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The way I see it, most women have done it -- they just accepted dinner or gifts instead of cash. Drinking Beverage

Accepting dinner or gifts and having sex with the person offering them is not actually prostitution. It is, if your aim was the transaction itself. But if you just go on a date and the guy insists on offering you something (and it can be rude not to accept it sometimes or they insist to the point of ridiculousness) and then you end up liking each other and you have sex (not offer him sex, we're talking about mutual satisfaction) then I don't see how it is prostitution. Especially if you end up in a relationship after that.

If you see it as a transaction and aim to give sex for what you get, yes, it is a kind of prostitution. But claiming that every woman who has accepted dinner and had sex is a prostitute, well.

If we're gonna stretch it that far then, consider this:
Some prostitutes get paid just to keep a man company, not necessarily having sex with him. So, when I go out with a male friend and he insists on buying me coffee and we spend the evening talking, even if we're not attracted to each other, is that prostitution? Yeah, didn't think so.

And you forgot to mention that the men was also prostituting himself in your exemple. He is exchanging his sexual consent against your company, pleasent attitude and all around fun to be with character (in a date you usually try to show your best side)! Dates aren't dreary affairs even if they don't ultimately in sex or relationship. Actually, that's the big difference between prostitution and dating. Prostitution ends up with sex in a systematic fashion once the transaction has been completed. In a date, no matter how much you spend and no matter how well the date went, you might not have sex at the end of it.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
One can over-analyze stuff too. Eating, drinking and exchanging small gifts is just a fun thing people can do together.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
16-05-2016, 07:07 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2016 07:12 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(15-05-2016 06:14 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 06:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  ...
Another friend used to hang out in bars near the financial district in SF. She married very well -- but it wasn't accidental.

So based on your words of "used sex for getting something" do you consider married women prostitutes as well? Or maybe you're saying all women who have sex are prostitutes? Not sure here. Can you clarify?

(15-05-2016 06:35 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  ...
If you use sex to gain something else. Why is this a difficult concept?

I'm sure men can do it too.

(15-05-2016 08:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The problem I see with defining prostitution so broadly that it covers the exchange of sex for the obtention of something else is that it be reasoned that everyone is a prostitute no matter their gender. We all offer sexual services in exchange of something else that another person wants or need. It becomes a pointless word. Prostitution is job before anything else and implies someone who doesn't systematically want to have sex who offers sexual services anyway in exchange of money in a semi professional setting.

Just 'semi'? Huh

Yup. I think we're getting into definitional territory here.

(16-05-2016 05:34 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 05:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The way I see it, most women have done it -- they just accepted dinner or gifts instead of cash. Drinking Beverage

Accepting dinner or gifts and having sex with the person offering them is not actually prostitution. It is, if your aim was the transaction itself. But if you just go on a date and the guy insists on offering you something (and it can be rude not to accept it sometimes or they insist to the point of ridiculousness) and then you end up liking each other and you have sex (not offer him sex, we're talking about mutual satisfaction) then I don't see how it is prostitution. Especially if you end up in a relationship after that.

If you see it as a transaction and aim to give sex for what you get, yes, it is a kind of prostitution. But claiming that every woman who has accepted dinner and had sex is a prostitute, well.

If we're gonna stretch it that far then, consider this:
Some prostitutes get paid just to keep a man company, not necessarily having sex with him. So, when I go out with a male friend and he insists on buying me coffee and we spend the evening talking, even if we're not attracted to each other, is that prostitution? Yeah, didn't think so.

Maybe (if you ladies don't mind me inserting myself into the conversation), I can have a go at clarifying...

Google says:
Quote:pros·ti·tu·tion
ˌprästəˈt(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
...
the unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.

Using the first part of that, there should be no confusion ... it's the second part that muddles things up.

The latter is also problematic because it can take us into moralistic notions of holier-than-thou-ness (unworthy or corrupt in whose opinion?!?!).

So perhaps this can help:

[Image: Supplier_categorization.png]

The transaction, in simplistic terms, relates to access to sexual activity in exchange for some form of security.

Most forms of prostitution would obviously fall into the 'commodity' supplier category.

An operational category is harder to exemplify in the context of sex as typical examples of operational suppliers would be maybe a gardener or cleaner... but maybe the service offered in the movie The Sessions might fit the bill.

The 'sugarbabe' scenario (see undergoundP's last paragraph and perhaps Moms' barfly friend) is in the tactical category. It's more akin to a friendship (with or without benefits).

A strategic supplier relationship, given its characteristics of equality (sharing confidential information; common vision etc.) is often just called a 'partnership' or in this context it's the marriage (to which Heatheness referred).

So given the google definition, which of the four categories would cover prostitution best?

I'd say, just the first one: Commodity (on both sides of the transaction).

And if it counts for anything, my friends, who engage in this work but also have sugar-daddies, agree; bar-work is commodity-prostitution but friends with benefits is a tactical relationship (and has led to marriage on quite a few occasions).

I hope that helps.

Smartass

(16-05-2016 06:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  One can over-analyze stuff too. .

Yup. I hate it when people do that.

Shy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like DLJ's post
16-05-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: Legalizing Prostitution
(16-05-2016 07:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 06:14 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  So based on your words of "used sex for getting something" do you consider married women prostitutes as well? Or maybe you're saying all women who have sex are prostitutes? Not sure here. Can you clarify?

(15-05-2016 06:35 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  ...
If you use sex to gain something else. Why is this a difficult concept?

I'm sure men can do it too.

(15-05-2016 08:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The problem I see with defining prostitution so broadly that it covers the exchange of sex for the obtention of something else is that it be reasoned that everyone is a prostitute no matter their gender. We all offer sexual services in exchange of something else that another person wants or need. It becomes a pointless word. Prostitution is job before anything else and implies someone who doesn't systematically want to have sex who offers sexual services anyway in exchange of money in a semi professional setting.

Just 'semi'? Huh

Yup. I think we're getting into definitional territory here.

(16-05-2016 05:34 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  Accepting dinner or gifts and having sex with the person offering them is not actually prostitution. It is, if your aim was the transaction itself. But if you just go on a date and the guy insists on offering you something (and it can be rude not to accept it sometimes or they insist to the point of ridiculousness) and then you end up liking each other and you have sex (not offer him sex, we're talking about mutual satisfaction) then I don't see how it is prostitution. Especially if you end up in a relationship after that.

If you see it as a transaction and aim to give sex for what you get, yes, it is a kind of prostitution. But claiming that every woman who has accepted dinner and had sex is a prostitute, well.

If we're gonna stretch it that far then, consider this:
Some prostitutes get paid just to keep a man company, not necessarily having sex with him. So, when I go out with a male friend and he insists on buying me coffee and we spend the evening talking, even if we're not attracted to each other, is that prostitution? Yeah, didn't think so.

Maybe (if you ladies don't mind me inserting myself into the conversation), I can have a go at clarifying...

Google says:
Quote:pros·ti·tu·tion
ˌprästəˈt(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
...
the unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.

Using the first part of that, there should be no confusion ... it's the second part that muddles things up.

The latter is also problematic because it can take us into moralistic notions of holier-than-thou-ness.

So perhaps this can help:

[Image: Supplier_categorization.png]

The transaction, in simplistic terms, relates to access to sexual activity in exchange for some form of security.

Most forms of prostitution would obviously fall into the 'commodity' supplier category.

An operational category is harder to exemplify in the context of sex as typical examples of operational suppliers would be maybe a gardener or cleaner... but maybe the service offered in the movie The Sessions might fit the bill.

The 'sugarbabe' scenario (see undergoundP's last paragraph and perhaps Moms' barfly friend) is in the tactical category. It's more akin to a friendship (with or without benefits).

A strategic supplier relationship, given its characteristics of equality (sharing confidential information; common vision etc.) is often just called a 'partnership' or in this context it's the marriage (to which Heatheness referred).

So given the google definition, which of the four categories would cover prostitution best?

I'd say, just the first one: Commodity (on both sides of the transaction).

And if it counts for anything, my friends, who engage in this work but also have sugar-daddies, agree; bar-work is commodity-prostitution but friends with benefits is a tactical relationship (and has led to marriage on quite a few occasions).

I hope that helps.

Smartass

(16-05-2016 06:59 AM)Dom Wrote:  One can over-analyze stuff too. .

Yup. I hate it when people do that.

Shy


Leave it to DLJ to be all professional and shit... Tongue

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: