Would you do it?
-
siit — 18 years ago(June 19, 2007 04:57 PM)
In that situation the question is this;
Would you do it for $1? .. of course not I hear people say.
So the 'real' question is how much money are you willing to prostitute yourself to make yourself feel good about being a whore?
If you are willing to be a whore, then its all about haggling for the price.
"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, you will get them" -
TheCommenteer — 18 years ago(July 30, 2007 12:52 AM)
it really depends on your perspective, i may have smoked weed once to see what its like, that doesnt make me a stoner, in the same way that sleeping with someone for money once doesnt make you a whore.
if people did call you such, then theyre just retarded and nobody cares what they think anyway, so it all comes down to whether you need the money/feel like it. -
TheCommenteer — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 02:58 AM)
getting stoned actually defines you as a stoner.
however i can see how my analogy sucked.
personally i dont see the problem with doing something bad once. especially a victimless crime.
i dont and havent done this myself, but id definately consider it for the right price with the right person.
and your opinion means nothing to me or anyone else, id be proud to be, in your opinion, a whore. -
takiko-1 — 16 years ago(August 29, 2009 01:38 PM)
Fine, I asked because I disagree with you. Although, maybe since you've smoked your drugs and marked it as a "victimless crime", you're not going to be persuaded to think otherwise (in which case it could be said I'm wasting my time). Why is this crime "victimless" compared to any other crime, such as prostitution?
-
takiko-1 — 16 years ago(September 05, 2009 02:45 PM)
prostitution was the victimless crime i was referring to. <
Prostitution should be about on par with it being a "victimless crime" as buying selling, or doing drugs. In other words, I'm saying it's not a "victimless crime". -
takiko-1 — 16 years ago(September 05, 2009 08:40 PM)
Unless prostitution takes place with some adults that are about 21+ year, and it happens in a really remote area, it has an effect on the surrounding neighbourhood, with kids no longer free or welcome to play in the streets. Any place that it occurs (legally) would be the red light district. There's a chance of an STD transmission, even with precautions taken (as with regular sex) with the parties involved.
-
TheCommenteer — 16 years ago(September 06, 2009 08:17 PM)
no. std/sti risk is a non debatable issue, and any red light district which, by the way, is usually a street not a whole neighbourhood, would be no different to any other shopping area in which kids are not allowed to play, and in terms of streetwalking ive already mentioned that is not mutually exclusive with prostitution
-
-
TheCommenteer — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 06:37 PM)
you brought up red light districts not me.
stds are not a product of prostitution.
so far youve got that in the case of streetwalking (not mutually exclusive with prostitution, therefore only a limited proportion of it) kids cant play in said streets. well, they cant play on highways, or on main roads anyway, and ive never seen or heard of any prostitutes standing on low traffic street corners in suburban areas. that seems like a counterproductive waste of time, so increased traffic = decreased children playing on it anyway. the only effect on the surrounding area is that prudes and self righteous folk take offense to it and bitch and moan about it. also, since most governments refuse to accept it (even though it still thrives and is quite successful in countries that have legalised it) it often is linked to other forms of crime, though indirectly and again not the product of prostitution.
so, who exactly is the victim youre referring to, aside from those women/men who work in the industry and arent able to be regulated by OHS because of a pathetic government that refuses to accept that it will exist regardless of their useless attempts to prevent it. personally i dont think id ever go to a prostitute whether they were legal or not, itd make me feel like a seedy douchebag, but that doesnt mean i should condemn it either. -
takiko-1 — 16 years ago(September 10, 2009 02:21 PM)
The reason why I brought up the red light district is because I wanted to be sure you wouldn't say, "Oh look here, this part of the world is okay with it, so Americans and North Americans are just prudes that have a heart attack seeing a nipple!"
prudes and self righteous folk take offense to it and bitch and moan about it. <
Are you saying you'd
like
or
love
to live next to the prostitutes and drug dealers? Besides, it probably deceases the worth of a property next to these areas. (What kind of family would want to buy a house there? Of course, worrying about a property's worth means one would have to be thinking about buying and putting down roots, instead of just renting.)
Actually, I went to a church where there is this woman's shelter two lots away where the women try to better themselves, and they aren't allowed to prostitute within that house, but nothing stops them from going a few blocks down. Between the shelter and the church, there is a park meant for children with slides. The pastor finds condoms on the doorstep of the church. (Great huh?)
personally i dont think id ever go to a prostitute whether they were legal or not, itd make me feel like a seedy douchebag, but that doesnt mean i should condemn it either. <
You don't have to necessary condemn it, but by labelling it a "victimless crime", what stops you (or anyone else) from encouraging it? So why not have it seen as trivial as people spitting their gum and that it sticks to your shoe? As for you won't be buying from a hooker, well I'm sure you have no worries about getting caught with a prostitute, either, right? Not worried she has STDs? STDs don't only come from people in the sex trade, but if a female is trading fluids with 25 different guys (or even women) over 30 days, instead of just 1 guy (or girlfriend?) over 30 days (it doesn't matter the number of times), then she or the other person could be spreading the STD. Even the men in Hollywood, USA don't get to be totally under the radar if they are photographed or "caught" with a prostitute. (Although they don't get wrung out maybe as much for cheating on their girlfriends, fiancees, or wives.) -
TheCommenteer — 16 years ago(September 10, 2009 07:16 PM)
"Are you saying you'd like or love to live next to the prostitutes and drug dealers? Besides, it probably deceases the worth of a property next to these areas. (What kind of family would want to buy a house there? Of course, worrying about a property's worth means one would have to be thinking about buying and putting down roots, instead of just renting.) "
might as well get rid of any lower class suburbs and housing trust areas then, cos nobody wants to live near them. and porn stores. oh and airports. and who would feel safe living next to a crackhouse, mental asylum or soup kitchen, or even ANY factory for that matteri suppose anything that doesnt increase the value of land is therefore bad and should be removed. upper middle class suburbs everywhere, yeah, its my dream too tear
"Actually, I went to a church where there is this woman's shelter two lots away where the women try to better themselves, and they aren't allowed to prostitute within that house, but nothing stops them from going a few blocks down. Between the shelter and the church, there is a park meant for children with slides. The pastor finds condoms on the doorstep of the church. (Great huh?) "
yes, this is a good argument for legalisation of prostitution. then not only would there be higher standards but itd be in a facility rather than in public. obviously there would be some exceptions. but this simply shows its gonna happen anyway, and at least by having the proper facilities it can be controlled, regulated and much cleaner
"You don't have to necessary condemn it, but by labelling it a "victimless crime", what stops you (or anyone else) from encouraging it? "
i do encourage it. i see no difference between this and porn. oh except i think there needs to be higher regulation of that industry too.
"So why not have it seen as trivial as people spitting their gum and that it sticks to your shoe?"
uhbecause in that instance there IS a victimclearly.
"As for you won't be buying from a hooker, well I'm sure you have no worries about getting caught with a prostitute, either, right?"
difference being? not entirely sure whats implied here.
"Not worried she has STDs?"
if it were legal, the risk of STD's would be dramatically reduced.
"STDs don't only come from people in the sex trade, but if a female is trading fluids with 25 different guys (or even women) over 30 days, instead of just 1 guy (or girlfriend?) over 30 days (it doesn't matter the number of times), then she or the other person could be spreading the STD."
as opposed to your average slut (which are greater in number, and far more likely to be infected and not know it) who does roughly the same thing
"Even the men in Hollywood, USA don't get to be totally under the radar if they are photographed or "caught" with a prostitute."
ok?
again youre yet to point to a victim of prostitution. and no, decreased land value isnt gonna cut it. -
nogoodalias — 15 years ago(September 07, 2010 01:25 PM)
Don't prostitution and sex share many of the same risks? Maybe we should make sex a crime, since STD's can be transmitted and some people are under 21, they have it in neighborhoods with children, sometimes even the same house.
Do you want me to unfairly control your life in other ways, because I will.
The 80's wanted so badly to be the future. 2010 is the future.