Hey Shorts. I've been too busy to keep up with this discussion. I never thought it would get this large. I'll have some serious reading to do to catch up.
Getting a prostitute for your son. Acceptable or no?
- Thread starter skaught
- Start date
Hey Shorts. I've been too busy to keep up with this discussion. I never thought it would get this large. I'll have some serious reading to do to catch up.
well, getting a hooker for yourself is a personal choice. Getting one for your child is not.
I'm surprised at how many have a clean fairy tale view of hookers. What percentage of hookers in the US are tested and gvmt regulated compared to crack whores?
I'm surprised at how many have a clean fairy tale view of hookers. What percentage of hookers in the US are tested and gvmt regulated compared to crack whores?
Why not? Giving a hooker fair payment for a service rendered is not disrespectful. Both people know what they want, there is no debt on either side, and there is no jealousy and controlling behaviour.
Have a careful think about the (lawful) alternatives:
- Go to the pub, and have a one-night stand with a drunken woman (you'll probably be drunk yourself).
- Partner up with a 'fuck-buddy', someone you have casual sex with, with 'no strings attached'. Although as we all know, things rarely come with 'no strings attached'.
- Get into a serious relationship. Now, I may be a pessimist, but almost every relationship I've witnessed is horrible. Jealous controlling behaviour, 'smothering' love with no respect for allowing the partner their own space, time and money wasted only to have the partner ditch you, 'sex begging' (you're not guaranteed sex even if you're a decent chap and you spend all the money in the world) and the very real risk of being 'trapped' in the relationship by pregnancy. There are 'marriage worthy' people of both genders out their, but they are in the tiny minority.
So in a nutshell, your alternatives to prostitutes for sex are drunken sluts, casual sex partners who might have STI's, and getting trapped in a relationship where you can't stand your partner.
If they are drunken sluts, what are you?
My point is that masturbation is not the same thing as actual sex with someone else. Whether it passes the time or not is irrelevant.
Laugh
Prove it. Or do you just talk the talk?
Again, prove it.
Again...
You're assertion that it is lame doesn't magically make it so. Perhaps you find it lame. I don't. You say that I'm lame for defending my view. I don't say the same for you defending yours. This is called respect for others views.
Another baseless assertion. I'm not 'weaseling' around anything.
I didn't 'have' to buy a hooker. In a real sense, nothing is necessary in life; not even one's life. The point, therefore, is not to ascertain what is 'necessary' to do in life, but rather what one finds desirable to do in life. Anyway, I don't agree with your assertion as you have probably guessed.
If you mean it's not bad that I can be honest that my first time was with a hooker, there, atleast, we can agree.
There are many aspects to a person. The aspects necessary to get a woman willing to do the deed free of charge aren't exactly easy to quantify and, naturally, vary from woman to woman, place to place, and even circumstance. I believe that I have lived my life in such a way as to maximize my happiness and minimize my pain. I believe we all do our best to attain these goals. I also believe that what each individual does in pursuit of this 'happiness' varies, depending on their particular life education. I did, in fact, get a willing woman 10 years after my first time; she was my second girlfriend.
I'm all for long term romantic relationships. No, buying the services of a hooker is not the same thing as saying the above statement. Nor does it mean that one is, in fact, a 'total loser..', etc. I sincerely believe that as with most decisions in life, it's generally a decision made to further one's pleasure, staunch one's pain, or a combination of the 2.
I believe my particular circumstances fit the bill of 'serious extenuating circumstances'. You are free to disagree ofcourse.
For you and perhaps even the majority. I'm not a sheep however, and that argument alone won't convince me.
I disagree.
Wikipedia begins its definition of confidence thusly:
Confidence is generally described as a state of being certain, either that a hypothesis or prediction is correct, or that a chosen course of action is the best or most effective.
Self-confidence is having confidence in oneself. Arrogance in this comparison, is having unmerited confidence--believing something or someone is capable or correct when they are not. Overconfidence or presumptuousness is excessive belief, in someone or something, succeeding, without any regard for failure.
I am one that is careful to arrive at any given conclusion. Based on that, one might think that I don't have so much confidence. However, when it comes to confidence in my own beliefs, I would contend that my confidence is relatively strong and is frequently unswayed even if majorities are against my point of view. This can be applied to my beliefs regarding 9/11 (although there is certainly a strong movement that questions the official story), but it can also be applied to many of my views concerning sexuality.
As you can see, the article also mentions others things, such as arrogance and overconfidence. While it is true that having low self confidence can be a bad thing, it is also true that being over confident or even arrogant is also bad.
Personally, I find that as a general rule, the way to avoid going to either side is be careful to criticize the beliefs of others; doing so is a surefire way of engendering enmity and generally gains a person nothing. And most important of all, one must carefully way the advantages of things such as popularity against the disadvantages of going with the crowd even if it means abandoning the only thing that will be with you until the very end- oneself. This is the reason that I have the 'guy in the glass' at the bottom of my picture; it's the title of a very good poem, which can be seen here.
A drunken slut. Note that I don't behave in such a fashion.
Why not? I think it'd still be pretty personal. It'd just involved atleast one other person (the son), possibly more (the mother would be a good contender for another person being involved).
I personally don't have a clean fairy tale view of hookers.
No idea. Personally, the hooker I was with was in Mexico and I used a condom.
I have never advocated it being something one should do on a regular basis. I personally did it only once. In an ideal world, I wouldn't advocate it at all (in an ideal world it wouldn't even exist). Reality is a somewhat different creature, however.
What If your son gets AIDS or another SDS type disease from this prostitute, what would you think about it then?
copernicus, I admit that I'm frequently rather pessimistic when it comes to relationships, but I think you take the cake, laugh ;-). Some people actually have good relationships for a time, some even until they die.
Being polyamorous, I'm particularly averse to the 'controlling relationships' as you say and this may be part of the reason I'm single. I think the most important part has with cash; right now I'm unemployed and I'm not even -trying- to find a relationship (other then looking at all the nice women I see on a daily basis). If this changes, I might actually begin to put in a little more effort.
What If your son gets AIDS or another SDS type disease from this prostitute, what would you think about it then?
My (hypothetical) son could get aids from any woman. Best protection is a condom. Furthermore, the 'getting a hooker' option isn't one that I'd use lightly and I, atleast, never found the need for another session.
I have to be honest, there are 2 guys on this board that I would buy a hooker for if I was their mother. Of course, I think they would instantly fall in love with her and tell everyone about their new girlfriend.
Lol
. I must admit I'm curious as to who these 2 people might be, but perhaps that information is strictly on a need to know basis Orleander said:
You wouldn't do that to the hookers would you?
Lol
It could save his life. Literally...
Imagine if the Virginia Tech shooter would have got a blowjob instead of guns...
Actual sex with someone else is not a necessity for day to day life and masturbation is sufficient to keep the pipes clean while working on an actual girlfriend, or whatever sex turns your cookie.
Prove what exactly. You already admitted all the pertinent details.
Using a prostitute is well established as an act of moral turpitude within society, to the point that it is illegal most places. Personally I feel making it illegal is overkill and instead it should be regulated and taxed to reduce the societal impact, based on the evidence of bonobos prostitution has been with us from our prehistory.
I'm sorry but the fact that it is lame and recourse for losers is not really a matter of any debate. You can of course lie to yourself about it to your heart's content.
Turpitude in its ordinary sense involves the idea of inherent baseness or vileness...
It has been held that the following offenses are crimes involving moral turpitude:
…
• Soliciting for prostitutes
…
[This is taken from Handbook of Criminal Evidence by Davis, 2000 edition.]
http://www.gapsc.com/Ethics/moral_turpitude.pdf
So much for "serious extenuating circumstances."
So that makes it sound like that was not your only hooker.
Never said you were a "total loser" and I did say I don't think buying a hooker is irrevocably lame. But without a doubt buying a hooker is lame. Buying lots of hookers, yes that would make you a total loser.
I enjoy wiki, but if you are looking up self confidence, you don't have it.
My self confidence is knowing what I am capable of from past experience and having sound faith that I can handle the current circumstance.
At 18, I was quite interested in sex, but my morality structure may have been different and so I may not have accepted the idea of a hooker. By 20, however, I myself purchased the services of a hooker for my first time experience. I really don't think this has so much to do with age so much as morality structure and perhaps also has something to do with availability.
I really do believe that you're on the right track. The old saying "make love not war" has a firm foundation in reality; my persoanl conflicts have generally been of an internal nature. I have had some abdominal problems ever since I was 11 and got typhoid, but while I find faults in the world as well as in myself, I don't feel that the solution is violence. There are those, however, who feel they have little to lose and a chip on their shoulder to how certain individuals or institutions have treated them can be very dangerous indeed. In all honesty, I think that school should teach a subject that it generally doesn't touch at all- how to create and maintain friendships and romantic relationships. I once took a course to get some english teacher credentials in Mexico. In one part of it, I partnered up with another student teacher, and she came up with the idea of the boys writing anonymous english notes to the girls. It produced some truly remarkable results. This is only a tiny piece of what could be done, but isn't done for fear of being politically incorrect. The results of dealing with people who suffer forms of extreme isolation from their peers are like the Virginia Tech and Columbine episodes, but while not everyone who suffers this isolation does such things, they generally all suffer the same thing.
I myself suffered -some- isolation as a kid, but I virtually always had atleast 1 good friend at school; I also have a rather calm demeaner that I'm sure saved me from many problems. Furthermore, I had 3 siblings and 2 parents with whom I had a fairly good life at home.
Personaly, I believe that part of the reason that many islamic countries have so much violence and violence in their laws (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) is because of their overly restrictive mores which discourage youth from spending too much time with women, which may in turn lead to much more ominous ways of spending that energy...
I agree. At 20 years of age, however, I felt it was time to try it out.
swarm said:
Sigh. Prove that my "moment with a hooker was, without a doubt, a moment of lame and doubly so because it was your first time."
swarm said:
Prove it.
That only means that majorities have found it to be immoral. It doesn't prove anything. The fact that it is legal in some places, even in the U.S., also indicates that there is certainly no consensus on the issue.
swam said:
Yes, it very well may be the oldest profession. I believe it's beyond overkill and actually makes the situation worse then it could be. From what I've heard, where prostitution is legal in the U.S., sex workers have much more of an ability to protect themselves then in places where this isn't the case.
Perhaps not in your mind. You may, ofcourse, continue to believe whatever you like, but please keep your beliefs that can't be questioned to yourself (this is a forum for discussion, not for preaching).
swarm said:
I also don't have to 'live'. If you want to be more then an automaton to support your body's existence, you attempt to achieve what you most greatly desire. I personally don't want to simply be 'another mouth to feed'.
swarm said:
Which in turn sounds like your girlfriends are hookers. I've personally never had a girlfriend who was a hooker.
swarm said:
No, only that I'm saying that I am
Yes, you did. So what will it be then? almost irrevocably lame? Passably lame? If only you hadn't done it lame?
Ah yes, 'without a doubt'
Charlie Sheen doesn't strike me as a total loser although it seems he has decided that the frequent hooker hookups weren't such a good idea. He even believes that WTC 7 was taken down by controlled demolition, something I give him kudos for.
swarm said:
You seem to be ever quick on the draw with unsubstantiated assertions, that's for sure...
Good stuff. In future, however, when debating an issue, you may want to provide a little more evidence. Confidence in one's beliefs can actually be a hindrance if it isn't based on actual evidence.