Sex slavery still alive and well in England by Khyron

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Where are some of our more religious-minded folk when you really want a diversity of opinion ??

Looks like I'm the best you're going to get in here this time Rue.

Can somebody put Cit on a leash please?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Can somebody put Cit on a leash please?

So you have no reply, hardly surprising for you, maybe you could try a lame personal insult while acting like your shit don't stink, oh never mind, you've done that one already

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:24 PM

Okay.... I'll bite.

Reply to what? You didn't ask me any questions. I was just assuming you knew it all already. What is there to say?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:29 PM

I don't think I know everything, I leave that too you, along with the "Aren't I so much better than other people" overtones.

Take a stroll back up the thread, you threw a wobbly and started insulting me for no reason other than you can't understand the purpose of a simple observation.

What is there to say? I don't know, you're the one baiting, you tell me?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:51 PM

I'm not going to argue with you over nothing Cit. Your last post indicated that I should have replied. I'm just wondering what I was supposed to reply to.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:56 PM

I asked "what about Amsterdam" as a place that has legalised prostitution but doesn't have the problems you said it would.

I pointed out that the logic behind you're assertion struck me as rather similar to the logic as to why women should wear Burkas. I later on gave the reasoning as to why I think that.

In fact you did reply, you insulted me for daring to question your position.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I asked "what about Amsterdam" as a place that has legalised prostitution but doesn't have the problems you said it would.

Okay... I did see that. I didn't know it was directed towards me. My bad.

I don't know anything about that situation in Amsterdam, but I would be willing to bet there are problems of that sort there. I think we can both agree that there is plenty of stuff that happens in US and UK that isn't reported on or doesn't get much coverage. I mean, come on, rehab clinics in the US are developing wings to deal with video game addiction. VIDEO GAME ADDICTION for cryin out loud! There are countless people out there with serious internet porn addictions because it's available. I don't know about you, but I think that sex and women in general can be much more addictive than either of these and if it's a guaranteed thing with no repercussions, aside from the inevetability that you will go broke if you can't control yourself, well.... that's a can of worms I believe is best left unopened, and mankind will be better for it.

I guess I will be the one to say that if we legalize prostitution, we may as well just legalize crack and meth and herion and whatever new designer drugs they make.

In this regard, I don't think your parallel to burkas is accurate at all. I can see where if you word everything the right way, you can say something like that, but these are two totally seperate issues. I take offence to that remark and I don't give a shit if you say you didn't mean it as a jab. I am all for women's rights and your comment sarcastically says that I am not.

If people seriously believe that you can draw real parallels (the kind that invalidate my opinion on this) then you can draw parallels about anything to anything and completley blow anybodies opinions out of the water with some clever word manipulation. You've got a silver tounge boy.

Quote:
In fact you did reply, you insulted me for daring to question your position.

Cit... as I stated above, your original post about the Burkas was very insulting to me. You don't have to swear to be a troll. With a single sentence you try to effect the way other people see me and my arguement by making implications about me that are completely unfounded and untrue. Your use of the English language and your manipulation is scary sometimes. Personally, I view almost everything you have to say to me as an insult.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 24, 2007 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Self preservation comes above sex as far as natural instincts are concerned. Also there has been a vast amount of civil conditioning we've all experienced to curb most of our behavior when we know other people are watching, especially sexual behavior. Both of these facts make your example of a job interview and a house burning down and killing you very, very different from an addiction which takes place virtually free of imminent doom and is also done in secrecy, where nobody you know is going to know (or at least there is that assumption going in, or they wouldn't go in, in the first place).

So are you in favor of restricting access to anything that's capable of being an object of addiction to protect people with addiction-prone personalities (and I refuse to categorize all men as this)?

Because, while you claim that buying sex from a person legally would be more addicting than anything else, I have yet to see proof of this and in turn I claim that no such thing is going to happen. Some people are alcoholics, some people are video game addicts, some people are internet porn addicts. They are not all people and not even the vast majority of people. You can't outlaw everything because some people aren't fit to control themselves.

Plus, there is one giant difference.

Keeping prostitution illegal harms women. True and real harm. It just cannot be regulated and controlled because it is illegal.

You weigh that as less important than a theoretical harm coming to men based on your theory that a significant amount of them do not have the self-control to use their brain.

But in that case, they could just as well be internet-porn-addicted or alcoholics or druggies. Responsibility is a big part of life, the kind of responsibility every adult person - male or female - should be able to exert in order to be allowed to roam the planet freely and not be institutionalized as a danger to themselves.

Quote:

Lastly, I'm not even aware of you asking a similar question before. This one is worded very differently from anything you said before and would have required a much shorter answer. Thanks for making me type all that

I asked if you're not ashamed to describe all men as gibbering idiots.

Since you implied in your assertion that the legal offer of sex on sale would turn a significant number of them into instant-addicts without free will and that therefor prostitutes are better of suffering unprotected by the law.

Basically, you are saying that it's okay for women to suffer in illegality because men can't be bothered to control their burning sex addiction.

I call bullshit.

Quote:
I'd like you to point out to me where I was in the least bit trollish about women's lib. I simply mentioned it and it seems to me that since you're not agreeing with what I have to say, you're just calling me a troll.

You said: "Sorry baby. The womens lib movement pretty much cut off all of our balls."

Which is a) not true and b) irrelevant to the subject.

a) If you consider equal standards of behavior as "cutting off men's balls", well... I do truly feel sorry.
b) This has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of prostitution.

That coupled with your glib tone, I considered trollish. Sorry if I was presumptious.

Quote:
I don't think that prostitution is covered under women's lib, nor do I think it should be.

Oh, it absolutely is part of it and should be! What could be a more fitting subject to feminism than women doing business with their bodies? It's theirs to sell if they want to. Except the law says it's not and thus "theirs" and "want to" become very complex, muddled and dangerous issues.

Quote:
You certainly seem to want the entire hooker population to be legalized and put under government regulation which in my mind would one day lead to a large portion of society living the Inara type life... minus space and all, of course.

I'm confused why you would think that.

Do you think that suddenly every single woman in the world is going to want to be a prostitute, just because it's legal and safe? It may shock you, but a large part are still going to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, supermarket cashiers, hairdressers and housewives, etc.

Not to mention, how do you suddenly see prostitution making the leap from right now to "the Inara type life"? That's ridiculous.

I am talking about removing the danger of rape and violence without legal recourse.

Quote:

There is no way 99% of the male population could even survive in a world like that without women's consent, and I ain't ashamed to admit it.

I think you should be. Claiming that men are slaves to their sexual desires is both untrue and a cheap excuse for not taking responsibility.

Quote:
The only thing that I think they lie about on the show is that Inara would actually be as cold as Estella from Great Expectations and there would be absolutley no way she would be attracted to Mal other than sexually.... being completely detatched from normal human emotions such as love.

I am reluctant to discuss the show on this thread, as it's way off topic. Let's just say I have no idea what makes you think that she would be detached from emotions. There's no reason for such an assumption.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 24, 2007 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So are you in favor of restricting access to anything that's capable of being an object of addiction to protect people with addiction-prone personalities (and I refuse to categorize all men as this)?

All I have to say is if you're going to take the freedom to do harm to yourself as you please, you had better be behind smoker's rights then.

Quote:
Because, while you claim that buying sex from a person legally would be more addicting than anything else, I have yet to see proof of this and in turn I claim that no such thing is going to happen. Some people are alcoholics, some people are video game addicts, some people are internet porn addicts. They are not all people and not even the vast majority of people. You can't outlaw everything because some people aren't fit to control themselves.

You don't have proof of it because most of it is done in secret. If you haven't heard, 70% of the internet is porn. It is the single most lucrative business on the internet and one of the major reasons so many people have machines that they don't understand in their house today. It may not be all people, but if you think we live in a Disney world, you're living a dream. I'll come right out and say that I haven't had a serious girlfriend for years. I won't blame this on the internet. I don't want the hassle anymore and as much as I can't stand being around them after the novelty wears off, I've hurt women emotionally more than I'd care to admit. I don't want to do that anymore. The internet makes romance very easy to avoid 99% of the time.

I really hope you're all about smokers rights if this is your stance on prostitution.

Quote:
Keeping prostitution illegal harms women. True and real harm. It just cannot be regulated and controlled because it is illegal.

You weigh that as less important than a theoretical harm coming to men based on your theory that a significant amount of them do not have the self-control to use their brain.

Yes. It does. Their choice though. Not mine. What part of that aren't you understanding?

This story talks about crime rings and something should be done about that, but that doesn't mean we legalize prostitution just to make it safe for the women who choose to be whores to make a living. I don't care that they get hurt anymore than I care about a soldier dying in battle. Is it tragic? Yes. Did they know it might happen going in? Yes.

Quote:
But in that case, they could just as well be internet-porn-addicted or alcoholics or druggies. Responsibility is a big part of life, the kind of responsibility every adult person - male or female - should be able to exert in order to be allowed to roam the planet freely and not be institutionalized as a danger to themselves.

Responsibility is a big part of life. That's why I'm glad our politicians are responsible about this decision.

Let me ask you this.... do you think it is more likely that prostitution will be legalized now that there are more women in office, or less likely? You're in the vast minority on this issue, though it may not look like it on this particular board. The more women we have in office, the less likely this will ever be taken seriously.

Quote:
I asked if you're not ashamed to describe all men as gibbering idiots.

Since you implied in your assertion that the legal offer of sex on sale would turn a significant number of them into instant-addicts without free will and that therefor prostitutes are better of suffering unprotected by the law.

I already answered yes and yes, so this is twice now that I have no Idea why you're even bringing this up. If you really want links to stuff I can show you. I personally know a woman who makes over $20,000.00 a month using men who actually have purchased blackmail applications from her and given her all of their personal infomation as well as their friends and families personal information. Nothing illegal about what she's doing either because it's consentual blackmail. Trust me.... I know MUCH more about this than you know or then I probably should. I'm not making this up.

Quote:
Basically, you are saying that it's okay for women to suffer in illegality because men can't be bothered to control their burning sex addiction.

I call bullshit.

If that is what I was saying, one of my multiple personalities would have already called bullshit on me. I'm for fixing the problem, but certainly not if it means creating a monster that will inevetably change society as we know it. I'm much closer to this than you obviously have ever been and the outcome of such a decision will be larger than you could ever imagine. I'm all for gambling and prostitution at Vegas. I'm all for a place to get away and do something like that. I just don't think we all need to shit where we eat.

Quote:
You said: "Sorry baby. The womens lib movement pretty much cut off all of our balls."

Which is a) not true and b) irrelevant to the subject.

a) If you consider equal standards of behavior as "cutting off men's balls", well... I do truly feel sorry.
b) This has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of prostitution.

It is a) very true and b) very relevent to the subject. Sorry you disagree.

a) I'm not getting into the logistics of this with you because this single bullet is an entire thread of its own.

b) This has very much to do with the legality of prostitution. Again, I'm seeing this from a different standpoint and simply because you can't see my point of view, doesn't mean it's irrelevent.

Quote:
That coupled with your glib tone, I considered trollish. Sorry if I was presumptious.

I'm almost always glib. I assume you've been around long enough to know that, so like a prostitute should, you should have already known what you were getting yourself into. If you mess with the bull, you get the horns. Trust me, you're not getting any "special" treatment from me here. Just ask Cit. No apologies here.

Quote:
By me: I don't think that prostitution is covered under women's lib, nor do I think it should be.

By you: Oh, it absolutely is part of it and should be! What could be a more fitting subject to feminism than women doing business with their bodies? It's theirs to sell if they want to. Except the law says it's not and thus "theirs" and "want to" become very complex, muddled and dangerous issues.

Wrong. I believe dealing with women being abused is definately a feminism issue. Selling of your own bodies is not something most feminists would condone. Prove me wrong.

Quote:
I said: You certainly seem to want the entire hooker population to be legalized and put under government regulation which in my mind would one day lead to a large portion of society living the Inara type life... minus space and all, of course.

You Said: I'm confused why you would think that.

Do you think that suddenly every single woman in the world is going to want to be a prostitute, just because it's legal and safe? It may shock you, but a large part are still going to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, supermarket cashiers, hairdressers and housewives, etc.

Wrong again. I said the entire HOOKER population. If that's how you read what I said then you are the one equating all women with hookers here, not me.

I'll be back to finish the rest. I'm leaving work and probably won't be on for the weekend. Have a nice one.

Respectfully,
6SJ

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Okay... I did see that. I didn't know it was directed towards me. My bad.

Completely my fault, I should have directed the statement.

Quote:
I don't know anything about that situation in Amsterdam, but I would be willing to bet there are problems of that sort there.

I've not heard of anything of the sort. Last I checked Cannabis's legalisation didn't cause the entire Dutch population to become Heroin addicts either.

Quote:
There are countless people out there with serious internet porn addictions because it's available. I don't know about you, but I think that sex and women in general can be much more addictive than either of these and if it's a guaranteed thing with no repercussions, aside from the inevetability that you will go broke if you can't control yourself, well.... that's a can of worms I believe is best left unopened, and mankind will be better for it.

And here was me thinking you favoured freedom of choice, minimum to no government intervention and personal responsibility. You don't get to be freedom of choice and dictate what those choices are, you don't get to be anti-government intervention then demand legal intervention in choices you don't like, and you don't get to expect personal responsibility while expecting prostitutes to take responsibility for their clients actions and decisions.

Quote:
I guess I will be the one to say that if we legalize prostitution, we may as well just legalize crack and meth and herion and whatever new designer drugs they make.

Not really, because the meth-amphetamine and the Heroin aren't people that suffer hardships because of their illegality, and they are substances that cause measurable harm to those that indulge, they are, in a very really sense, a completely different thing entirely. If Burkas to Prostitutes is Apples to Oranges Prostitutes to Drugs is Oranges to Orang-utans.

Quote:
In this regard, I don't think your parallel to burkas is accurate at all.

I've given clear reasoning. I have not twisted what you said, despite protestations to the contrary.

Now correct me if anywhere I get you're position wrong:
You think prostitution should be illegal because if it is legal Men won't be able to control themselves and will be off fornicating with prostitutes like a rampant rabbit after an overdose of Viagra eventually making themselves bankrupt (and rather sore I suspect).

Now, surely the suggestion is that Women's behaviour needs to be moderated lawfully because otherwise Men will not be able to control themselves? I can't for the life of me see how this is not a relevant conclusion to come too.

Also if you or anyone else thinks I'm getting the idea behind the Burka wrong please correct me:
The Burka is worn because it's believed that men will not be able to control their carnal desires and thoughts if there is naked female flesh about (you know like an ankle or forearm or something, those cheeky little minxes) so must be covered up at all times when in public.

Again, surely the suggestion is that Women's behaviour needs to be moderated lawfully because otherwise Men will not be able to control themselves?

Perhaps there is a parallel there, but you aren't prepared to accept it? Or perhaps you just haven't explained you're position very well thus causing confusion?

Quote:
I can see where if you word everything the right way, you can say something like that, but these are two totally seperate issues. I take offence to that remark and I don't give a shit if you say you didn't mean it as a jab. I am all for women's rights and your comment sarcastically says that I am not.

And I'm having a hard time right now giving a shit that you found what I see as the logical implications of your own statements as insulting. Frankly to me you're beginning to sound like the person who said “I'm not a racist but it's the blacks that are the fucking problem”.

Quote:
If people seriously believe that you can draw real parallels (the kind that invalidate my opinion on this) then you can draw parallels about anything to anything and completley blow anybodies opinions out of the water with some clever word manipulation. You've got a silver tounge boy.

Perhaps, but I'm still at a loss to explain why you CAN'T see the parallel.

Quote:
Cit... as I stated above, your original post about the Burkas was very insulting to me. You don't have to swear to be a troll.

There's nothing trollish in what I said, adversely compare it with your reply. You need to learn the difference between attacking your position and attacking you.

However it could be argued that Women having to suffer illegal prostitution and all the ills that pertains because Men are incapable of controlling themselves is not only an insult to Women, but Men as well.

Quote:
With a single sentence you try to effect the way other people see me and my arguement by making implications about me that are completely unfounded and untrue. Your use of the English language and your manipulation is scary sometimes.

Even if that's true you hardly did you're self any favours by throwing a tantrum.

Quote:
Personally, I view almost everything you have to say to me as an insult.

The nub of the matter m'lord. If you want to see an insult, can you guess what you are going to see?

EDIT:

Quote:
I really hope you're all about smokers rights if this is your stance on prostitution.

I hope you're not if this is your stance on prostitution, or indeed anything addictive it would seem. Some people are addicted to food, should we make food illegal? And before we get into another round of the "make all drugs legal" analogy I'm categorically not saying that food's 'addictive nature' is a reason for making prostitution legal. What I am saying is that the possibility of some men becoming sex addicts (far from a new concept BTW, it's a recognised addiction right now) isn't any sort of argument against legal prostitution

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 25, 2007 2:44 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I really hope you're all about smokers rights if this is your stance on prostitution.

Don't forget that the anti-smoking stance is not about the addiction itself, but the harm done to oneself, which leads to medical conditions that in many cases end up costing the state a lot, as well as (perhaps more importantly) the harm done to others by second-hand smoke.

Would smoking be a completely harmless addiction, many perople's stance wouldn't be against it, but it's not. On the other hand, legalised prostitution, if enforced properly, is harmless to the parties concerned.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 26, 2007 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
All I have to say is if you're going to take the freedom to do harm to yourself as you please, you had better be behind smoker's rights then.

Smokers' rights: Freedom to harm themselves. I got no problem with that.

NOT smokers' rights: Freedom to harm others through second-hand smoke. In all places but their own home and privately agreed places, I have no problem with smoking bans.

Quote:

You don't have proof of it because most of it is done in secret. If you haven't heard, 70% of the internet is porn. It is the single most lucrative business on the internet and one of the major reasons so many people have machines that they don't understand in their house today. It may not be all people, but if you think we live in a Disney world, you're living a dream.

Hey. Your presumption that I'm naively imagining the world to be happy and clean is seriously pissing me off. Quit that.

I KNOW that sex is a huge business. And I have given no indication that I do not know.

But you're just as deluded as you imply I am, if you think that everyone who consumes internet porn (or normal porn) is in acute danger of addiction.

Quote:

I'll come right out and say that I haven't had a serious girlfriend for years. I won't blame this on the internet. I don't want the hassle anymore and as much as I can't stand being around them after the novelty wears off, I've hurt women emotionally more than I'd care to admit. I don't want to do that anymore. The internet makes romance very easy to avoid 99% of the time.

That's wonderful for you. How is this relevant to the subject?

Quote:

This story talks about crime rings and something should be done about that, but that doesn't mean we legalize prostitution just to make it safe for the women who choose to be whores to make a living. I don't care that they get hurt anymore than I care about a soldier dying in battle. Is it tragic? Yes. Did they know it might happen going in? Yes.

The difference, of course, being that violence and killing is a legitimate part of war.

Rape and violence and murder are not legitimate parts of anything, prostitution or not. Sex for money is prostitution. The violence, rape, murder and drugs that surround it are down the its illegality and the way it prevents regulation.

Quite simply, I think it's wrong to make prostitution illegal because a) it's obviously not working and causes more harm than good and b) a woman or a man should have the right to sell sex if they want to.

Quote:

Let me ask you this.... do you think it is more likely that prostitution will be legalized now that there are more women in office, or less likely? You're in the vast minority on this issue, though it may not look like it on this particular board. The more women we have in office, the less likely this will ever be taken seriously.

Because women don't take prostitution seriously? Right.

What's your point with this, though, I wonder. Women in politics haven't yet tackled the subject so this means you must be right, or what?

Quote:

I already answered yes and yes, so this is twice now that I have no Idea why you're even bringing this up. If you really want links to stuff I can show you.

Relevant, legitimate statistics that prove that legal prostitution is harmful to men to a degree that the world is better off with illegal prostitution? Bring it on.

Quote:

I personally know a woman who makes over $20,000.00 a month using men who actually have purchased blackmail applications from her and given her all of their personal infomation as well as their friends and families personal information. Nothing illegal about what she's doing either because it's consentual blackmail. Trust me.... I know MUCH more about this than you know or then I probably should. I'm not making this up.

I'm not accusing you of making this up. But I do think that you are taking one or more extreme cases and blowing them out of proportion to the general public, drawing conclusions that are both insulting to men and lazy excuses not to improve a bad thing.

Quote:

If that is what I was saying, one of my multiple personalities would have already called bullshit on me. I'm for fixing the problem, but certainly not if it means creating a monster that will inevetably change society as we know it.

I'm much closer to this than you obviously have ever been and the outcome of such a decision will be larger than you could ever imagine. I'm all for gambling and prostitution at Vegas. I'm all for a place to get away and do something like that. I just don't think we all need to shit where we eat.

You claim to be an expert but have stated yourself that you have no idea how things are in places where prostitution is actually legal. Excuse me if I don't take your word about this for fact.

Quote:

Quote:
You said: "Sorry baby. The womens lib movement pretty much cut off all of our balls."

Which is a) not true and b) irrelevant to the subject.

a) If you consider equal standards of behavior as "cutting off men's balls", well... I do truly feel sorry.
b) This has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of prostitution.

b) This has very much to do with the legality of prostitution. Again, I'm seeing this from a different standpoint and simply because you can't see my point of view, doesn't mean it's irrelevent.

Then say how it's relevant.

Quote:

Quote:
That coupled with your glib tone, I considered trollish. Sorry if I was presumptious.

I'm almost always glib. I assume you've been around long enough to know that, so like a prostitute should, you should have already known what you were getting yourself into.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that following your discussion history was a prerequisite to participating here.

The fact that you're "always glib" doesn't make it alright for you to talk to me this way and I'll reserve the right to complain about it, thank you very much.

Quote:
Quote:
By me: I don't think that prostitution is covered under women's lib, nor do I think it should be.

By you: Oh, it absolutely is part of it and should be! What could be a more fitting subject to feminism than women doing business with their bodies? It's theirs to sell if they want to. Except the law says it's not and thus "theirs" and "want to" become very complex, muddled and dangerous issues.

Wrong. I believe dealing with women being abused is definately a feminism issue. Selling of your own bodies is not something most feminists would condone. Prove me wrong.

I am a feminist. I condone it. Ta-daa.

Not all women or all feminists might agree with me on this subject, but a lot of them do. It's the current, illegal practice that's oppressive and despicable.

Feminism isn't only about helping victims. It's also about giving women full rights about their bodies.

Quote:

Quote:
I said: You certainly seem to want the entire hooker population to be legalized and put under government regulation which in my mind would one day lead to a large portion of society living the Inara type life... minus space and all, of course.

You Said: I'm confused why you would think that.

Do you think that suddenly every single woman in the world is going to want to be a prostitute, just because it's legal and safe? It may shock you, but a large part are still going to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, supermarket cashiers, hairdressers and housewives, etc.

Wrong again. I said the entire HOOKER population. If that's how you read what I said then you are the one equating all women with hookers here, not me.

You also sad "a large portion of society". Which implies a whole lot more than the current hooker population. Read your own post before you try and pin me on inconsistencies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And here was me thinking you favoured freedom of choice, minimum to no government intervention and personal responsibility. You don't get to be freedom of choice and dictate what those choices are, you don't get to be anti-government intervention then demand legal intervention in choices you don't like, and you don't get to expect personal responsibility while expecting prostitutes to take responsibility for their clients actions and decisions.

You know Cit... I thought a lot about this over the weekend and I've come to the conclusion, even before I read this post, that you're right. I seriously think that legislation to legalize the prostitution trade will have devistating consequences to society as we know it, but I can't in good conscience continue the stance that I've taken here. This is contradictory to any argument I've had against Government playing nanny and I am forced to take it back.

Quote:
Not really, because the meth-amphetamine and the Heroin aren't people that suffer hardships because of their illegality, and they are substances that cause measurable harm to those that indulge, they are, in a very really sense, a completely different thing entirely. If Burkas to Prostitutes is Apples to Oranges Prostitutes to Drugs is Oranges to Orang-utans.

Well... we shall see, but I strongly believe that there will be dire consequences by legalizing prostitution and then we will see that legal or not, prostitution hurts people (and not just the women who are being taken advantage of now). These maladies may not be physical (entirely physical) or immediately noticible upon sight, but they will be there nonetheless, eating away at society like a cancer. I wonder how many "happily" married politicians will have their careers either shot or owned by somebody else when their prostitution records are used as blackmail against them... you know there will be detailed records of any transaction of this type. Of course, by then it will be legal so nobody should mind if families are ruined by prostitution because if it is not illegal in the first place then it can't be bad. But we know that this won't be the case and people always tend to hold politicians to a higher code of ethics than the proles, lest they get the "Governor Gray Davis" treatment and find Vin Disel sitting in their seat before their term is up. (Aside: Why oh why can't we impeach Bush?)

I still feel there is a huge difference between the Burka and prostitution. I am all for women getting ahead. I don't appreciate the implications that I'm racist either. This particular topic hits very close to home for me and as I said before, you can't label this black and white. I think it is bad what happens to women in this "trade", and something surely needs to be done, but I don't feel that unleashing something so potentially devistating on the public is a healthy alternative. There at least needs to be some serious debate about the pros and cons of such an action and how it can alter many aspects of our lives. A responsible decision needs to be made here, not one made of emotions and male-hating feminism. Again.... we'll see what happens if anybody can actually curry enough political support for this issue to even be considered.

I was going to reply to the rest of your comments, but considering my change of view here, I don't really feel any of it is necessary. I just want you to respect that I still have serious reservations about this and it concerns me a great deal, but in the interest of the bigger picture I can't be against legalized prostitution simply on principal. Individual choice and responsibility are more important, and you're right, I can't change my stance when it suits me. If men, including myself, chose to let an evil and heartless woman ruin their lives, financially and otherwise, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

And to anybody with unconstitutional words about the smoking issue:

Come and talk to me about pollution and second hand smoke when you drive a clean automobile. There is no possible way that I could put out as much pollution in my lifetime as a single automobile can put out in its comparatively short life expectancy. I think the world would be a better place if all the nannies in the world ran their cars in enclosed spaces for a few hours, as they would have us smoke our cigarettes.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:26 PM

I'm disappointed Cit. I surely thought you'd have something more to say about this matter. Did you lose interest?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm disappointed Cit. I surely thought you'd have something more to say about this matter. Did you lose interest?

Actually I do have something else to say, not much since there's not much debate left when the other side says "You know I agree", but I'm kinda busy so the reply is on a list of things somewhere beneth "ring estate agent as to the reasons they haven't got back to me about my offer on that flat".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:21 PM

That's the cit I know. Full of wit and sarcasm. Color me non-disappointed now!

Well, I do agree with you. On a technicality. Albeit a very important one which trumped any arguement I could make about my feelings on this case. Thanks for pointing that out to me, just in case I hadn't been letting that contradiction with my core values eat away at me all weekend. (It really did..... sometimes I really shock myself with the the depths of which my pathetic-ness can reach)

So..... I did say that I cannot argue about legislation governing personal freedoms. But I never changed my stance on what the consequences of these actions could mean for our future. Would you be willing to admit that there is at least a possibility that there could be very real effects caused by the legalization of prostitution on say family life for example? What of my referencing blackmail? Of course if you legalized prostitution, the government would have to make and enforce a hundred other laws regarding things such as:

Who is eligible to have sex?

How much can be charged for sex?

What the government will take as "income" tax?

What the government will take as "use" tax?

How long will it take the government to go from saying it's perfectly okay to have sex with a hooker to turning on it like they did cigarettes? You know, not making it illegal, but continually raising the taxes on it until it eats up a good portion of the john's income while the hooker doesn't even see a dime of it?

What social programs would the taxes be used to pay for?

Would the taxes be used to pay down the national debt?

Who will protect these women in leiu of a pimp because these women will still find themselves in dangerous situations whether it's legal or not?

If videotape is used to document any possible abuse either way, who gets to see it?

Will we put the pimps on unemployment or jail or will they become the hookers "legal" guardians?
What is the punishment for abusing a hooker?

What is the punishment, if any, for a hooker taking a man for everything he is worth?

What are the rules surronding a married man or woman and using a hooker's services?

Will using a hooker's services, which would now be legal, be grounds for divorce?

Who will have access to the medical records of hookers and johns?

How long will these medical records be kept on file?

Do you get frequent flyer miles?

Will hookers be able to do things like, go to a church or the movie theatre dressed like a hooker and try to pick up johns?

Will hookers be able to advertize on TV like a phone sex line or Girls Gone Wild?

If so, what hours of the day and on which stations would they be allowed to advertise?

If a hooker can advertise, and even more, go out into neighborhoods to seduce johns, and she starts seducing husbands and ruins their marriages, and the wife retaliates by say, killing the hooker, will the charges against her be as serious as if she just chopped up the next door neighbor with an axe because her rose garden was nicer?

If the hooker blackmails the john, what protection will the government offer the john? Afterall, this is completely legal now.

There are a million more questions to ask, but I don't think I need to be the only one coming up with them. This is a very serious topic and I feel that these questions warrant answering. If the governments we have decided to just one day legalize prostitution I can guarantee that each of these questions will come up and there will be lawsuits and murder trials at some point. To what extent? I couldn't say. Maybe not nearly as bad as I think, but it will happen. Stranger shit happens every day for no reason at all.

The point is, these are just some of the many issues that will come up and I think that this foresight is much more valuable beforehand, rather than just making it legal because hookers got it bad. I'm not trying to downplay the terrible way these women get treated today, but I'm just trying to illustrate that this is not a simple black and white issue that somebody can just vote yay or neigh and just move on.

Speaking of moving on, I realize that most of the RWED has moved on to the next topic that we'll all argue about and forget 3 weeks from now, but I feel this topic is far from dead.

Any thoughts? Anybody?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 5:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Do you get frequent flyer miles?

ROFLMAO

I'd say unionize them, with a madam who is retired from active service vetting the clients and keeping things in order, muchlike the setup in "Heart of Gold".

In spite of current illegality, many of the "Blue Light" facilities on the east coast do a pretty good job of self-regulation as it is, in all honesty.

Yes there may be some social consequences, but life is a dangerous place, and the trouble with any kind of prohibition is generally the same, increased crime, violence and danger.

The benefits of legalization outweigh the risks, as they often do, and personal responsibility is a far better bulwark than laws designed to protect us from ourselves.

Now where did I put my floor-length mink and walkin stick....

-Mac Daddy Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 7:34 AM

SHINYED

Been thinkin' some more 'bout this....I keep coming back to the same thing:
What sick, demented & totally pathetic scumbag fucking losers would want to have sex with a whore??????????

With all the young girls running around these days...dressing like their media idol tramps & sluts, and with the collective morality of gerbils in heat...even fat, ugly, pimple-faced wimps and social misfits can get laid these days..without having to pay ( directly ) for it.

I've seen videos of guys in Amsterdam "picking" their whores from their little red windows...the whores all look worn-out, shabby, and "infectious", and the johns all look like that guy who survived in " Bushwhacked" later to become a Reaver.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 12:58 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Been thinkin' some more 'bout this....I keep coming back to the same thing:
What sick, demented & totally pathetic scumbag fucking losers would want to have sex with a whore??????????

Heh heh. Yeah, that pretty much sums up my personal feelings towards it as well. But for the benefit of the prostitutes and those losers they service, it should be legalised, for all the reasons already mentioned.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 10:54 PM

Well, most of these questions do seem somewhat silly and answer themselves, but I'll give it a try.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Who is eligible to have sex?

Any legal adult (meaning they are over 18 and legally capable of giving consent).

Quote:

How much can be charged for sex?

Pretty much up to the prostitute and the customers. This doesn't need to be legally regulated.

Hair dressers can charge as much as they want, as long as it's mutually agreed to and prices obviously vary quite a lot. It depends on what the customers are willing to pay and how much the prostitute feels she/he needs to make.

Quote:

What the government will take as "income" tax?

What the government will take as "use" tax?

I honestly don't know. How do they tax porn actors, for example? I'll honestly admit that I don't have the first clue about taxes, so I'll let other people answer this question, but I don't think that the answer is impossible to find.

Quote:

How long will it take the government to go from saying it's perfectly okay to have sex with a hooker to turning on it like they did cigarettes? You know, not making it illegal, but continually raising the taxes on it until it eats up a good portion of the john's income while the hooker doesn't even see a dime of it?

Purely speculative, since the dangers of prostitution (to health, most of all) are already well-known and it goes from illegality into legality first, unlike cigarettes.
Trying to justify crippling taxes would be harder because new dangers would hardly pop up.

Quote:

What social programs would the taxes be used to pay for?

Would the taxes be used to pay down the national debt?

Who cares? Again I ask about the perfectly legal porn industrie and where their taxes are going. I'm sure parallel solutions can be found and I don't see much uproar there.

Quote:

Who will protect these women in leiu of a pimp because these women will still find themselves in dangerous situations whether it's legal or not?

Depending on whether the prostitutes want to work alone or rent work space in a special house or even work together as business partners, private security might be hired.
Pimps could also still exist, however the amount of power they would be allowed to hold would not exceed that of any employer or manager, regarding the amount of money they get to keep for the services they provide their employees.

Prostitution is never going to be a safe job, and everyone should know that going in, but at least they will be able to go to the police now and report abuse without deterrant.

Quote:

If videotape is used to document any possible abuse either way, who gets to see it?

I think there are precedents for this type of thing, right? Instances where taping is allowed and where it's not and who gets to see the result in the case of it being proof of a crime?

I do think that taping would not be allowed without letting the customer know, and in the case of abuse the customer would get to sue.

Quote:

Will we put the pimps on unemployment or jail or will they become the hookers "legal" guardians?

Why on Earth would they become their legal guardians??

Pimp and prostitute, should they choose to work together, would be entering a legal contract of some kind, making them business partners.

Quote:

What is the punishment for abusing a hooker?

The same as for abusing any woman, of course.

Quote:

What is the punishment, if any, for a hooker taking a man for everything he is worth?

If by that you mean that the man spends all his money on the prostitute until he is broke, I'd say the man is out of luck. Adults should take responsibility for their actions.

Is it super-moral of the prostitute, provided she knows about the man's financial status? No. Is she under any obligation to protect him from himself? No more than any casino is responsible for protecting gamblers.

Quote:

What are the rules surronding a married man or woman and using a hooker's services?

Will using a hooker's services, which would now be legal, be grounds for divorce?

Same as with any extra-marital sex it is up to the couple to decide if it's alright or not. In most cases, probably not. It'd be no more or less grounds for divorce than an affair that is not paid for.

That's just common sense!

Quote:

Who will have access to the medical records of hookers and johns?

How long will these medical records be kept on file?

How's this regulated with porn actors? I'd say, similarly.

Quote:

Do you get frequent flyer miles?

If it's a viable business option.. why not? Really up to the "service provider".

Quote:

Will hookers be able to do things like, go to a church or the movie theatre dressed like a hooker and try to pick up johns?

Most places have pretty clear rules about conducting outside business on their premises, so I'd say this is well-covered. Whether they can dress like hookers is really up to any place's dress code, if it's there.

Quote:

Will hookers be able to advertize on TV like a phone sex line or Girls Gone Wild?

If they choose to, I don't see why not.

Quote:

If so, what hours of the day and on which stations would they be allowed to advertise?

Same as phone sex lines or any sexual advertisment on tv. Restricted to certain, late hours.

Quote:

If a hooker can advertise, and even more, go out into neighborhoods to seduce johns, and she starts seducing husbands and ruins their marriages, and the wife retaliates by say, killing the hooker, will the charges against her be as serious as if she just chopped up the next door neighbor with an axe because her rose garden was nicer?

Clarification: prostitutes don't ruin marriages. It's the spouse's decision to cheat.

Murder is murder. I don't see why you're asking for distinctions here.

Quote:

If the hooker blackmails the john, what protection will the government offer the john? Afterall, this is completely legal now.

Same as with any other type of blackmail? Extra-marital sex is not illegal, but it can lead to blackmail, too. Blackmail is illegal.

It's in a prostitute's best interest to keep confidentiality. Smart ones would make it a legal part of their business policy.

But really, customers just have to a) accept what they are doing, and b) exercise common sense. If confidentiality is not legally agreed to, it's their own damn fault if it comes to light.

Quote:

I'm not trying to downplay the terrible way these women get treated today, but I'm just trying to illustrate that this is not a simple black and white issue that somebody can just vote yay or neigh and just move on.

It's not all that complicated, though, either. There are precedents of legal sexual work in the porn industry and even legal prostitution. It can be done, and has been, and the world has not ended.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:39 AM

Wow. You have all the answers. I'll remember that the next time I have a question about..... well, anything!

Word up Mac Daddy Frem!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Why oh why can't we impeach Bush?

Because Bush hasn't had sex with anyone out of wedlock, ask the Neo-Cons around here, lying about a blowjob which is no ones business but the man's, his lover and his wife anyway is far far worse than lying to start a war and the erosion of civil liberties. I mean it's obvious isn't it, Bush didn't have a blowjob, no grounds whatsoever for impeachment.

I mean, as long as the president is a republican they can bludgeon a woman to death with a six foot black rubber cock as long as he didn't get a blow job first, and he wasn't a Democrat obviously

Quote:
I still feel there is a huge difference between the Burka and prostitution.

The philosophy behind the Burka is that Women's behaviour must be curbed to make up for the short comings of men. Just as the Ancient Greeks forbade Women to leave the home and it was taboo for Women to show their ankles in Victorian Britain. It is the philosophy behind it that's important, and thus I see no difference between the motivation behind suggesting prostitution remain illegal because men cannot control themselves to the motivation behind the Burka.

Both, frankly, seeks to punish women for a perceived inability of men to control themselves. I've been kind enough to give my reasoning (three times now) to which you merely reply "No it isn't". Either give you own reasoning as to why the philosophy behind the positions are not similar or drop it, because frankly you are beginning to sound like someone who cannot accept the implications of their position.

Quote:
Why oh why can't we impeach Bush?

There was no implication that you were a racist.

Quote:
That's the cit I know. Full of wit and sarcasm. Color me non-disappointed now!

I'm sorry? I wait nearly a week for your reply with good grace, you wait not even one day and start making glib responses like this?

Quote:
Would you be willing to admit that there is at least a possibility that there could be very real effects caused by the legalization of prostitution on say family life for example?

Of course, but all the supposed ills you see happening either happen right now or are simply ridiculous.

Quote:
What of my referencing blackmail?

What of it? You think men aren't blackmailed by prostitutes right now? At least with legalised prostitution this would be LESS likely to happen and at least they'd have the possibility of some legal recourse.

Quote:
Of course if you legalized prostitution, the government would have to make and enforce a hundred other laws regarding things such as:

Why? I don't see much in you're lists that don't fall under the preview of existing law:

Quote:
Who is eligible to have sex?

Ever heard of the age of consent?

Quote:
How much can be charged for sex?

Ever heard of market forces? In other words, what people are willing to pay.

Quote:
What the government will take as "income" tax?
What the government will take as "use" tax?

It has to be different from other services and transactions, why?

Quote:
How long will it take the government to go from saying it's perfectly okay to have sex with a hooker to turning on it like they did cigarettes? You know, not making it illegal, but continually raising the taxes on it until it eats up a good portion of the john's income while the hooker doesn't even see a dime of it?

Taxes are largely a responce to the changing knowledge of the health effects of smoking. The health authorities once thought that smoking was beneficial. When Sex is shown to cause lung cancer this argument might make some sense, but even so it is rather weak.

Quote:
What social programs would the taxes be used to pay for?
Would the taxes be used to pay down the national debt?

What are the taxes collected when you eat at a restaurant used for?

Quote:
Who will protect these women in leiu of a pimp because these women will still find themselves in dangerous situations whether it's legal or not?

Who protected bars in lieu of the Mafia after the end of prohibition? I expect most prostitutes would begin working in legal brothels where I imagine there would be the protection of security personnel, bouncers if you will.

Quote:
If videotape is used to document any possible abuse either way, who gets to see it?

The same people who review CCTV of incidents elsewhere I imagine.

Quote:
Will we put the pimps on unemployment or jail or will they become the hookers "legal" guardians?

Were Mafia thugs put on unemployment after the end of prohibition? I don't see that it's societies responsibility to find criminals new employment opportunities if the crime dries up. What if some new unbreakable security device makes burglary impossible? Put all the burglars on unemployment?

Quote:
What is the punishment for abusing a hooker?

What is the punishment for abuse?

Quote:
What is the punishment, if any, for a hooker taking a man for everything he is worth?

It is my understanding that the US, like the UK and most other countries already have laws regarding blackmail.

Quote:
What are the rules surronding a married man or woman and using a hooker's services?

What are the laws on infidelity?

Quote:
Will using a hooker's services, which would now be legal, be grounds for divorce?

Over here infidelity is grounds for divorce.

Quote:
Who will have access to the medical records of hookers and johns?

Doctors?

Quote:
How long will these medical records be kept on file?

Ask a hospital how long they keep medical records. Over here medical records are kept indefinably.

Quote:
Do you get frequent flyer miles?

No but you get one free lay when your stamp card has been filled. Surely this is a matter of decision for the individual prostitute/brothel.

Quote:
Will hookers be able to do things like, go to a church or the movie theatre dressed like a hooker and try to pick up johns?

Can you do things like dress as a gimp and go to church to pick up women?

Quote:
Will hookers be able to advertize on TV like a phone sex line or Girls Gone Wild?
If so, what hours of the day and on which stations would they be allowed to advertise?

Possibly, and why would the legislation governing it be different to that already existing?

Quote:
If a hooker can advertise, and even more, go out into neighborhoods to seduce johns, and she starts seducing husbands and ruins their marriages, and the wife retaliates by say, killing the hooker, will the charges against her be as serious as if she just chopped up the next door neighbor with an axe because her rose garden was nicer?

For crying out loud. What if Martians came down and started to copulate with all the prostitutes in order to create a genetically superior master race. What then?

Quote:
If the hooker blackmails the john, what protection will the government offer the john? Afterall, this is completely legal now.

You've asked this question twice already, there are laws against blackmail.

EDIT:
I didn't actually see any of the replies before mine, since I had started responding last night. But:

Quote:
Wow. You have all the answers. I'll remember that the next time I have a question about..... well, anything!

Good to see that, as ussual, you can take you're arse being handed to you with good grace, and above all maturity.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 2:25 PM

It's impossible to answer these questions right now. You just can't do it, no matter how much you think you have the answers now. I'm glad to know that we have people who think they have all the answers. They never seem in short supply in here.

There will be court cases revolving incidents that happen if this decision is made and precedence will then be set. All of the liberties which have been curtailed around you didn't just happen... they took decades of planning and legal work. There will be jurys, there will be judges and there will be lawyers. The politicians will be all over taxing these services and they will cost much more than they do now. They've done it to anything else that is addictive and labeled it "sin" or "use" tax.

You aren't married, are you Cit?

Don't feel obligated to answer that. It was a rhetorical question anyways.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It's impossible to answer these questions right now. You just can't do it, no matter how much you think you have the answers now. I'm glad to know that we have people who think they have all the answers. They never seem in short supply in here.

You're questions mostly answer themselves. Why do you propose to treat Prostitutes any different to any other person?

Quote:
You aren't married, are you Cit?
Don't feel obligated to answer that. It was a rhetorical question anyways.

Are you trying to make a point?

You aren't married, are you Jack?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:38 AM

These questions don't just answer themselves Cit. You have your answers to them, I have my answers to them, and so will every other know it all that has anything to say about the issue. O'Riley will probably tell us that anybody who supports legalization is a terrorist while Al Frankin will finally be able to take his male prostitute out with him for a nice dinner instead of having to meet in seedy hotels.

This stuff will become very real if prostitution is legalized and will spend a lot of time through the legal system because nobody will agree on the answers to them. Why are you so sure that your answers here are the absolute truth and that there won't be serious legal battles regarding all sorts of weird and unforseen shit that happens because of it. Do you honestly believe that there won't be thousands or tens of thousands of families or more that will be torn apart because of this? All I'm saying is that in order to abolish the law against prostitution, they're going to erect hundreds of other laws.

I have no respect for a prostitute because they have no respect for themselves. Prostitutes are sub-human, soulless beings. I have more respect for pimps because at least they respect themselves.

Seeing as how the woman's lib movement was all over Sheryl Crow's ass for being in a jack-mag for underagers (I'm refering to Stuff Magazine, FYI) right after doing Lillith Fair, I'm having a hard time believing that anybody here, pro women's lib or not, is in the majority on this issue. Legitimizing prostitution will set the woman's lib movement back 50 years and nobody is going to stake their political career on it.

But it's always a treat to hit our heads against brick walls in the mean time because neither of us is ever going to penetrate the other's thick skull.

No offence about the marriage thing Cit. I wouldn't believe you if you said you were though. I was just thinking that if you were married with children yourself your opinion on this matter might be a whole lot different. I can guarantee that your wife wouldn't agree with you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
These questions don't just answer themselves Cit. You have your answers to them, I have my answers to them, and so will every other know it all that has anything to say about the issue.

Actually the law has most of the answers for most of them. Why can't normal blackmail law be used? Why can't we use the existing age of consent? Why can't we use existing murder laws? Why must we treat prostitution as a special case? Why can't we use the laws that already exist?

Quote:
O'Riley will probably tell us that anybody who supports legalization is a terrorist while Al Frankin will finally be able to take his male prostitute out with him for a nice dinner instead of having to meet in seedy hotels.

I couldn't care less what most of the American MSM thinks about this or pretty much any other issue.

Quote:
This stuff will become very real if prostitution is legalized and will spend a lot of time through the legal system because nobody will agree on the answers to them.

There are already laws governing these things because they already ARE very real.

Quote:
Do you honestly believe that there won't be thousands or tens of thousands of families or more that will be torn apart because of this?

I don't see how more famillies are going to be torn apart if it becomes legal than if it remains illegal.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that in order to abolish the law against prostitution, they're going to erect hundreds of other laws.

And all I'm saying is that those laws you think are going to be written are already there. All you have to do is open your eyes and look. Do you thing they have different laws for each type of occupation? The law against assualting Cabbies, the law against assualting CEO's, the laws against not assualting telemarketers?

Quote:
I have no respect for a prostitute because they have no respect for themselves. Prostitutes are sub-human, soulless beings. I have more respect for pimps because at least they respect themselves.

I think you want to rethink that statement.

Quote:
Legitimizing prostitution will set the woman's lib movement back 50 years and nobody is going to stake their political career on it.

As we can see in the terribly violent and oppressive regime in the netherlands.

Quote:
No offence about the marriage thing Cit.

The only offence I take is that of Hypocrisy. Beyond that there is of course the rubbishing of my opinion because I'm 'not married', which makes about as much sense as the line "You're not American are you?".

Quote:
I can guarantee that your wife wouldn't agree with you.

Obviously I must be married. Evidently you've met my wife.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Do you honestly believe that there won't be thousands or tens of thousands of families or more that will be torn apart because of this?

Adultery is adultery is adultery.

HOW will it be different if a spouse is cheating on his partner with a legal or an illegal prostitute?? Will men suddenly betray their wives more often than they are now, just because paying for sex is no longer illegal?

HOW is a family not already torn apart by that spouse's decision to cheat? Are you blaming the "third party" for the decision that someone else is making?

I'm seriously not seeing what difference there is supposed to be and I would be happy if you could give a concrete example of what you think would change.

Quote:

I have no respect for a prostitute because they have no respect for themselves. Prostitutes are sub-human, soulless beings. I have more respect for pimps because at least they respect themselves.

Are you making a difference there between women who are prostitutes against their inclination and those who are at peace with their job? Or is it because they are having sex for money?

Tell me, why do you think that all prostitutes have no self-respect? That they have no soul?

Is it about the sex or is it about something else?

Quote:

Legitimizing prostitution will set the woman's lib movement back 50 years and nobody is going to stake their political career on it.

Why is it going to set back feminism? You make sweeping statements, but I would love to hear something a little more specific. How is it going to set back feminism? What about it?

Quote:

I can guarantee that your wife wouldn't agree with you.

I know it's not addressed at me, obviously, but are you really so arrogant that you would claim to predict the opinion of any random woman?

Because every woman on Earth is really the same, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Adultery is adultery is adultery.

HOW will it be different if a spouse is cheating on his partner with a legal or an illegal prostitute?? Will men suddenly betray their wives more often than they are now, just because paying for sex is no longer illegal?

The act isn't any different.

Yes, the availability will make this happen more often. Let me put it this way, do you think that there are more people gambling now or less, since we've put casinos on boats all over the place and people can just gamble online, instead of having to make trips to Nevada to get their fix?

Quote:
Are you making a difference there between women who are prostitutes against their inclination and those who are at peace with their job? Or is it because they are having sex for money?

If a woman is forced into doing something, of course there is a difference made. I don't disagree with you about something needing be done about protecting these women who are used and abused and turned into sex slaves. I just disagree with your proposal for fixing this problem.

Anyone who chooses to use their attributes and abilities and sex to use another person for money is a bad person. I think this is probably where you and I differ in opinion and as it branches out from there we see even less eye to eye. I'm just glad that most of them are drugged up all the time and then, all to quickly, they get older and have no skills and nobody wants them anymore. It serves them right for what they've done. I don't feel any pity for them.

Quote:
Tell me, why do you think that all prostitutes have no self-respect? That they have no soul?

Is it about the sex or is it about something else?

Truethfully, I don't even know how these women can sleep at night. I'm assuming it's the drugs. I'm not a Puritan. I'm pretty much a heathen myself actually. This isn't about the sex in and of itself. It's all about the intent with which it is used. There is no love or emotion, other than the euphoria of the act itself. But as I understand it, just like porn stars, they don't get any feeling off of it and they're just really good at faking it.

Quote:
Why is it going to set back feminism? You make sweeping statements, but I would love to hear something a little more specific. How is it going to set back feminism? What about it?

There are a lot of serious and legitimate issues that Feminism has brought to the consiousness of the masses and, I believe, have changed the world for the better. I told you before I was raised by a single mother. She had a very hard time and the world made her a bitter and spiteful person. I remember how she was before she had to go back to work and it kills me to see what's become of her. She was right in the thick of it when women were fighting for fair and equal wages and sexual harassment was much more prevalant. She had gotten passed over for promotions because she would NOT have sex with management to advance her career. In the end she wen't from a lowly data-entry position to a salaried Project Management position, running telecommunication jobs in Downtown Chicago. She busted her ass and worked harder than most men I've ever known. She didn't get any overtime and yet she came home from work and put in another two to five hours of work on blueprints and the computer at home.

Everything that prostitution stands for takes away from what women like her have accomplished. I'm sure life would have been a lot easier if she wanted to whore herself out to her superiors, but she was a caring mother with self-respect who would never even think of such a thing as a possibility.

You wanted to know, now you know. Feel free to argue this point, but I grew up with this and there is nothing in the world that you can say that will change my mind on the fact that if prostitution is legitimized than everything my mother stood for was a joke.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:48 AM

KANEMAN

The only place on earth, where a perfectly good discussion on sex slavery/female brutalization can be turned into a civilized debate on the pros&cons of prostitution, is here in RWED. Truly mind boggling.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:50 AM

Well, a legal sex industry would tend to reduce demand for the illegal industry.

Personally, if you can do something for free, I do not see why you should not be able charge for it, or pay for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 15, 2007 4:51 AM

VINCENOIRROCKNROLLSTAR

`ow much for zee litlle gurl ...i wish to buy your wife `

shoot the moon ...shoooooot the mooon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 15, 2007 7:07 AM

OATH

Quote:
The only place on earth, where a perfectly good discussion on sex slavery/female brutalization can be turned into a civilized debate on the pros&cons of prostitution, is here in RWED. Truly mind boggling.........

Indeed. Ye gods, I've fallen in love with Kaneman...again.

Now, let's discard most of the political shit, and get back to the most basic of basics: a woman's body is hers alone, and what she chooses to do with it is up to her. Prostitution (like marriage) is a matter of choice on both sides, and that's where the difference between the thread's original topic and the one now being discussed is: as hopefully all of you know, a slave is without choice, while a prostitute is.

Now for a touch of political shit: The illegality of prostitution is what makes it so dangerous. It is the last option of burned-out girls who are absolutely fucked up. If it were made legal and regulated, then I guarantee you the girls who would make the choice to become prostitutes then would be a hell of a lot better off than if they made that choice now.

And maybe, just maybe, prostitution would become a respectable and honored profession sometime in the future closer than five hundred years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"WHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAA! THAT'S RIGHT! I'M THE BITCH WITH THE GUN!!!!!"

-Ertia, from Travel To Persephone PT 2 (Life Onboard Serenity)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 15, 2007 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oath:
And maybe, just maybe, prostitution would become a respectable and honored profession sometime in the future closer than five hundred years.

To be honest, I doubt it. Its not a question of what the customers think of them, it's a question of what said customers wives and girlfriends think of them.

That said: Banning prostitution to benefit the prostitutes is like banning drugs to benefit the bottom tier drug dealers. It might make them richer - less competition - it certainly won't make them safer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 16, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Oath:
And maybe, just maybe, prostitution would become a respectable and honored profession sometime in the future closer than five hundred years.

To be honest, I doubt it. Its not a question of what the customers think of them, it's a question of what said customers wives and girlfriends think of them.

I'll sadly agree with this. More respected, certainly, but not all the way.

It's a sad aspect of human nature to blame the rival rather than the cheating partner.

(And it's SO STUPID, too! Competing for love is one of the most ridiculous concepts ever. And we're so beyong competing for mere procreation partners, but it keeps popping up as if the two are the same.)

I'll be satisfied when that irrational response, at least, doesn't impact rational, legal decision-making, in a "protect the customers from themselves" kind of way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:55 AM

To be fair, it is not really stupid. If you drive your rival away you keep your partner. If you drive your partner away you...don't.

Perhaps the industry would be wise to point out that although some people leave their spouse for their lover, no man ever left his wife for his consensual sex worker...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
To be fair, it is not really stupid. If you drive your rival away you keep your partner. If you drive your partner away you...don't.

What puzzles me more is.. why would they WANT to keep them, if they are so obviously inclined to stray?

Fidelity is a question of mutual agreement and respect. If there respect to stick to a mutual agreement isn't there, then the relationship is pretty worthless to begin with.

Yet people are far more comfortable clinging to the illusion that their rival is somehow responsible, as opposed to their partner's lack of respect.

It's sad and pathetic. I judge.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:57 AM

Don’t we all. I suppose it is like any other flaw. You accept a partner with flaw X, because the alternative may be no partner at all. And what if you are tied to your partner in some way – house, ambition, children etc?

Then too, is the important thing fidelity, or the consequences of infidelity?

As I understand things, affairs in Victorian Britain worked like this:

1) It is very difficult to get divorced, and almost impossible to leave your spouse for your lover.
2) A mans illegitimate children are not really regarded as his. They cannot inherit, and he has almost no right or responsibilities to them. Ideally, a mans affair should cost his wife and children about as much as any other hobby. From a coldly pragmatic view, his wife (and her children) have no more to lose from his mistress than from his golf clubs.
3) If they had had paternity tests, a wife’s illegitimate children might have been handled similarly. As it was, they did have primogeniture. If she waited until after she had a couple of healthy sons, doubtful parentage in subsequent children was much less of a worry.

In effect, the system regarded marriage as sacrosanct, and tried to eliminate every consequence of infidelity, so it was a relatively insignificant betrayal.

I imagine they would regard our views as ridiculously sentimental.

With a slightly similar idea, I gather there was an open day recently in the red light district of Amsterdam, to reassure wives, girlfriends.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070331/wl_nm/dutch_prostitutes_dc

The most optimistic marketing exercise in history. I wonder what their slogans were:

“Easybed: Because it’s cheap and meaningless”

“Mistresscard: Some nights in life are worthless”

More optimistically:

“Stand-ins ‘R’ Us: For nights when you’re just too tired”

Well, I suppose stranger things have happened in the last five hundred years

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:30 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

For sex slavery in UK, start the investigation with the homicidal homosexual inbred royals, and MI6 which licenses the imporation of sex slaves for various mafias.

VIDEO: Shelley Lubben - Ex Porn Star with a Message - "And you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. And it ain't religious!"
www.myspace.com/shelleylubben

Cathy O'Brien was a CIA mind-controlled presidential-model sex slave. She and her daughter Kelly were models for River Tam in Firefly/Serenity. Old news.

Cathy O'Brien knows all about Blacksburg Virginia, the little town where giant Virginia tech is located. They wrote about it in their 2nd autobiography, ACCESS DENIED FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, about her daughter Kelly being lobotomized by Vanderbilt University Medical Center, under court order in Knoxville Tennessee (my home city).

Quote:

From Mark & Cathy - April 16, 2007
www.Trance-Formation.com

Hi ... sadly ... though predictably ... it is major D.C. diversion time again to focus folks away from what Congress and the Executive branch are infighting about today: More $ for the wars being waged against countries that have never done anything against the US.

Below this intro are some direct quotes from our book "ACCESS DENIED"...about a tiny little town in Virginia ... Blacksburg we felt strongly would eventually become "news"!

WHY.... because Blacksburg houses (underground in the side of a local Blacksburg mountain!) the best kept US government's ABOVE TOP SECRET laboratory for developing/applying (as in Cathy's case) such weapons such as human robotic mind control programming.

Ask yourself... "how ironic" that a tiny little town, as disclosed about in ACCESS DENIED in Virginia could HOST the worst school massacre in US history on a day of extreme importance that a so called "showdown between Congress and the Pentagon/Executive Branch" over the war funding and pulling our troops out ... to most likely divert the people's attention away from what is being perpetrated against all of u.s.

PLEASE consider why we entitled this chapter (22) (your) "NEED-TO-KNOW"!

Please, we beg of you ... consider today ... do it now ... strongly recommending our book "ACCESS DENIED For Reasons Of National Security" to everyone on your mailing list as a MUST READ NOW ... as they have a "need-to-know the facts that support why we include such "notable mention" of Blacksburg, Va., population 48,595 minus 31.

From "ACCESS DENIED For Reasons OF National Security" , chapter 22, page 160, 2nd edition

Cathy: What’s DARPA?

Mark: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency[1]. It’s the most Top Secret special weapons development lab in the world.

Cathy: I’m glad I don’t know about that one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "ACCESS DENIED For Reasons OF National Security" , chapter 22, page 161, 2nd edition

Below is the exact recorded dialog between Mark & Cathy while driving to a Washington D.C. speaking engagement.

Mark: You’ve talked about, only not by name. It’s in a sleepy little town in Virginia.

Cathy: Oh, that place, I shuddered. I guess I didn’t Need-to-Know the name when I was there. Isn’t it called Blackbeard or Blackbird or something like that?

Mark: Keep looking until you see a road sign in memory.

Cathy: Blacksburg!

Mark: Yes! I was aware of it when I was couriering file tapes for Ampex. My perception of DARPA is that it holds the key to what is eroding the soul of America- and the world. Everything I know may still be classified.

Cathy: Then I won’t ask you what you saw. I said, aware that laws of Sedition could result in his imprisonment if anyone found out he was talking.

(footnote on page 161) [1] Wear anti-virus firewalls if/when seeking further information online regarding DARPA!

Thank you, for your time to read this and pass it along to everyone you know ... and for your help to reach ones who are not so well informed as you.

Peace,
Mark & Cathy
www.trance-formation.com

Naked Cathy O'Brien and Kelly were hunted by Dick Cheney's Most Dangerous Game before he raped them and murdered US special forces soldiers via suicide under mind control by asking them to jump out of helicopters without parachutes
www.archive.org/details/tmdg_trailer
www.archive.org/details/tmdg_broll
www.gnn.tv/videos/3/The_Most_Dangerous_Game

Cheney Impeachment delayed by convenient school shooting: Dennis Kucinich officially filed charges of impeachment
http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=15&t=28239

Neo-Cons To Spin VA Massacre As Terrorist Attack:
Korean (is not Koran) shooter allegedly carved Islamic "Ismail Ax" in his dead arm (or somebody did)
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/180407terroristattack.htm

CELLPHONE VIDEO OF SHOOTINGS AT VA TECH: NO POLICE SIRENS, NO PUBLIC ADDRESS WARNINGS
www.liveleak.com/view?i=f59_1176748483

Student bloggers blamed Virginia Tech president, police and ban on guns for the tragedy:
http://thewtfblog.blogspot.com
www.collegemedia.com
www.planetblacksburg.com

Quote:

"We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electrical stimulation of the brain."
-Dr. Jose Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School prof and CIA mind control scientist, Congressional Record, No 26, vol 118 February 24th, 1974

And this Jewish CIA electrical engineer professor at Virginia Tech was playing psycho surgery with student's brains:

Quote:

Curriculum Vitae for F.W. Romberg

EDUCATION

Medical School, Fall 2006 Entrance, Details TBD

Postbaccalaureate Prehealth Professions Program Certificate, Occidental College, 2005
Completed 16 semester units of biology and organic chemistry coursework and laboratories in preparation for entrance to medical school
Advisor: Prof. Chris Craney

Masters of Science, Electrical Engineering, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), 2000
Primary coursework and research in high frequency circuits and electromagnetics
Caltech Microelectronics Group, Advisor: Prof. Ali Hajimiri

Bachelors of Science, Electrical Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1995
Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group, Advisor: Prof. Brian Woerner

Experienced Electrical Engineer with Strong Leadership and Mechanical Background is Applying Skills to a Medical Career with a Surgical Specialty

Cognizant Engineer, Planetary Aerobot Testbed (PAT), 1996–97
Responsible for the development of a low-cost communications solution using COTS hardware; provided RF communications for video and flight data links supporting robotic balloon (Aerobot) flights in California and Hawaii that tested possible Mars atmospheric entry technologies

UNITED NATIONS, Baghdad, Iraq
Weapons Inspector, Office of the Special Commission (UNSCOM), 1997
Given my acquired knowledge of the Scud, a former Soviet-made missile modified by Iraq, I volunteered for an overseas assignment for about a six week period in Baghdad, Iraq and various parts of France. I was on loan to the United Nations by the US federal government to provide technical expertise of the four variants of the Scud missile used by Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. My specific purpose was to participate in an international UNSCOM mission to verify the destruction of fuel and oxidizer as claimed by the Iraqi government in connection with the implementation of Section C of the United Nations Security Council resolutions 687 and 715(1991).

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Langley, Virginia
CITO RF Technologist, Clandestine Information Technology Office, Hardware Systems Team, 1998
Management of RF and analog hardware design tasks were performed to support foreign intelligence operations of interest to national security; extensive fieldwork and foreign travel; tasks were conducted while on a JPL LOA

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Langley, Virginia
Foreign Military Weapons Analyst, Office of Transnational Issues (OTI), Missile Systems Team, 1997
Three month position as Foreign Military Weapons Analyst; general areas of technical knowledge include liquid propulsion, guidance and control, payloads, missile integration, and flight test systems of specific foreign ballistic missiles; tasks were conducted while on JPL LOA

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC AND STATE UNIVERSITY, Blacksburg, Virginia
Undergraduate Student Research Assistant, Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG), 1995
Completed an engineering project to design and demonstrate spread spectrum modem capabilities; a complete programmable digital spread spectrum transmitter and receiver was delivered for research use

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC AND STATE UNIVERSITY, Blacksburg, Virginia
Undergraduate Student Research Assistant, Satellite Communications Group, 1992-93
Functioned as a student team member to design and deliver earth stations for NASA’s Advanced Communication Technology Satellite (ACTS); responsibilities included performing machining tasks and documenting the design and assembly of the prototype earth station using CADD tools

www.romberg.us/html/Pages/CurriculumVitae.html

Student and faculty are appalled that CIA stalks students at Virginia Tech, for perping kidnapping, torture and mass murder.

Quote:

"The single shooter was unusally effective at killing, almost as if he had been trained to do so." --mparent7777

CIA recruiting at Virginia Tech

For the second time this year, the Central Intelligence Agency will be coming to Virginia Tech to recruit students. And for the second time this year, they will be met with protests from students who view the CIA as an immoral organization that engages in torture and murder.

On November 2nd, 2005 the Washington Post published an article entitled “CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons”. The article reported that the CIA has set up a covert network of secret prisons and interrogation centers, known as “black sites”, in several countries around the world, including several democracies in Eastern Europe and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Prisoners at these facilities are held indefinitely and often in isolation, without due process of the law. Moreover, CIA interrogators working at these sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. Among the tactics approved for use are "waterboarding", intended to induce in prisoners the idea that they are drowning.

While intelligence officials defend the unrestricted operation of these sites as necessary for the successful defense of the country, it should be noted that both the sites and the suspected practices carried out at them would be illegal if operated within the USA, which is a signatory to the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Importantly, the same is true for the democratic host states in Eastern Europe where some of these sites are located.

The 'Teach In' will take place on Thursday, Nov. 17, 5-6.30pm, in Torgerson 3100. The event will feature talks by Virginia Tech instructors and the presentation of a draft letter to President Steger's office, signed by a number of concerned Virginia Tech faculty and students.

The letter will request that Virginia Tech place a moratorium on all CIA activities on Virginia Tech's campus until such time as a thorough and independent investigation certifies that the organization has been thoroughly reformed and no longer engages in practices that contravene international law and basic standards of human rights.

The CIA's scheduled 'career information' session will take place at 7pm in the same location.

Sponsoring campus organizations include: The International Club and Amnesty International at Virginia Tech."

http://blogs.roanoke.com/campuswatch/archives/cia_recruiting.html
www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1263

George Bush, the Bin Ladens and the Queen of England now own Serenity via Pentagon CIA contractor Carlyle Group (aka Blue Sun), which staged a successful hostile takeover of Universal Studios. Carlyle's propaganda division also includes NBC News and MSNBC. Jr Bush's convicted Nazi grandfather Prescott Bush was on the board of CBS News.

"'They're hurting us. Get me out!' The Government was playing with her brain. They opened up her skull and cut into her brain. The only reason you do that is to lobotomize somebody. They did it over, and over..."
-Dr Simon Tam, Firefly

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

PNTV banned at Gitmo!
www.piratenews.org/hollywood.html

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:01 AM

Ah.... AgentRouka, welcome back.

I notice you only came back to this discussion after other people re-legitimitized it for you again and you completely ignored my last comment.

Although I'm sure you didn't ignore it, because you didn't post anymore after it. So what of it? Is my mother a fool then for not whoring herself out for 20 years to get ahead in life?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Ah.... AgentRouka, welcome back.

I notice you only came back to this discussion after other people re-legitimitized it for you again and you completely ignored my last comment.

Although I'm sure you didn't ignore it, because you didn't post anymore after it. So what of it? Is my mother a fool then for not whoring herself out for 20 years to get ahead in life?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

I do still intend to reply to your post. I'm just really busy right now and fly-by comments of something silly are currently more in line with my time-budget.

To sum up what my post is going to be, though:

The problem your mother had was not that some women sell sex, but that some men (those she worked with) refused to see her as different from them. THAT'S what's wrong with that.

You're - again - blaming women for something that men did, and are asking women to change their behavior because of something men did. Why?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:28 AM

Heh.... all the worlds problems were created by man. There's no arguing with women. Particularly a slighted feminist. I apologize for whatever HE did to you. I can assure you that we're not all pigs.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Heh.... all the worlds problems were created by man. There's no arguing with women. Particularly a slighted feminist. I apologize for whatever HE did to you. I can assure you that we're not all pigs.

Stop being so patronizing.

No man has ever slighted me and I actually have a pretty high opinion of them. Higher than you, considering I have a lot more faith in their brain capacity than you do.

I notice that - instead of answering my question of why you are blaming prostitutes for what your mother went through instead of her employers - you try to attack me personally and presume things about my general opinions when I only replied to this specific case. Very evasive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:16 AM

I think I mentioned in my original post that my mother was above whoring herself out, period. She despised the men who gave sluts promotions and the women who whored themselves out for them. One of them happened to be a close friend of hers until she took the fast track and fucked any guy that would increase her bankroll.

Not all women share your point of view on this and I would think that most people, even the ones with penises would disagree with you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think I mentioned in my original post that my mother was above whoring herself out, period. She despised the men who gave sluts promotions and the women who whored themselves out for them. One of them happened to be a close friend of hers until she took the fast track and fucked any guy that would increase her bankroll.

Not all women share your point of view on this and I would think that most people, even the ones with penises would disagree with you.

What, I think, you're missing is the concept of context.

There is prostitution, where sex for sale IS the point. The honest and openly agreed upon point.

And then there is inappropriate and unprofessional mixing of sex and business that is NOT prostituion, which is, indeed, disrespectable because it undermines actual work and effort in favor of unrelated perks.

I don't understand how you can't see a difference there.

Actual prostituion has pretty much... say, NOTHING to do with sexual harrassment and inappropriate, unprofessional favors in the workplace.

I'm sorry, honestly, that your mother had to go through such a hard time in her professional life and there is no justification for it. But it has nothing to do with the actual issue of prostitution and its legalisation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:16 PM

Maybe you're right. I can't get my head around how it's any different, other than it's done in a different place. Lives and families will still be ruined over it. I think it's moot, since I really can't see this ever being taken seriously in the political arena, at least in our lifetimes. I surely could never even think that anybody will respect a prostitute. Mal enjoyed calling Inara a whore, even after hte distinction was made between a lowly whore and a Companion later in the series. I know you don't like bringing up the show and comparing it to real life, but that's why I loved Firefly so much. I thought that if you could get over the whole Sci-Fi aspect of it, it paralleled life on Earth pretty much to a T.

We'll just have to see what happens.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:03 PM

FLETCH2

As an aside, I've always seen the idea of the Companions to be Joss's attempt to show that societies have changed and merged in the 500 years that have elapsed since "now."

Interestingly there was a piece on NPR about a villiage in India that has produced high priced courtisans for hundreds of years. Girls are trained to follow in the family business and their first clients are usually rich Arabs who "marry" the girls (to stay legal in Islamic terms) for up to a year at a time. Here in the West you could not imagine a situation like that because Judeo-christian culture would not allow it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:12 PM