The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of the news is to keep conspiracy theorists as paranoid as possible. Take the death of Monica Coghlan, the former prostitute involved in the case against Lord Jeffrey Archer for Perverting the course of Justice. Isn't it just soooo convenient that she is killed in a car smash (that old conspiracy favourite; didn't a few Kennedy witnesses die in a similar manner?) weeks before the trial kicks off?
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
Page:
Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of the news is to keep conspiracy theorists as paranoid as possible. Take the death of Monica Coghlan, the former prostitute involved in the case against Lord Jeffrey Archer for Perverting the course of Justice. Isn't it just soooo convenient that she is killed in a car smash (that old conspiracy favourite; didn't a few Kennedy witnesses die in a similar manner?) weeks before the trial kicks off?
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
I recently got back from the Dam and was impressed at the number of wh*res on offer. Not sure that has any relevance but I can see where you're coming from.
Also, on the subject on conspiracy theories, do you remember the Chinook helicopter crashing a few years ago with all those Gov. security members on it? That was definitely a "hit" to take them out. I can't prove it yet but I will one day. Watch this space.
Also, on the subject on conspiracy theories, do you remember the Chinook helicopter crashing a few years ago with all those Gov. security members on it? That was definitely a "hit" to take them out. I can't prove it yet but I will one day. Watch this space.
You could be a regular now, Light, if you post another 225 messages...you're total wordcount is massive for someone who has only had 75 posts...
Unbeliever wrote:
> You could be a regular now, Light, if you post another 225
> messages...you're total wordcount is massive for someone who has only
> had 75 posts...
Heh. I've got tons of this stuff kicking around as well!
> You could be a regular now, Light, if you post another 225
> messages...you're total wordcount is massive for someone who has only
> had 75 posts...
Heh. I've got tons of this stuff kicking around as well!
What I can't really understand is why some prostitutes still hang about on street corners soliciting for business. Surely with all the escort agencies, massage parlours and personal ads there's no need for the old style approach.
But I suppose some are trapped in the clutches of dangerous men - i.e. pimps....
But I suppose some are trapped in the clutches of dangerous men - i.e. pimps....
I thought that this topic was going to be about a night in Amsterdam.
Hmmm?
Hmmm?
Light wrote:
> I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that
> their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for
> example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that
> they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They
> create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support
> them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no
> one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be
> disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then
> everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
I disagree - I think most theorists would tell people. So maybe not on a massive scale, starting a .com and knocking on doors etc, but if the topic of conversation changes to that subject they'll give their view. If not, they either don't believe in the theory themselves (ie they just thought up a possibility but think another is more likely), or are scared people will laugh.
If you keep the conspiracy theory to yourself then who do you get the victory over by knowing it? Also, humans think. It is our nature. Apart from Jade from Big Brother but she hardly counts. We can't help what we think. If we think of an explanation to something we can't unthink it. And if we never tell anyone then it doesn't mean we want to get the moral victory or anything, or that we want to be the only one to know.
And what about the people who become conspiracy theorists because they have been convinced by another?
> And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to
> encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I
> forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but
> I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't
> declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if
> she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever
> gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got
> them coming and going.
Err, I think you're missing the point there - if it can prove the person is a prostitute that is good for the government; it is what is wanted. It's like saying "There's a specific category for lawyers, but if they declare they're earnings it can prove they are lawyers if they get arrested for claiming dole money". You can be a prostitute without soliciting.
> A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal
> drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they
> were decriminalised...)
I think you gloss over this a bit too quickly. "Here, have some illegal drugs whilst I wire you up to this console panel so I can control your every move".
> And all because the moral minority and Christian
> right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is
> something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament
> refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a
> prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then
> why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about
> it?)
Plus there is testimony of prostitutes to say that Jesus really did recover from the usually fatal illness of death. One of the key points I feel.
> As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few
> may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and
> regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there
> will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that
> there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I
> believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if
> they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in
> which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan
I'm not sure how legalisation would stop people being sex slaves really. It would be just like forcing people to work in any job, it could be easily done. Although I do agree it would be a lot safer for the people involved if it was legalised, and also more government money generated. Just like the legalisation of drugs would bring.
> imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the > Queen Mother.
Well that would be necrophilia, which is a whole different can of worms.
> I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with
> someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are
> doing, but again I digress.
Knows what they are doing? What, you mean someone who stands back, looks at the situation and figures out what goes where, rather than someone who uses the trial and error method?
> As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially
> unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society
> really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you
> can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle
> to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
But it does HAVE to involve moral principles. Even if the government did abandon these and thought purely of function, most people would be shocked/apalled or whatever (even though this stuff goes on anyway, which is strange, as if it was legal they would be doing the exactly the same acts only in safer conditions and without breaking the law). And even if the people of this country abandoned the moral standpoint the rest of the world would probably look on us as dirt upon a shoe. The Pope would probably do some bad thing to us. It would take everyone in the world to abandon all their preconceptions - it can't be done.
> I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that
> their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for
> example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that
> they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They
> create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support
> them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no
> one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be
> disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then
> everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
I disagree - I think most theorists would tell people. So maybe not on a massive scale, starting a .com and knocking on doors etc, but if the topic of conversation changes to that subject they'll give their view. If not, they either don't believe in the theory themselves (ie they just thought up a possibility but think another is more likely), or are scared people will laugh.
If you keep the conspiracy theory to yourself then who do you get the victory over by knowing it? Also, humans think. It is our nature. Apart from Jade from Big Brother but she hardly counts. We can't help what we think. If we think of an explanation to something we can't unthink it. And if we never tell anyone then it doesn't mean we want to get the moral victory or anything, or that we want to be the only one to know.
And what about the people who become conspiracy theorists because they have been convinced by another?
> And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to
> encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I
> forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but
> I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't
> declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if
> she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever
> gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got
> them coming and going.
Err, I think you're missing the point there - if it can prove the person is a prostitute that is good for the government; it is what is wanted. It's like saying "There's a specific category for lawyers, but if they declare they're earnings it can prove they are lawyers if they get arrested for claiming dole money". You can be a prostitute without soliciting.
> A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal
> drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they
> were decriminalised...)
I think you gloss over this a bit too quickly. "Here, have some illegal drugs whilst I wire you up to this console panel so I can control your every move".
> And all because the moral minority and Christian
> right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is
> something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament
> refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a
> prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then
> why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about
> it?)
Plus there is testimony of prostitutes to say that Jesus really did recover from the usually fatal illness of death. One of the key points I feel.
> As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few
> may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and
> regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there
> will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that
> there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I
> believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if
> they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in
> which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan
I'm not sure how legalisation would stop people being sex slaves really. It would be just like forcing people to work in any job, it could be easily done. Although I do agree it would be a lot safer for the people involved if it was legalised, and also more government money generated. Just like the legalisation of drugs would bring.
> imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the > Queen Mother.
Well that would be necrophilia, which is a whole different can of worms.
> I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with
> someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are
> doing, but again I digress.
Knows what they are doing? What, you mean someone who stands back, looks at the situation and figures out what goes where, rather than someone who uses the trial and error method?
> As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially
> unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society
> really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you
> can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle
> to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
But it does HAVE to involve moral principles. Even if the government did abandon these and thought purely of function, most people would be shocked/apalled or whatever (even though this stuff goes on anyway, which is strange, as if it was legal they would be doing the exactly the same acts only in safer conditions and without breaking the law). And even if the people of this country abandoned the moral standpoint the rest of the world would probably look on us as dirt upon a shoe. The Pope would probably do some bad thing to us. It would take everyone in the world to abandon all their preconceptions - it can't be done.
Watergate's cover wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists...but anyway.
If you legalise prostitution then it is the same as saying it is an acceptable profession. Before anyone says that this idea revolves around morals and ideas of acceptability consider this.
If those of you with children, or who will have children in the future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples families...
Incidentally, by legalising then you'd presumably spread the profession to places where it is hidden or not evident. My town doesn't have any red light district or similar, for example. So where do we locate these new workplaces ? Get ready for some hefty court battles on that front.
Whilst I can see legalisation would have benefits, I'm not entirely those who push for it are quite so virtuous as they would have us believe, and that, along with the cry to legalise certain drugs, it's liberalism gone off the rails.
~~Belldandy~~
If you legalise prostitution then it is the same as saying it is an acceptable profession. Before anyone says that this idea revolves around morals and ideas of acceptability consider this.
If those of you with children, or who will have children in the future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples families...
Incidentally, by legalising then you'd presumably spread the profession to places where it is hidden or not evident. My town doesn't have any red light district or similar, for example. So where do we locate these new workplaces ? Get ready for some hefty court battles on that front.
Whilst I can see legalisation would have benefits, I'm not entirely those who push for it are quite so virtuous as they would have us believe, and that, along with the cry to legalise certain drugs, it's liberalism gone off the rails.
~~Belldandy~~
What I dont understand is the assumption that legalisation will mean previously uninterested people will suddenly rush to pay for sex?
I've never done so and even if it were as easy as popping into Smiths, it doesn't appeal. At the end of the day, the result is the same so just stay at home and beat-off.
I've never done so and even if it were as easy as popping into Smiths, it doesn't appeal. At the end of the day, the result is the same so just stay at home and beat-off.
"The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs "
-Light
Goatboy has admitted to having taken drugs in the past. He has also admitted to having had a number of sexual partners in recent months. Has he moved from one faux pas to another? It's not too great a leap of logic...
-Light
Goatboy has admitted to having taken drugs in the past. He has also admitted to having had a number of sexual partners in recent months. Has he moved from one faux pas to another? It's not too great a leap of logic...
Page: