The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
*sniggers*
Ahem. Sorry. I couldn't resist that.
Ahem. Sorry. I couldn't resist that.
Practical Magic wrote:
> I assumed most of us were beyond the schoolboy style sniggering stage,
> looks like I'm sadly wrong then.
It's a sad day when a man can no longer accuse a complete stranger of being a virgin. I blame the BBC.
> I assumed most of us were beyond the schoolboy style sniggering stage,
> looks like I'm sadly wrong then.
It's a sad day when a man can no longer accuse a complete stranger of being a virgin. I blame the BBC.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> I mean, seriously, sex is good
>
> I'm saying nothing, but I think you've left yourself wide open
> there.
>
> *Settles down to wait for the jokes*
I assumed most of us were beyond the schoolboy style sniggering stage, looks like I'm sadly wrong then.
> Practical Magic wrote:
> I mean, seriously, sex is good
>
> I'm saying nothing, but I think you've left yourself wide open
> there.
>
> *Settles down to wait for the jokes*
I assumed most of us were beyond the schoolboy style sniggering stage, looks like I'm sadly wrong then.
Practical Magic wrote:
> I mean, seriously, sex is good
I'm saying nothing, but I think you've left yourself wide open there.
*Settles down to wait for the jokes*
> I mean, seriously, sex is good
I'm saying nothing, but I think you've left yourself wide open there.
*Settles down to wait for the jokes*
Goatboy wrote:
> That's not responding to a reasonable request for a reply though is
> it?
> Mind you, it's not everyone here expects any different.
Maybe not, but it's the essence of the debate isn't it ?
I mean, seriously, sex is good, but paying for sex is sad. Legalise prostitution and it simply frees the conscience of a largely male clientele whilst ensuring it continues for their benefit.
The best bit of the ongoing spat is where Light claims he wouldn't be all that bothered if he had a son/daughter who, in a world where it was legalised, announced that would be their career. That say's alot.
Yet that issue is the core of the whole argument ? Who are you legalising for and who will become employed in it as a result ? Who will be the users and the used ? Where will it occur ? You'll find the split is along class lines and it's not hard to figure out the distinctions, and hence the reasoning for legalisation. Notably no police force I know of has claimed it would be a good idea or have anything other than a negative impact on areas, people and communities.
And, despite claims earlier in this topic, not wanting to legalise prostitution does not mean a person is inhibited or a prude, simply that they don't believe we need to make it legal for sad cases to pay for sex. Others do, which - beneath the protestations that they have the prostitutes best intentions at heart - beggars the question, why ?
> That's not responding to a reasonable request for a reply though is
> it?
> Mind you, it's not everyone here expects any different.
Maybe not, but it's the essence of the debate isn't it ?
I mean, seriously, sex is good, but paying for sex is sad. Legalise prostitution and it simply frees the conscience of a largely male clientele whilst ensuring it continues for their benefit.
The best bit of the ongoing spat is where Light claims he wouldn't be all that bothered if he had a son/daughter who, in a world where it was legalised, announced that would be their career. That say's alot.
Yet that issue is the core of the whole argument ? Who are you legalising for and who will become employed in it as a result ? Who will be the users and the used ? Where will it occur ? You'll find the split is along class lines and it's not hard to figure out the distinctions, and hence the reasoning for legalisation. Notably no police force I know of has claimed it would be a good idea or have anything other than a negative impact on areas, people and communities.
And, despite claims earlier in this topic, not wanting to legalise prostitution does not mean a person is inhibited or a prude, simply that they don't believe we need to make it legal for sad cases to pay for sex. Others do, which - beneath the protestations that they have the prostitutes best intentions at heart - beggars the question, why ?
That's not responding to a reasonable request for a reply though is it?
Mind you, it's not everyone here expects any different.
Mind you, it's not everyone here expects any different.
God are you a 'tard or what Light ? No one cares that you want to use a prostitute and for it to be legal so you don't risk arrest or fine....
*pop*
Couldn't you give me the same courtest I extended to you, and apologise for not responding? And perhaps say when you intend to respond by? After all, it's only good manners.
Or are you just a coward?
Couldn't you give me the same courtest I extended to you, and apologise for not responding? And perhaps say when you intend to respond by? After all, it's only good manners.
Or are you just a coward?
*pop*
Because before Bell starts doing a Campbell and distracting, you have unfinished business here.
Be a man and answer instead of ignoring and twisting yourself into knots eluding and evading.
Because before Bell starts doing a Campbell and distracting, you have unfinished business here.
Be a man and answer instead of ignoring and twisting yourself into knots eluding and evading.
Practical Magic wrote:
> *conducts a straw poll of who gives a toss about that, or indeed this
> topic, realises there are only two straws collected, decides to spare
> the forum community the tedium*
I don't believe we're playing to the gallery Bell. So if you could kindly stop avoiding the questions, and answer them please. Or, prove me right and continue running away like a coward. I'm easy either way.
> *conducts a straw poll of who gives a toss about that, or indeed this
> topic, realises there are only two straws collected, decides to spare
> the forum community the tedium*
I don't believe we're playing to the gallery Bell. So if you could kindly stop avoiding the questions, and answer them please. Or, prove me right and continue running away like a coward. I'm easy either way.
Page: