The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Why don't you try doing some 'research'?
>
> Guess which western country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate;
> Holland.
>
> And, it has the lowest legal sex age; 14.
>
>
> I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you.
Sorry, I meant to reply to this in the post I just made.
This may be true, and may be a good case for lowering legal sex age. However, my point was not that it should be kept as it is, but that there is a reason for it to be there and that it does not follow that if I think prostitution should be legalised then I want sex age to be lowered.
Also, it doesn't mean that children of 14 are ready to take on the responsibility of parenthood.
> Why don't you try doing some 'research'?
>
> Guess which western country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate;
> Holland.
>
> And, it has the lowest legal sex age; 14.
>
>
> I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you.
Sorry, I meant to reply to this in the post I just made.
This may be true, and may be a good case for lowering legal sex age. However, my point was not that it should be kept as it is, but that there is a reason for it to be there and that it does not follow that if I think prostitution should be legalised then I want sex age to be lowered.
Also, it doesn't mean that children of 14 are ready to take on the responsibility of parenthood.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Rape, murder etc all harm people. Prostitution
> doesn't.
>
> Thanks Blank, obviously it's not worth discussing this further if you
> genuinelly believe that.
If you'd bother to read the rest, I meant as long as both individuals are consenting and safe from STDs/STIs etc.
Although I applaud the way you manage to find an escape route from any argument so you don't actually have to stick around and take the rap for all the crap you spout.
> Blank wrote:
> Rape, murder etc all harm people. Prostitution
> doesn't.
>
> Thanks Blank, obviously it's not worth discussing this further if you
> genuinelly believe that.
If you'd bother to read the rest, I meant as long as both individuals are consenting and safe from STDs/STIs etc.
Although I applaud the way you manage to find an escape route from any argument so you don't actually have to stick around and take the rap for all the crap you spout.
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Guess which western country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate;
> Holland.
--
Is this the same Holland where prostitution and cannabis is legalised?
> Guess which western country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate;
> Holland.
--
Is this the same Holland where prostitution and cannabis is legalised?
I've been to Holland. Well, to the 'Dam as we "'Dam vets" call it.
Nice place.
Nice place.
Blank wrote:
> Look up, and see it going over your head. We have reasons to not
> legalise underage sex - because if they get pregnant they can't
> support the child.
Why don't you try doing some 'research'?
Guess which western country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate; Holland.
And, it has the lowest legal sex age; 14.
I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you.
> Look up, and see it going over your head. We have reasons to not
> legalise underage sex - because if they get pregnant they can't
> support the child.
Why don't you try doing some 'research'?
Guess which western country has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate; Holland.
And, it has the lowest legal sex age; 14.
I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you.
Blank wrote:
> Rape, murder etc all harm people. Prostitution
> doesn't.
Thanks Blank, obviously it's not worth discussing this further if you genuinelly believe that.
> Rape, murder etc all harm people. Prostitution
> doesn't.
Thanks Blank, obviously it's not worth discussing this further if you genuinelly believe that.
Sussed it!!!! I was wondering where my inspiration for the last story I wrote came from.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Okay, given your thinking, let's legalise underage sex. Safer for
> everyone, happens despite being illegal, and laws against it do not
> stop it. Heck, let's legalise murder as well, and rape, in fact let's
> legalise everything and crime will be so low that things will be great
> ! *sarcasm*
Look up, and see it going over your head. We have reasons to not legalise underage sex - because if they get pregnant they can't support the child. Rape, murder etc all harm people. Prostitution doesn't. It's just taking the moral high ground. As long as both parties can be safe and both consent there's no reason to stop it. And how can we make sure these two things are in place? Legalisation!
> You do not solve a problem by legalising it away, it's a social and
> economic problem that needs a real solution, which legalising is not.
> Ultimately legalisation makes it safest for men, the prime customers
> of it in the first place...
So it makes it safe for men and not for women? I'd like to see how that works...
> Okay, given your thinking, let's legalise underage sex. Safer for
> everyone, happens despite being illegal, and laws against it do not
> stop it. Heck, let's legalise murder as well, and rape, in fact let's
> legalise everything and crime will be so low that things will be great
> ! *sarcasm*
Look up, and see it going over your head. We have reasons to not legalise underage sex - because if they get pregnant they can't support the child. Rape, murder etc all harm people. Prostitution doesn't. It's just taking the moral high ground. As long as both parties can be safe and both consent there's no reason to stop it. And how can we make sure these two things are in place? Legalisation!
> You do not solve a problem by legalising it away, it's a social and
> economic problem that needs a real solution, which legalising is not.
> Ultimately legalisation makes it safest for men, the prime customers
> of it in the first place...
So it makes it safe for men and not for women? I'd like to see how that works...
Blank wrote:
> Many people do things for, or in exchange for, sex. So why can't money
> be one of those things used? If you use that money to buy expensive
> gifts it could have the same end result, so I don't see a problem.
You give gifts to someone you know, that's the difference. It implies a normal healthy relationship with someone, not, "here's £50 so get down to it" or whatever.
> The legalisation of prostitution would make it safer for all parties -
> and let's not kind ourselves here, it happens whether legal or
> illegal. If you have a law against it, that isn't to say it stops
> altogether.
Okay, given your thinking, let's legalise underage sex. Safer for everyone, happens despite being illegal, and laws against it do not stop it. Heck, let's legalise murder as well, and rape, in fact let's legalise everything and crime will be so low that things will be great ! *sarcasm*
You do not solve a problem by legalising it away, it's a social and economic problem that needs a real solution, which legalising is not. Ultimately legalisation makes it safest for men, the prime customers of it in the first place...
> Many people do things for, or in exchange for, sex. So why can't money
> be one of those things used? If you use that money to buy expensive
> gifts it could have the same end result, so I don't see a problem.
You give gifts to someone you know, that's the difference. It implies a normal healthy relationship with someone, not, "here's £50 so get down to it" or whatever.
> The legalisation of prostitution would make it safer for all parties -
> and let's not kind ourselves here, it happens whether legal or
> illegal. If you have a law against it, that isn't to say it stops
> altogether.
Okay, given your thinking, let's legalise underage sex. Safer for everyone, happens despite being illegal, and laws against it do not stop it. Heck, let's legalise murder as well, and rape, in fact let's legalise everything and crime will be so low that things will be great ! *sarcasm*
You do not solve a problem by legalising it away, it's a social and economic problem that needs a real solution, which legalising is not. Ultimately legalisation makes it safest for men, the prime customers of it in the first place...
Many people do things for, or in exchange for, sex. So why can't money be one of those things used? If you use that money to buy expensive gifts it could have the same end result, so I don't see a problem.
The legalisation of prostitution would make it safer for all parties - and let's not kind ourselves here, it happens whether legal or illegal. If you have a law against it, that isn't to say it stops altogether.
The legalisation of prostitution would make it safer for all parties - and let's not kind ourselves here, it happens whether legal or illegal. If you have a law against it, that isn't to say it stops altogether.
Page: