The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> Hmmm...thing is, if a man believes that the woman he is propositioning
> is a prostitute then she's basically going to be dressed for the part,
> and that (believe it or not; I'm damn sure I didn't!) counts as
> soliciting for sex. Which puts most women aged 16-30 in trouble on a
> Friday and Saturday night...
I was going to say - prostitutes dress more or less the same as your average person. Gone are the days when you could see them a mile off, now you can't tell if it's just someone waiting for someone else (which I suppose prostitutes are doing, but you know what I mean).
But it is possible to engage in prostitution without soliciting, I'm sure. If a man goes up to a woman (not necessarily haning around anywhere), and says "Fancy a shag?", and teh woman says "It'll cost you fifty", then she didn't solicit. She may not have even decided to be a prostitute until that very moment when she was asked. It was the chap who was in the wrong.
> Basically, it would mean that the pimp would become a legitimate Boss,
> yeah. And that would mean he's got to comply with all sorts of rules
> and regulations, not which of least would be the ones pertaining to
> safe working conditions for employees. I accept that they won't just
> fade away, but this would in my opinion make it easier to identify the
> REALLY bad apples and make life safer for prostitutes.
Point taken, although it would still be possible to make the woman/girl/man/boy/whatever do the job under illegal circumstances, eg forcing her to do it. Plus he/she can still not comply with regulations and get away with it - there are thousands of bosses up and down the country in "normal" jobs who don't obey the rules, and their employees are too scared to rat on them. You shouldn't think that it'll be any different in this profession if it was made legal, because it wouldn't be.
> Basically, if a 'sex slave' (which I'm defining as a woman, usually
> from Eastern Europe, who is trapped in the prostitution business to
> pay off whichever criminal organisation brought her over) is in a
> country where prostitution is legal, they are more likely to be viewed
> sympathetically by the government should she be able to come forward.
Ah, but wouldn't it also look better on the pimp if he was forcing her to do something legal rather than illegal? He would hardly get any punishment for exactly the same crime.
> Secondly, the legal outfits are more likely to inform the police about
> girls being trapped in this sort of thing because, basically, it's bad
> for their own business.
Yes, I agree.
> I've read that baf**k and I'm not sure I've explained myself very well.
> Let me know if you want me to explain my view further (it's after work
> and I'm tired!)
I think I'm okay, though you'll have to tell em if I've missed the point anywhere along the line.
> ...and by the time we've put those conditions on whom we ask, doesn't
> the question become meaningless? Especially as we've been at war with
> just about every other nation on the planet at one time or other!
> Again though, maybe people do think that about Holland but it doesn't
> stop them being very successful internationally and economically.
If people disagree with you on something, they start to disagree with you on everything. After you and Belldandy have had this little scrap, neither of you will ever take the other's opinion rationally or without a huge dollop of salt for a very, very long time.
If we do this, then the countries that disagree with us will reject our other proposals, agendas etc, they'll think that our opinion doesn't count. For instance, if someone said "For Europe to go to war with Iraq (stupidly generalised but bear with me) then we need Holland's opinion", someone else could say "Holland? They don't give a crap! Legalisation of prostitution and drugs? They're opinion doesn't even matter!", and very few people would bat an eyelid.
And just because we have been at war with people in the past doesn't mean we should just say "Ah, f*f**k 'em" now. We need to keep things running smoothly with other countries.
> Heh. Sorry about that. Religion is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I plead
> guilty to taking that bit too seriously!
Me too. I can't stand organised religion and it's ultimately meaningless values.
> Why won't it be done? They'll lose voters, but over 40% of this
> country don't vote. Many of my friends fall into this category, and
> they all agree that they'd vote for a party that was not afraid to be
> liberal as long as they used their heads as well.
If they have few voters then they'll want to keep them. They don't want to take the risk, to gamble the loss of voters against the gain. I don't think anyone would really be able to estimate the effect it would have on the voting public, so they don't want to risk it.
> The fear of outsiders looking down on us; then how come we're still
> supporting Dubya and his Daddy's war despite the entire rest of the
> known world thinking it's a dreadful idea? I agree with you're
> implication that the UK (well...I can only speak for the English here
> so apologies to the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish) population are a
> proud bunch, yet we're currently going down a road that is leading us
> to being seen as a faithful lapdog.
I disagree - I think that Blair is seen as a lapdog, not the population in general. And the countries whose opinions we value I don't think are really against the war (correct me if I'm wrong by all means). In fact I think everyone is kind of half-for, half-against the war. I don't really know what I want on this issue myself.
> Again, why would the other countries be disappointed? Most other
> nations (well...in Europe anyway) have a far more liberal attitude
> toward sex than us (though France seems to be beginning to ape our
> hypocritical attitude). They'd probably applaud us for dragging
> ourselves into the 20th century just in time for the 21st.
Well maybe, but again it's taking a risk wiht unknown probabilities involved.
> Fair enough. My apologies for assuming that it was. But I hope I've at
> least given you food for thought in answering your points. I can see
> why you believe what you do about this subject, but I honestly believe
> that your belief is flawed for the reasons I've given.
Well I mostly agree with you on the legalisation issue, I just don't think it'll happen for the reasons I've given. It's all religion's fault, turning the very thing that keeps the human race going into something dirty, and a taboo.
> Hmmm...thing is, if a man believes that the woman he is propositioning
> is a prostitute then she's basically going to be dressed for the part,
> and that (believe it or not; I'm damn sure I didn't!) counts as
> soliciting for sex. Which puts most women aged 16-30 in trouble on a
> Friday and Saturday night...
I was going to say - prostitutes dress more or less the same as your average person. Gone are the days when you could see them a mile off, now you can't tell if it's just someone waiting for someone else (which I suppose prostitutes are doing, but you know what I mean).
But it is possible to engage in prostitution without soliciting, I'm sure. If a man goes up to a woman (not necessarily haning around anywhere), and says "Fancy a shag?", and teh woman says "It'll cost you fifty", then she didn't solicit. She may not have even decided to be a prostitute until that very moment when she was asked. It was the chap who was in the wrong.
> Basically, it would mean that the pimp would become a legitimate Boss,
> yeah. And that would mean he's got to comply with all sorts of rules
> and regulations, not which of least would be the ones pertaining to
> safe working conditions for employees. I accept that they won't just
> fade away, but this would in my opinion make it easier to identify the
> REALLY bad apples and make life safer for prostitutes.
Point taken, although it would still be possible to make the woman/girl/man/boy/whatever do the job under illegal circumstances, eg forcing her to do it. Plus he/she can still not comply with regulations and get away with it - there are thousands of bosses up and down the country in "normal" jobs who don't obey the rules, and their employees are too scared to rat on them. You shouldn't think that it'll be any different in this profession if it was made legal, because it wouldn't be.
> Basically, if a 'sex slave' (which I'm defining as a woman, usually
> from Eastern Europe, who is trapped in the prostitution business to
> pay off whichever criminal organisation brought her over) is in a
> country where prostitution is legal, they are more likely to be viewed
> sympathetically by the government should she be able to come forward.
Ah, but wouldn't it also look better on the pimp if he was forcing her to do something legal rather than illegal? He would hardly get any punishment for exactly the same crime.
> Secondly, the legal outfits are more likely to inform the police about
> girls being trapped in this sort of thing because, basically, it's bad
> for their own business.
Yes, I agree.
> I've read that baf**k and I'm not sure I've explained myself very well.
> Let me know if you want me to explain my view further (it's after work
> and I'm tired!)
I think I'm okay, though you'll have to tell em if I've missed the point anywhere along the line.
> ...and by the time we've put those conditions on whom we ask, doesn't
> the question become meaningless? Especially as we've been at war with
> just about every other nation on the planet at one time or other!
> Again though, maybe people do think that about Holland but it doesn't
> stop them being very successful internationally and economically.
If people disagree with you on something, they start to disagree with you on everything. After you and Belldandy have had this little scrap, neither of you will ever take the other's opinion rationally or without a huge dollop of salt for a very, very long time.
If we do this, then the countries that disagree with us will reject our other proposals, agendas etc, they'll think that our opinion doesn't count. For instance, if someone said "For Europe to go to war with Iraq (stupidly generalised but bear with me) then we need Holland's opinion", someone else could say "Holland? They don't give a crap! Legalisation of prostitution and drugs? They're opinion doesn't even matter!", and very few people would bat an eyelid.
And just because we have been at war with people in the past doesn't mean we should just say "Ah, f*f**k 'em" now. We need to keep things running smoothly with other countries.
> Heh. Sorry about that. Religion is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I plead
> guilty to taking that bit too seriously!
Me too. I can't stand organised religion and it's ultimately meaningless values.
> Why won't it be done? They'll lose voters, but over 40% of this
> country don't vote. Many of my friends fall into this category, and
> they all agree that they'd vote for a party that was not afraid to be
> liberal as long as they used their heads as well.
If they have few voters then they'll want to keep them. They don't want to take the risk, to gamble the loss of voters against the gain. I don't think anyone would really be able to estimate the effect it would have on the voting public, so they don't want to risk it.
> The fear of outsiders looking down on us; then how come we're still
> supporting Dubya and his Daddy's war despite the entire rest of the
> known world thinking it's a dreadful idea? I agree with you're
> implication that the UK (well...I can only speak for the English here
> so apologies to the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish) population are a
> proud bunch, yet we're currently going down a road that is leading us
> to being seen as a faithful lapdog.
I disagree - I think that Blair is seen as a lapdog, not the population in general. And the countries whose opinions we value I don't think are really against the war (correct me if I'm wrong by all means). In fact I think everyone is kind of half-for, half-against the war. I don't really know what I want on this issue myself.
> Again, why would the other countries be disappointed? Most other
> nations (well...in Europe anyway) have a far more liberal attitude
> toward sex than us (though France seems to be beginning to ape our
> hypocritical attitude). They'd probably applaud us for dragging
> ourselves into the 20th century just in time for the 21st.
Well maybe, but again it's taking a risk wiht unknown probabilities involved.
> Fair enough. My apologies for assuming that it was. But I hope I've at
> least given you food for thought in answering your points. I can see
> why you believe what you do about this subject, but I honestly believe
> that your belief is flawed for the reasons I've given.
Well I mostly agree with you on the legalisation issue, I just don't think it'll happen for the reasons I've given. It's all religion's fault, turning the very thing that keeps the human race going into something dirty, and a taboo.
Blank wrote:
>
> Oops, just re-read your post and you were tlaking to Belldandy. More
> fool me. I take it back. All of it. Soz. It appears I am not
> intellectually equipped enough after all...
Heh. Don't worry about it; I've waded in full of fury by mistake a good few times myself. Most embarrassing!
And it's enjoyable debating with someone who doesn't take themselves too seriously, isn't priggish to the nth degree, and who has a sense of humour (yes; I am talking about BellEndy again. I admit it; I want a night of sweaty lurve with his bluer than blue cheecks grinding achingly against my....okay, that was too much information, right?)
>
> Oops, just re-read your post and you were tlaking to Belldandy. More
> fool me. I take it back. All of it. Soz. It appears I am not
> intellectually equipped enough after all...
Heh. Don't worry about it; I've waded in full of fury by mistake a good few times myself. Most embarrassing!
And it's enjoyable debating with someone who doesn't take themselves too seriously, isn't priggish to the nth degree, and who has a sense of humour (yes; I am talking about BellEndy again. I admit it; I want a night of sweaty lurve with his bluer than blue cheecks grinding achingly against my....okay, that was too much information, right?)
Goatboy wrote:
> I think he was addressing Belldandy, not your good self.
> But what do I know.
>
> Christ, I'm itching to park one. Hurry up 5pm
Dammit! At 4:45 I post something incorrectly and by 4;46 someone has picked up on it. Go dump Goatboy. We don't mind, neither do your staff toilets. Let it flow.
> I think he was addressing Belldandy, not your good self.
> But what do I know.
>
> Christ, I'm itching to park one. Hurry up 5pm
Dammit! At 4:45 I post something incorrectly and by 4;46 someone has picked up on it. Go dump Goatboy. We don't mind, neither do your staff toilets. Let it flow.
Blank wrote:
> Light wrote:
> So you decided not to read the response to Blank then? Unsurprising
> really; you don't seem intellectually equipped to process a rational
> debate...
>
> Hey! What is this, the Rant and Insult Randomly thread? I was the one
> who came on here everyday looking for a reply to my response, and on
> the one night I don't use the internet you reply. I can't really be
> blamed. A response will follow shortly.
>
> (And just a minute ago you were saying how I backed up my thoughts -
> make your mind up!)
Oops, just re-read your post and you were tlaking to Belldandy. More fool me. I take it back. All of it. Soz. It appears I am not intellectually equipped enough after all...
> Light wrote:
> So you decided not to read the response to Blank then? Unsurprising
> really; you don't seem intellectually equipped to process a rational
> debate...
>
> Hey! What is this, the Rant and Insult Randomly thread? I was the one
> who came on here everyday looking for a reply to my response, and on
> the one night I don't use the internet you reply. I can't really be
> blamed. A response will follow shortly.
>
> (And just a minute ago you were saying how I backed up my thoughts -
> make your mind up!)
Oops, just re-read your post and you were tlaking to Belldandy. More fool me. I take it back. All of it. Soz. It appears I am not intellectually equipped enough after all...
I think he was addressing Belldandy, not your good self.
But what do I know.
Christ, I'm itching to park one. Hurry up 5pm
But what do I know.
Christ, I'm itching to park one. Hurry up 5pm
Light wrote:
> So you decided not to read the response to Blank then? Unsurprising
> really; you don't seem intellectually equipped to process a rational
> debate...
Hey! What is this, the Rant and Insult Randomly thread? I was the one who came on here everyday looking for a reply to my response, and on the one night I don't use the internet you reply. I can't really be blamed. A response will follow shortly.
(And just a minute ago you were saying how I backed up my thoughts - make your mind up!)
> So you decided not to read the response to Blank then? Unsurprising
> really; you don't seem intellectually equipped to process a rational
> debate...
Hey! What is this, the Rant and Insult Randomly thread? I was the one who came on here everyday looking for a reply to my response, and on the one night I don't use the internet you reply. I can't really be blamed. A response will follow shortly.
(And just a minute ago you were saying how I backed up my thoughts - make your mind up!)
Goatboy wrote:
> Stop reply quoting.
> It's annoying and will get you banned.
soz Goatboy I was just seeing If I did one reply quoting how p!ssed off they'd get! 'onest guv!
> Stop reply quoting.
> It's annoying and will get you banned.
soz Goatboy I was just seeing If I did one reply quoting how p!ssed off they'd get! 'onest guv!
Stop it.
You're both *equally* pedantic, ok? Nobody can win and the only losers are those of us that need a poo but just cannot whilst at work.
What?
You're both *equally* pedantic, ok? Nobody can win and the only losers are those of us that need a poo but just cannot whilst at work.
What?
Incidentally Light; if legalising prostitution is a winning idea why did the Swedish government, which had legalised prostitution in 1995, reverse it's decision ?
Some of the reasons can be found on this page;
http://www.dfl.org.za/issues/ Prostitution/analysis.htm - the negative effects of doing so - the very ones you say have no consequence because, in your words "Women can do what they want with their bodies".
This page also includes some thoughts on why it is wrong, in the context of Indian women;
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ wpnz/may19-02prostitution.htm
And we have another page here from a Norwegian Women's group;
http://www.kvinnefronten.no/ENGELSK/prostitution.htm - focusing on criminalising the men involved in particular
So, let us look back at this. You've said my views are victorian, repressive, e.t.c Now does one of these pages originate from england ? Er, nope. So are all three, seperate sources, also guilty of the same short sightedness you accuse me of ?
Any response (that actually involves these points and not just your stream of somewhat weird insults, like "Pumpkin") ?
~~Belldandy~~
Some of the reasons can be found on this page;
http://www.dfl.org.za/issues/ Prostitution/analysis.htm - the negative effects of doing so - the very ones you say have no consequence because, in your words "Women can do what they want with their bodies".
This page also includes some thoughts on why it is wrong, in the context of Indian women;
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ wpnz/may19-02prostitution.htm
And we have another page here from a Norwegian Women's group;
http://www.kvinnefronten.no/ENGELSK/prostitution.htm - focusing on criminalising the men involved in particular
So, let us look back at this. You've said my views are victorian, repressive, e.t.c Now does one of these pages originate from england ? Er, nope. So are all three, seperate sources, also guilty of the same short sightedness you accuse me of ?
Any response (that actually involves these points and not just your stream of somewhat weird insults, like "Pumpkin") ?
~~Belldandy~~
A synopsis of this thread:
Light: I want to be a prostitute
Belldandy: That must never happen.
Light: Why, are you getting all moral?
Belldandy: Hell no, I'm just terrified that I'll become your most regular customer, you sexy thang you.
Light: Kiss me.
Belldandy: unzips flies...
Light: I want to be a prostitute
Belldandy: That must never happen.
Light: Why, are you getting all moral?
Belldandy: Hell no, I'm just terrified that I'll become your most regular customer, you sexy thang you.
Light: Kiss me.
Belldandy: unzips flies...
Page: