Viewing Thread:
"First drugs, now Prostitutes"

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.

Goatboy wrote:
> That's just a cheap ploy to boost your word count.
> I'm onto you Brainiac

Damnit, someone finally sussed my ploy to infuriate Light and raise my word count.

*Salutes Goatboy* Well done !

Light of course, will continue to think I give a damn about his endless typings...... :P (One last little go he he :) )

~~Belldandy~~

Belldandy wrote:
> *Has pity on anyone who was reading thread before he and light
> launched into insult and ego bashing exercise*
>
> *Inserts long tedious reply*
>
> *yawns*
>
> ~~Belldandy~~


So you decided not to read the response to Blank then? Unsurprising really; you don't seem intellectually equipped to process a rational debate...

Goatboy wrote:

>
> Just have a cockfight and get it done with already.
> Sheesh!


Heh; if only! Having to go one on one with a prudish prig in a Woolies uniform is a long held ambition of mine!

Anyway, it's quite good fun reading his attempts at insults. Almost as much fun as reading him mewling about being talked down to when he's just annoyed that I'm better at it than him. D'you think he's hoping no-one noticed him getting utterly owned?

Belldandy wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> Just have a cockfight and get it done with already.
> Sheesh!
>
> Can't I'm afraid. Cruelty to animals y'see....when Light stops posting
> long tirades of attempted insults I will cease. Anyone who would like
> to predict the odds of the above happening is quite welcome to :)

Bwah ha ha ha!!! Once again, I invite you to consider the hypocrisy of that statement...
>
> However, so as not to confuse the poor chap, I have created this to
> add to my posts on Life;

Or, you could try not being abusive and offensive to anyone whom disagrees with you?
>
> ***Disclaimer*** The above is all "in my opinion". It is my
> thoughts on this and I am not suggesting they are 'the one true
> thoughts' on this. In no way am I suggesting I am right and someone
> else is wrong. This idea seems to confuse certain people. Thank
> you.***End Of Disclaimer***
>
> Sad eh ?


Yes, you are. Have you noticed how I only post insults to you, my little pumpkin? Could that be because you're the only one who speaks to others like that?

Anyway, your attempt at provocation notwithstanding, you still haven't put forward anything other than your own opinion, dressed up in nice clothes, and passed off as fact. All the mewling in world won't hide that fact, though it will keep me chuckling for a while.

Anyway, I believe I've made my point with you. Grow up a little and we can talk; maybe read how blank was able to disagree with me and put his views forward without resorting to self-aggrandisement and the thoughts of the Daily Mail. You might get some hints.

>
> ~~Belldandy~~

Stop reply quoting.
It's annoying and will get you banned.

Light wrote:
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.



A very good post... and well done on the GAD, keep writing like this and I along with plenty of other people will vote you for notable... this is a very high quality post much better then I could ever do!

Goatboy wrote:
> That's just a cheap ploy to boost your word count.
> I'm onto you Brainiac

Do you boast your word count with a reply quoting thing then?

cheat... cheat!

do what you want... but don't reply and quote thing please!

That's just a cheap ploy to boost your word count.
I'm onto you Brainiac

Goatboy wrote:
> Just have a cockfight and get it done with already.
> Sheesh!

Can't I'm afraid. Cruelty to animals y'see....when Light stops posting long tirades of attempted insults I will cease. Anyone who would like to predict the odds of the above happening is quite welcome to :)

However, so as not to confuse the poor chap, I have created this to add to my posts on Life;

***Disclaimer*** The above is all "in my opinion". It is my thoughts on this and I am not suggesting they are 'the one true thoughts' on this. In no way am I suggesting I am right and someone else is wrong. This idea seems to confuse certain people. Thank you.***End Of Disclaimer***

Sad eh ?

~~Belldandy~~