The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Goatboy wrote:
> Hur hur. You said Gitboy. Hur hur
Quite :)
~~Belldandy~~
> Hur hur. You said Gitboy. Hur hur
Quite :)
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Still S h i t e and Gitboy got a laugh (it really is sad humour isnt
> it)
--
Hur hur. You said Gitboy. Hur hur
> Still S h i t e and Gitboy got a laugh (it really is sad humour isnt
> it)
--
Hur hur. You said Gitboy. Hur hur
Light wrote:
> Oh joy; you've started to get offensive again. I do enjoy slapping
> down children with delusions of adequacy...
Yeah yeah oh great supreme ruler Light, sorry oh great god Light yadda yadda yadda
> So...you're telling me that the story would have broke without the
> efforts of the two journalists (who hatched the conspiracy theory)?
> Right...and your evidence for this is?
The story cracked when the informant gave them the information - as this informant received no payment, or publicity, it suggests another reason than wanting to give two journalists a story...
> Why do you think not? You see, what you've done there is expanded on
> your opinion but not given any reason for it, whilst at the same time
> showing how little you know about prostition. Sad idiots? Listen mate;
> I would have thought someone who has reached the dizzying heights of
> shop assistant at Woolies would be ~delighted~ at the opportunity to
> get laid.
First off, about my ex-job, its a part time thing you idiot, whilst I'm at Uni, and whilst your on about jobs your own one of solicitor is hardly the heights of aspirations either... And yes, sad idiots just about sums it up nicely.
> So you'd rather they made a better choice? Fine. But as I said, people
> still become prostitutes despite the illegality of it now. Just
> because you'd rather it happen, doesn't mean it's going to. You may
> find this hard to comprehend, but there is a whole world out there who
> don't give the first piece of dogsmeg about what you or I would
> 'rather happen'.
>
> Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how
> come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are
> lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making
> an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely
> failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had
> learned better.
Yawn, get off the white horse eh ? Prostitution is legal in those places so incidents are recorded officially, hence any illegal prostitution, and incidents involving it, are less likely to be reported because doing os implicates the victim in illegal activity. There is a difference in reported and unreported crime yknow, Mr solicitor...
> And your implication that it should remain illegal, sordid, and
> hidden; well done! The victorians would have been proud of your
> "If I can't see it, it isn't there" attitude. Still, that is
> your opinion and I duly afford it the respect it is due. Would you
> care to tell me just WHY it shouldn't be a valid choice of life?
> Seriously; can you come up with a reason beyond your vague moral
> unease (and, by the sounds of things, lack of first hand experience)
> about sex?
You think legalisation will make it un hidden ? Hilarious, you do know this is Britain ? If anything legalisation will hide it further by wrapping it up into nice little buildings away from the eyes of everyone but the punters. Valid life choice ? Well lets see; no long term prospects, no qualifications, no transferable skills, and all the rest. Get real. Moral unease ? you want to talk about that when it's two males talking about something which mainly effects women ? that'd be funny, give me your moral reason that makes it acceptable to you - which you haven't yet, do you want to buy everything ? :)
> Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph.
> Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide comments
> are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're incapable
> of getting your idea across.
Yawn. Christ, you take this rather seriously don't you ? Going ot have to start checking replies in Word pretty soon. You might not have noticed Light, but this is a forum, and I can't really be bothered to perfectly check grammar on this !
> So; you've had a bit of a go about my extra knowledge on the
> subject...and offered nothing to rebut it. Would you care to try and
> offer any arguments, or are you happy with the insults that would be
> regarded as ineffective in the lowliest schoolyard? As to idea's that
> meet with resistance being bad; what, you mean like votes for women,
> the emancipation proclaimation, abolition of child labour,
"Extra knowledge" ? *collapses laughing* Your examples of resistance are selective and you know it. How about Nazism - which met considerable resistance and was most definitely a bad idea ? Selective examples rule eh ?
> And once more, you say that the response would be huge; bearing in
> mind that thus far all you've done is push forward the Conservative
> party ideaology, and bearing in mind the Conservative mindset that you
> so love is at it's lowest ebb ever, what on earth makes you think that
> there would be a huge response? Apart, of course, from the fact that
> you think that there would be and you are so egocentric that you seem
> incapable of comprehending that people could ~ever~ disagree with
> you...
And the country is going down the biggest sinkhole ever....
> Yes, they are the ideas put forward. This may surprise you (see what I
> said about egocentricity; I realise that's a big word so you might
> have to check a dictionary first....are you done? Good),
Yawn, your posts would be so much better without all this "I'm clever look at me everyone" crap.
> You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is
> illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all, do
> you pumpkin?) seems to be your only objection. Yet you give no reason
> at all for fear of not arresting men or women who use prostitutes
> other than (once more) your vague moral objections concerning sex. Did
> you read the last paragraph of the original post? I asked for
> objections other than that.
Strangly enough, most topics come down to morality. You can ask and tell people to respond however you wish, but until you're made god of the forums then go wish for that happening. Without morals we're all animals.
> Well, I'm at something of a loss as to why you think it would. Beyond
> "I think men who go to prostitutes are sad, and you're a nasty
> liberal, and I'm right", you've yet to give a reason for your
> beliefs.
>
> You'll note I haven't made any further new points here. That's because
> all you did was post a mixture of poor quality abuse and restatments
> of your own opinion. Should you find yourself able to formulate an
> idea that did not have it's genesis within the pages of The Sun, then
> I'll be happy to address what you say. Until then, I'll content myself
> with poking you until you foam at the mouth and fill your nappy
> again.
Yawn, is this the best you can do ? At least Goatboy is really entertaining in replies and doesnt turn a reply into a mindless tirade or ego growing...
> Good day.
Most certainly is, I've got someone who actually does a proper job, as opposed to me, a bored student whose only stressful thing this month is one 2 hour exam, all in a flutter, over my vague ramblings. I'm guessing you have less spare time than me, so you're wasting your time on this, rather than something useful and fun. Good Evening :P
~~Belldandy~~
> Oh joy; you've started to get offensive again. I do enjoy slapping
> down children with delusions of adequacy...
Yeah yeah oh great supreme ruler Light, sorry oh great god Light yadda yadda yadda
> So...you're telling me that the story would have broke without the
> efforts of the two journalists (who hatched the conspiracy theory)?
> Right...and your evidence for this is?
The story cracked when the informant gave them the information - as this informant received no payment, or publicity, it suggests another reason than wanting to give two journalists a story...
> Why do you think not? You see, what you've done there is expanded on
> your opinion but not given any reason for it, whilst at the same time
> showing how little you know about prostition. Sad idiots? Listen mate;
> I would have thought someone who has reached the dizzying heights of
> shop assistant at Woolies would be ~delighted~ at the opportunity to
> get laid.
First off, about my ex-job, its a part time thing you idiot, whilst I'm at Uni, and whilst your on about jobs your own one of solicitor is hardly the heights of aspirations either... And yes, sad idiots just about sums it up nicely.
> So you'd rather they made a better choice? Fine. But as I said, people
> still become prostitutes despite the illegality of it now. Just
> because you'd rather it happen, doesn't mean it's going to. You may
> find this hard to comprehend, but there is a whole world out there who
> don't give the first piece of dogsmeg about what you or I would
> 'rather happen'.
>
> Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how
> come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are
> lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making
> an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely
> failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had
> learned better.
Yawn, get off the white horse eh ? Prostitution is legal in those places so incidents are recorded officially, hence any illegal prostitution, and incidents involving it, are less likely to be reported because doing os implicates the victim in illegal activity. There is a difference in reported and unreported crime yknow, Mr solicitor...
> And your implication that it should remain illegal, sordid, and
> hidden; well done! The victorians would have been proud of your
> "If I can't see it, it isn't there" attitude. Still, that is
> your opinion and I duly afford it the respect it is due. Would you
> care to tell me just WHY it shouldn't be a valid choice of life?
> Seriously; can you come up with a reason beyond your vague moral
> unease (and, by the sounds of things, lack of first hand experience)
> about sex?
You think legalisation will make it un hidden ? Hilarious, you do know this is Britain ? If anything legalisation will hide it further by wrapping it up into nice little buildings away from the eyes of everyone but the punters. Valid life choice ? Well lets see; no long term prospects, no qualifications, no transferable skills, and all the rest. Get real. Moral unease ? you want to talk about that when it's two males talking about something which mainly effects women ? that'd be funny, give me your moral reason that makes it acceptable to you - which you haven't yet, do you want to buy everything ? :)
> Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph.
> Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide comments
> are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're incapable
> of getting your idea across.
Yawn. Christ, you take this rather seriously don't you ? Going ot have to start checking replies in Word pretty soon. You might not have noticed Light, but this is a forum, and I can't really be bothered to perfectly check grammar on this !
> So; you've had a bit of a go about my extra knowledge on the
> subject...and offered nothing to rebut it. Would you care to try and
> offer any arguments, or are you happy with the insults that would be
> regarded as ineffective in the lowliest schoolyard? As to idea's that
> meet with resistance being bad; what, you mean like votes for women,
> the emancipation proclaimation, abolition of child labour,
"Extra knowledge" ? *collapses laughing* Your examples of resistance are selective and you know it. How about Nazism - which met considerable resistance and was most definitely a bad idea ? Selective examples rule eh ?
> And once more, you say that the response would be huge; bearing in
> mind that thus far all you've done is push forward the Conservative
> party ideaology, and bearing in mind the Conservative mindset that you
> so love is at it's lowest ebb ever, what on earth makes you think that
> there would be a huge response? Apart, of course, from the fact that
> you think that there would be and you are so egocentric that you seem
> incapable of comprehending that people could ~ever~ disagree with
> you...
And the country is going down the biggest sinkhole ever....
> Yes, they are the ideas put forward. This may surprise you (see what I
> said about egocentricity; I realise that's a big word so you might
> have to check a dictionary first....are you done? Good),
Yawn, your posts would be so much better without all this "I'm clever look at me everyone" crap.
> You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is
> illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all, do
> you pumpkin?) seems to be your only objection. Yet you give no reason
> at all for fear of not arresting men or women who use prostitutes
> other than (once more) your vague moral objections concerning sex. Did
> you read the last paragraph of the original post? I asked for
> objections other than that.
Strangly enough, most topics come down to morality. You can ask and tell people to respond however you wish, but until you're made god of the forums then go wish for that happening. Without morals we're all animals.
> Well, I'm at something of a loss as to why you think it would. Beyond
> "I think men who go to prostitutes are sad, and you're a nasty
> liberal, and I'm right", you've yet to give a reason for your
> beliefs.
>
> You'll note I haven't made any further new points here. That's because
> all you did was post a mixture of poor quality abuse and restatments
> of your own opinion. Should you find yourself able to formulate an
> idea that did not have it's genesis within the pages of The Sun, then
> I'll be happy to address what you say. Until then, I'll content myself
> with poking you until you foam at the mouth and fill your nappy
> again.
Yawn, is this the best you can do ? At least Goatboy is really entertaining in replies and doesnt turn a reply into a mindless tirade or ego growing...
> Good day.
Most certainly is, I've got someone who actually does a proper job, as opposed to me, a bored student whose only stressful thing this month is one 2 hour exam, all in a flutter, over my vague ramblings. I'm guessing you have less spare time than me, so you're wasting your time on this, rather than something useful and fun. Good Evening :P
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> unlike BellEnd there...
And when you're resorting to that crap humour your arguments somewhat lost...
Whats wrong ? Annoyed I won't bow down and admit your all superior knowledge and reasoning ? Awwwww
Still S h i t e and Gitboy got a laugh (it really is sad humour isnt it)
~~Belldandy~~
> unlike BellEnd there...
And when you're resorting to that crap humour your arguments somewhat lost...
Whats wrong ? Annoyed I won't bow down and admit your all superior knowledge and reasoning ? Awwwww
Still S h i t e and Gitboy got a laugh (it really is sad humour isnt it)
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Blank - I will get round to replying (work makes me busy...), and my
> apologies for not doing so. Especially as you've done the decent thing
> and given reason to your beliefs, unlike BellEnd there...
Thankee. :)
> Blank - I will get round to replying (work makes me busy...), and my
> apologies for not doing so. Especially as you've done the decent thing
> and given reason to your beliefs, unlike BellEnd there...
Thankee. :)
Heh, you said Bell-end.
Bellendy.
Bellendy.
Blank - I will get round to replying (work makes me busy...), and my apologies for not doing so. Especially as you've done the decent thing and given reason to your beliefs, unlike BellEnd there...
Harsh, but well worded!
Oh joy; you've started to get offensive again. I do enjoy slapping down children with delusions of adequacy...
Belldandy wrote:
> No, but it was publicised, and publicity was the killer.
>
> So in other words it wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists, and seeing
> as it implicated the US President in a cover up I hardly think the
> publicity itself was a killer.
So...you're telling me that the story would have broke without the efforts of the two journalists (who hatched the conspiracy theory)? Right...and your evidence for this is?
>
> And why shouldn't it be acceptable?
>
> Why should it ? Why should we pass a law that says men - lets not kid
> ourselves here by suggesting equal amounts of women do this - can pay
> for sex. What is good about that ? Sure, it's "freedom", but
> at what price ? Do we really want to change our laws for sad idiots
> who can't get any so they pay for it ? I think not.
Why do you think not? You see, what you've done there is expanded on your opinion but not given any reason for it, whilst at the same time showing how little you know about prostition. Sad idiots? Listen mate; I would have thought someone who has reached the dizzying heights of shop assistant at Woolies would be ~delighted~ at the opportunity to get laid.
>
>
> Yeah, it would be. But people still become prositutes, don't they?
> Illegality hasn't stopped it. If someone is going to become a
> prostitute, wouldn't you rather they had the protection of the law?
> Would you care to discuss the risk to prostitutes who go about their
> job?
>
> I'd rather they could makea better choice with their lives personally,
> rather than people trying to legalise the profession. Legalisation
> would not reduce the risks from STD's, violence, abuse, underaged
> prostitution and all the rest of it - it simply takes it and dumps it
> all in a nice big, out of the way from where you live, location.
> Legalising it makes it a proper profession and gives the idea it is a
> valid career choice. Don't kid yourself.
So you'd rather they made a better choice? Fine. But as I said, people still become prostitutes despite the illegality of it now. Just because you'd rather it happen, doesn't mean it's going to. You may find this hard to comprehend, but there is a whole world out there who don't give the first piece of dogsmeg about what you or I would 'rather happen'.
Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had learned better.
And your implication that it should remain illegal, sordid, and hidden; well done! The victorians would have been proud of your "If I can't see it, it isn't there" attitude. Still, that is your opinion and I duly afford it the respect it is due. Would you care to tell me just WHY it shouldn't be a valid choice of life? Seriously; can you come up with a reason beyond your vague moral unease (and, by the sounds of things, lack of first hand experience) about sex?
>
> You may be surprised. I know of 2 brothels within 10 miles of my
> home.
> Both are semi-detached houses that look no different to any other on
> their street. You have ASSUMED that Red Light districts would become
> the norm.
>
> You're right there, if people like you who wanted legalisation got
> their way it'd all be so much more pleasing to the eye wouldn't it ?
> Of course if your talking distances like 10 miles and so on then its
> becoming quite a wide area isn't it ? Nottingham itself has at least
> two media attention grabbing red light areas.
Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph. Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide comments are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're incapable of getting your idea across.
>
> And yes, there would be court battles. So what? Just because an idea
> will be met with some resistance, that is not then a mandate to
> utterly ignore it. You may or may not be familiar with the idea of
> "precedent". Which means that after the first couple of
> cases, the remainder would be addressed VERY quickly.
>
> Don't start your pious lecturing with phrases like "You may or
> may not be familiar with the idea of "precedent" yadda yadda
> yadda everyone listen to me because I was a solicitor.... Most ideas
> that meet with resistance are generally bad ideas full stop. Face it,
> you have to have something pretty spectacular to even get peoples
> attention nowadays. the public is largely apathetic to most things and
> only turns its opinion on things it largely disagrees with - try to
> legalise prostitution and wait for the response...the political party
> pushing for it will soon want to ignore it very quickly.
>
So; you've had a bit of a go about my extra knowledge on the subject...and offered nothing to rebut it. Would you care to try and offer any arguments, or are you happy with the insults that would be regarded as ineffective in the lowliest schoolyard? As to idea's that meet with resistance being bad; what, you mean like votes for women, the emancipation proclaimation, abolition of child labour, legalisation of homosexuality? All bad idea's are they?
And once more, you say that the response would be huge; bearing in mind that thus far all you've done is push forward the Conservative party ideaology, and bearing in mind the Conservative mindset that you so love is at it's lowest ebb ever, what on earth makes you think that there would be a huge response? Apart, of course, from the fact that you think that there would be and you are so egocentric that you seem incapable of comprehending that people could ~ever~ disagree with you...
> Why? What do you mean "virtuous"? What are you driving at?
> If it is liberalism gone off the rails, how come you haven't been
> able
> to come up with convincing evidence to show that legalising
> prostitution would damage society?
>
> Come off it. You've spouted all the usual "virtuous" ideas;
> protecting the prostitutes, removing the danger to them, giving them
> certain premises e.t.c all with the impression you care. I'll tell you
> who legalisation best serves - the men who use them. It removes the
> illegal aspect and danger of being caught, it gives what they do
> respectability, justifies it.
>
Yes, they are the ideas put forward. This may surprise you (see what I said about egocentricity; I realise that's a big word so you might have to check a dictionary first....are you done? Good), but they are put forward because I would prefer prostitutes not to be in danger because they have sex for money. You seem to be under the impression that, in fact, it's a smokescreen for a desire to spend all day and all night pumping prostitutes full of semen. Guess what? Not the case. I'm thinking of the stupidity of endangering people because of their profession.
You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all, do you pumpkin?) seems to be your only objection. Yet you give no reason at all for fear of not arresting men or women who use prostitutes other than (once more) your vague moral objections concerning sex. Did you read the last paragraph of the original post? I asked for objections other than that.
> Legalisation, as I've said before, means that as a country we are
> saying to any woman - in particular those just past the age of consent
> - that it is okay to sell your body to men for money, and have sex
> with as many men as are willing to pay you for it.
>
> If you think that would not further screw up what little of a society
> e have still then I'm just at a loss.
Well, I'm at something of a loss as to why you think it would. Beyond "I think men who go to prostitutes are sad, and you're a nasty liberal, and I'm right", you've yet to give a reason for your beliefs.
You'll note I haven't made any further new points here. That's because all you did was post a mixture of poor quality abuse and restatments of your own opinion. Should you find yourself able to formulate an idea that did not have it's genesis within the pages of The Sun, then I'll be happy to address what you say. Until then, I'll content myself with poking you until you foam at the mouth and fill your nappy again.
Good day.
Belldandy wrote:
> No, but it was publicised, and publicity was the killer.
>
> So in other words it wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists, and seeing
> as it implicated the US President in a cover up I hardly think the
> publicity itself was a killer.
So...you're telling me that the story would have broke without the efforts of the two journalists (who hatched the conspiracy theory)? Right...and your evidence for this is?
>
> And why shouldn't it be acceptable?
>
> Why should it ? Why should we pass a law that says men - lets not kid
> ourselves here by suggesting equal amounts of women do this - can pay
> for sex. What is good about that ? Sure, it's "freedom", but
> at what price ? Do we really want to change our laws for sad idiots
> who can't get any so they pay for it ? I think not.
Why do you think not? You see, what you've done there is expanded on your opinion but not given any reason for it, whilst at the same time showing how little you know about prostition. Sad idiots? Listen mate; I would have thought someone who has reached the dizzying heights of shop assistant at Woolies would be ~delighted~ at the opportunity to get laid.
>
>
> Yeah, it would be. But people still become prositutes, don't they?
> Illegality hasn't stopped it. If someone is going to become a
> prostitute, wouldn't you rather they had the protection of the law?
> Would you care to discuss the risk to prostitutes who go about their
> job?
>
> I'd rather they could makea better choice with their lives personally,
> rather than people trying to legalise the profession. Legalisation
> would not reduce the risks from STD's, violence, abuse, underaged
> prostitution and all the rest of it - it simply takes it and dumps it
> all in a nice big, out of the way from where you live, location.
> Legalising it makes it a proper profession and gives the idea it is a
> valid career choice. Don't kid yourself.
So you'd rather they made a better choice? Fine. But as I said, people still become prostitutes despite the illegality of it now. Just because you'd rather it happen, doesn't mean it's going to. You may find this hard to comprehend, but there is a whole world out there who don't give the first piece of dogsmeg about what you or I would 'rather happen'.
Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had learned better.
And your implication that it should remain illegal, sordid, and hidden; well done! The victorians would have been proud of your "If I can't see it, it isn't there" attitude. Still, that is your opinion and I duly afford it the respect it is due. Would you care to tell me just WHY it shouldn't be a valid choice of life? Seriously; can you come up with a reason beyond your vague moral unease (and, by the sounds of things, lack of first hand experience) about sex?
>
> You may be surprised. I know of 2 brothels within 10 miles of my
> home.
> Both are semi-detached houses that look no different to any other on
> their street. You have ASSUMED that Red Light districts would become
> the norm.
>
> You're right there, if people like you who wanted legalisation got
> their way it'd all be so much more pleasing to the eye wouldn't it ?
> Of course if your talking distances like 10 miles and so on then its
> becoming quite a wide area isn't it ? Nottingham itself has at least
> two media attention grabbing red light areas.
Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph. Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide comments are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're incapable of getting your idea across.
>
> And yes, there would be court battles. So what? Just because an idea
> will be met with some resistance, that is not then a mandate to
> utterly ignore it. You may or may not be familiar with the idea of
> "precedent". Which means that after the first couple of
> cases, the remainder would be addressed VERY quickly.
>
> Don't start your pious lecturing with phrases like "You may or
> may not be familiar with the idea of "precedent" yadda yadda
> yadda everyone listen to me because I was a solicitor.... Most ideas
> that meet with resistance are generally bad ideas full stop. Face it,
> you have to have something pretty spectacular to even get peoples
> attention nowadays. the public is largely apathetic to most things and
> only turns its opinion on things it largely disagrees with - try to
> legalise prostitution and wait for the response...the political party
> pushing for it will soon want to ignore it very quickly.
>
So; you've had a bit of a go about my extra knowledge on the subject...and offered nothing to rebut it. Would you care to try and offer any arguments, or are you happy with the insults that would be regarded as ineffective in the lowliest schoolyard? As to idea's that meet with resistance being bad; what, you mean like votes for women, the emancipation proclaimation, abolition of child labour, legalisation of homosexuality? All bad idea's are they?
And once more, you say that the response would be huge; bearing in mind that thus far all you've done is push forward the Conservative party ideaology, and bearing in mind the Conservative mindset that you so love is at it's lowest ebb ever, what on earth makes you think that there would be a huge response? Apart, of course, from the fact that you think that there would be and you are so egocentric that you seem incapable of comprehending that people could ~ever~ disagree with you...
> Why? What do you mean "virtuous"? What are you driving at?
> If it is liberalism gone off the rails, how come you haven't been
> able
> to come up with convincing evidence to show that legalising
> prostitution would damage society?
>
> Come off it. You've spouted all the usual "virtuous" ideas;
> protecting the prostitutes, removing the danger to them, giving them
> certain premises e.t.c all with the impression you care. I'll tell you
> who legalisation best serves - the men who use them. It removes the
> illegal aspect and danger of being caught, it gives what they do
> respectability, justifies it.
>
Yes, they are the ideas put forward. This may surprise you (see what I said about egocentricity; I realise that's a big word so you might have to check a dictionary first....are you done? Good), but they are put forward because I would prefer prostitutes not to be in danger because they have sex for money. You seem to be under the impression that, in fact, it's a smokescreen for a desire to spend all day and all night pumping prostitutes full of semen. Guess what? Not the case. I'm thinking of the stupidity of endangering people because of their profession.
You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all, do you pumpkin?) seems to be your only objection. Yet you give no reason at all for fear of not arresting men or women who use prostitutes other than (once more) your vague moral objections concerning sex. Did you read the last paragraph of the original post? I asked for objections other than that.
> Legalisation, as I've said before, means that as a country we are
> saying to any woman - in particular those just past the age of consent
> - that it is okay to sell your body to men for money, and have sex
> with as many men as are willing to pay you for it.
>
> If you think that would not further screw up what little of a society
> e have still then I'm just at a loss.
Well, I'm at something of a loss as to why you think it would. Beyond "I think men who go to prostitutes are sad, and you're a nasty liberal, and I'm right", you've yet to give a reason for your beliefs.
You'll note I haven't made any further new points here. That's because all you did was post a mixture of poor quality abuse and restatments of your own opinion. Should you find yourself able to formulate an idea that did not have it's genesis within the pages of The Sun, then I'll be happy to address what you say. Until then, I'll content myself with poking you until you foam at the mouth and fill your nappy again.
Good day.
The phrase "I've never been into Prostitutes" works on many levels for me.
Page: