The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Cool as. I was getting sick of this anyway; believe it or not, I'm not
> the arrogant sort. I just like giving bullying types a taste of their
> own medicine; replying to someone in an equally unpleasant manner
> tends to get the message across, and fair play to you; you've taken
> the not-so-subtle criticism on board. As I've said, you'll note that
> I've never taken the same tone with anyone else on this board, and now
> thankfully I don't need to fake that tone at all.
Oh yes, Light the crusader against bullies eh ? Whatever, you have a hell of an ego complex going on there..... you'll also note how I don't adopt the kind of tone demonstrated here with anyone else here, strangely.
> Anyway, I will still get back to those other two websites as, if
> they're anything like the other one, they won't provide much in the
> way of reasoning behind their belief that prostitution is wrong. In
> the meantime...
Yes, I'm sure a report investigated, researched, and produced by a nation state will be like that, as will a piece by a University professor....judging material before you've seen it eh ?
No thanks regarding the link, there's more interesting stuff to do, I just thought I'd better reply in case you start getting delusions of greatness...
Ah, don't you just love chat topics that won't die ? Boring as hell but they live on....kind of like the Royal Family then :P
~~Belldandy~~
> Cool as. I was getting sick of this anyway; believe it or not, I'm not
> the arrogant sort. I just like giving bullying types a taste of their
> own medicine; replying to someone in an equally unpleasant manner
> tends to get the message across, and fair play to you; you've taken
> the not-so-subtle criticism on board. As I've said, you'll note that
> I've never taken the same tone with anyone else on this board, and now
> thankfully I don't need to fake that tone at all.
Oh yes, Light the crusader against bullies eh ? Whatever, you have a hell of an ego complex going on there..... you'll also note how I don't adopt the kind of tone demonstrated here with anyone else here, strangely.
> Anyway, I will still get back to those other two websites as, if
> they're anything like the other one, they won't provide much in the
> way of reasoning behind their belief that prostitution is wrong. In
> the meantime...
Yes, I'm sure a report investigated, researched, and produced by a nation state will be like that, as will a piece by a University professor....judging material before you've seen it eh ?
No thanks regarding the link, there's more interesting stuff to do, I just thought I'd better reply in case you start getting delusions of greatness...
Ah, don't you just love chat topics that won't die ? Boring as hell but they live on....kind of like the Royal Family then :P
~~Belldandy~~
> you stop whining and I'll stop whining, we'll have much
> shorter, more interesting posts, and we won't look like two kids in
> playground exchange. Call this condescending if you want but its up to
> you, like I said, you stop, I stop. Simple.
>
So...you'll be stopping your extraordinarily hateful posts toward anyone disagreeing with you then?
Cool as. I was getting sick of this anyway; believe it or not, I'm not the arrogant sort. I just like giving bullying types a taste of their own medicine; replying to someone in an equally unpleasant manner tends to get the message across, and fair play to you; you've taken the not-so-subtle criticism on board. As I've said, you'll note that I've never taken the same tone with anyone else on this board, and now thankfully I don't need to fake that tone at all.
Anyway, I will still get back to those other two websites as, if they're anything like the other one, they won't provide much in the way of reasoning behind their belief that prostitution is wrong. In the meantime...
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,877667,00.html
For you to have a look at.
> shorter, more interesting posts, and we won't look like two kids in
> playground exchange. Call this condescending if you want but its up to
> you, like I said, you stop, I stop. Simple.
>
So...you'll be stopping your extraordinarily hateful posts toward anyone disagreeing with you then?
Cool as. I was getting sick of this anyway; believe it or not, I'm not the arrogant sort. I just like giving bullying types a taste of their own medicine; replying to someone in an equally unpleasant manner tends to get the message across, and fair play to you; you've taken the not-so-subtle criticism on board. As I've said, you'll note that I've never taken the same tone with anyone else on this board, and now thankfully I don't need to fake that tone at all.
Anyway, I will still get back to those other two websites as, if they're anything like the other one, they won't provide much in the way of reasoning behind their belief that prostitution is wrong. In the meantime...
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,877667,00.html
For you to have a look at.
Blimey.
That was a rollercoaster of a thread. What started off as a well-thought out post with some justified opinions turned into a reasonable discussion between two people with different opinions, then into a slagging match between two equally arrogant foolish people, each accusing the other of being arrogant and a fool. I haven't seen arguments that good since primary school.
Cheers Light and Belldandy, you've entertained me over my lunchtime, albeit unintentionally.
I had originally intended to post my own opinion, but no doubt it would only get ripped to shreds to by someone who disagreed with it and was unwilling to accept it as valid, but different from their own.
Jonman the arrogant fool.
That was a rollercoaster of a thread. What started off as a well-thought out post with some justified opinions turned into a reasonable discussion between two people with different opinions, then into a slagging match between two equally arrogant foolish people, each accusing the other of being arrogant and a fool. I haven't seen arguments that good since primary school.
Cheers Light and Belldandy, you've entertained me over my lunchtime, albeit unintentionally.
I had originally intended to post my own opinion, but no doubt it would only get ripped to shreds to by someone who disagreed with it and was unwilling to accept it as valid, but different from their own.
Jonman the arrogant fool.
Well Light, it's not that I couldn't reply to your points, I just, to use repetition, didn't see the point. Everyone else was long ago bored and me and you exchangin long replies, whilst I'm sure it was thrilling for you, got tedious.
You want legalisation, I don't. Let's not bore everyone else further eh ?
Notice you couldn't resist another dig at me either.... :P Look at it like this; you stop whining and I'll stop whining, we'll have much shorter, more interesting posts, and we won't look like two kids in playground exchange. Call this condescending if you want but its up to you, like I said, you stop, I stop. Simple.
~~Belldandy~~
You want legalisation, I don't. Let's not bore everyone else further eh ?
Notice you couldn't resist another dig at me either.... :P Look at it like this; you stop whining and I'll stop whining, we'll have much shorter, more interesting posts, and we won't look like two kids in playground exchange. Call this condescending if you want but its up to you, like I said, you stop, I stop. Simple.
~~Belldandy~~
Blank wrote:
>
> Waiting patiently.....
>
> >_<
Doh! Thank you for your patience! Among my many faults is my being as easily distractible as a kitten at times. I WILL reply, promise. Actually...
Belldandy: I'll also look at those two websites, and post a few of my own in reply. That is, assuming you want to actually debate and not whine about insults/condescention/hypocrisy/egocentricity/ any other words that curiously failed to appear in your posts until you used them? Anyway, I'll post them up when I get round to it. I'm still actually waiting for you to answer those questions I posed to you in my last non-baiting post, though as I've yet to look at all those sites you posted, fair is fair.
>
> Waiting patiently.....
>
> >_<
Doh! Thank you for your patience! Among my many faults is my being as easily distractible as a kitten at times. I WILL reply, promise. Actually...
Belldandy: I'll also look at those two websites, and post a few of my own in reply. That is, assuming you want to actually debate and not whine about insults/condescention/hypocrisy/egocentricity/ any other words that curiously failed to appear in your posts until you used them? Anyway, I'll post them up when I get round to it. I'm still actually waiting for you to answer those questions I posed to you in my last non-baiting post, though as I've yet to look at all those sites you posted, fair is fair.
Light wrote:
> Which reminds me; I still haven't replied to you, have I Blank?
> Tomorrow, I promise!
Waiting patiently.....
>_<
> Which reminds me; I still haven't replied to you, have I Blank?
> Tomorrow, I promise!
Waiting patiently.....
>_<
Belldandy wrote: - the pumpkin thing was really quite sad -
LOL!
Well, I hope you guys argue this one out and stuff. Or just stay here forever throwing insults at each other, and argueing stuff that no-one else will read becuase of all the 'reply quoting' bits that make it unreadable.
We should vote one of you out or something.
LOL!
Well, I hope you guys argue this one out and stuff. Or just stay here forever throwing insults at each other, and argueing stuff that no-one else will read becuase of all the 'reply quoting' bits that make it unreadable.
We should vote one of you out or something.
Did this win GAD a while back? If it didnt it should have :-)
Light wrote:
> Well, there doesn't seem any need to post anything to make Bell look
> stupid again.
> After all, he's doing it perfectly well by himself.
> Okay, I'll stop baiting him now.
What a load of contradictory crap, typical of you Light. So obsessed with your little "look at me I'm better, an all knowing fountain of knowledge of prostitutes" rant that, as usual, the point of the topic is lost. You've got so concentrated on sending rather immature insults to me that anyone who was interested in this has probably long since given up, whilst you and I continue endlessly, a little mobious (may be wrong spelling, just to save you typing a paragraph on spelling) ring of our own :)
Having said that, this little exchange has spiralled my word count, as it has for you also :P
~~Belldandy~~
> Well, there doesn't seem any need to post anything to make Bell look
> stupid again.
> After all, he's doing it perfectly well by himself.
> Okay, I'll stop baiting him now.
What a load of contradictory crap, typical of you Light. So obsessed with your little "look at me I'm better, an all knowing fountain of knowledge of prostitutes" rant that, as usual, the point of the topic is lost. You've got so concentrated on sending rather immature insults to me that anyone who was interested in this has probably long since given up, whilst you and I continue endlessly, a little mobious (may be wrong spelling, just to save you typing a paragraph on spelling) ring of our own :)
Having said that, this little exchange has spiralled my word count, as it has for you also :P
~~Belldandy~~
Well, there doesn't seem any need to post anything to make Bell look stupid again.
After all, he's doing it perfectly well by himself.
*To the rest of the board*
Okay, I'll stop baiting him now. I'm sure I've adequately conveyed to him what a wartsmeg he's been, and it's been fun seeing him mewl like a baby when he gets the same treatment that he dishes out to anyone who disagrees with him. But when it gets to the stage where he feels the need to (badly) copy my insults and style of writing in a rather schoolboylike attempt to inflict the same humiliation he seems to feel he has been the unjust target of...well, it's tiresome for everyone else and I've got better things to do. Such as talk to people who can think. And who actually read posts properly (has anyone else noticed how he seems to think I'm a solicitor despite my saying that it was my former profession in God knows how many posts?).
Which reminds me; I still haven't replied to you, have I Blank? Tomorrow, I promise!
After all, he's doing it perfectly well by himself.
*To the rest of the board*
Okay, I'll stop baiting him now. I'm sure I've adequately conveyed to him what a wartsmeg he's been, and it's been fun seeing him mewl like a baby when he gets the same treatment that he dishes out to anyone who disagrees with him. But when it gets to the stage where he feels the need to (badly) copy my insults and style of writing in a rather schoolboylike attempt to inflict the same humiliation he seems to feel he has been the unjust target of...well, it's tiresome for everyone else and I've got better things to do. Such as talk to people who can think. And who actually read posts properly (has anyone else noticed how he seems to think I'm a solicitor despite my saying that it was my former profession in God knows how many posts?).
Which reminds me; I still haven't replied to you, have I Blank? Tomorrow, I promise!
Page: