The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
So that's a no then?
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> So, do either of you do anything about these views in the *real*
> world? Go on pro / anti prostitution marches or whatever? Write
> letters to MPs? Becuase that, to me, would be much more useful than
> calling each other pumpkins and stuff.
You are under the illusion that marches actually achieve anything other than diverting police resources away from real problems. It's more of a feel good thing for those who participate, and actually has as much effect as people thorwing arguments at each over on here. Besides, are there really pro prostitution marches ? I don't think so......
Seeing as I want to keep prostitution illegal I don't really need to do anything do I ? Except vote against anyone who wants to make it legal.
~~Belldandy~~
> So, do either of you do anything about these views in the *real*
> world? Go on pro / anti prostitution marches or whatever? Write
> letters to MPs? Becuase that, to me, would be much more useful than
> calling each other pumpkins and stuff.
You are under the illusion that marches actually achieve anything other than diverting police resources away from real problems. It's more of a feel good thing for those who participate, and actually has as much effect as people thorwing arguments at each over on here. Besides, are there really pro prostitution marches ? I don't think so......
Seeing as I want to keep prostitution illegal I don't really need to do anything do I ? Except vote against anyone who wants to make it legal.
~~Belldandy~~
Thanks Belldandy - I never thought I'd see so many "Another good point"s in response to one of my posts. Yes, it does seem wrong to buy sex, as it is almost a right I suppose (that soudns pompous, but you get the picture). But then again if we have the right to break the laws of nature by using contraceptives, surely we have the right to break the laws of nature by requesting something in return for sex? It is a conundrum indeed.
Light 4 Belldandy, Light 4 Belldandy.
So, do either of you do anything about these views in the *real* world? Go on pro / anti prostitution marches or whatever? Write letters to MPs? Becuase that, to me, would be much more useful than calling each other pumpkins and stuff.
So, do either of you do anything about these views in the *real* world? Go on pro / anti prostitution marches or whatever? Write letters to MPs? Becuase that, to me, would be much more useful than calling each other pumpkins and stuff.
Blank wrote:
> But it is possible to engage in prostitution without soliciting, I'm
> sure. If a man goes up to a woman (not necessarily haning around
> anywhere), and says "Fancy a shag?", and teh woman says
> "It'll cost you fifty", then she didn't solicit. She may not
> have even decided to be a prostitute until that very moment when she
> was asked. It was the chap who was in the wrong.
But what kind of person is that man - if he isn't completely out of it due to alcohol - if he goes and does that anyway ? Still, it is a good point that the roots of prostitution lie in those who create the deman - men.
> Basically, it would mean that the pimp would become a legitimate
> Boss,
> yeah. And that would mean he's got to comply with all sorts of rules
> and regulations, not which of least would be the ones pertaining to
> safe working conditions for employees. I accept that they won't just
> fade away, but this would in my opinion make it easier to identify
> the
> REALLY bad apples and make life safer for prostitutes.
I think the point of legalisation would be to remove "pimps" entirely ? If this did happen those same pimps would switch to other forms of prostitution or crime, shifting the problem elsewhere.
> Point taken, although it would still be possible to make the
> woman/girl/man/boy/whatever do the job under illegal circumstances, eg
> forcing her to do it. Plus he/she can still not comply with
> regulations and get away with it - there are thousands of bosses up
> and down the country in "normal" jobs who don't obey the
> rules, and their employees are too scared to rat on them. You
> shouldn't think that it'll be any different in this profession if it
> was made legal, because it wouldn't be.
100% with you there.
> Ah, but wouldn't it also look better on the pimp if he was forcing her
> to do something legal rather than illegal? He would hardly get any
> punishment for exactly the same crime.
Another good point. Many people around the world are trapped in legal employment they don't ant ot do but are forced to continue in because fo fear over debts they owe to criminals and illegal operations like smuggling rings.
> If people disagree with you on something, they start to disagree with
> you on everything. After you and Belldandy have had this little scrap,
> neither of you will ever take the other's opinion rationally or
> without a huge dollop of salt for a very, very long time.
Another fair point.
> If we do this, then the countries that disagree with us will reject
> our other proposals, agendas etc, they'll think that our opinion
> doesn't count. For instance, if someone said "For Europe to go to
> war with Iraq (stupidly generalised but bear with me) then we need
> Holland's opinion", someone else could say "Holland? They
> don't give a crap! Legalisation of prostitution and drugs? They're
> opinion doesn't even matter!", and very few people would bat an
> eyelid.
Another good point - forget any standing we have with America for a start...
> And just because we have been at war with people in the past doesn't
> mean we should just say "Ah, f*f**k 'em" now. We need to keep
> things running smoothly with other countries.
Another good point. The problem is that we still often view other nations, and religions, by difference rather than similarity, and find a point of conflict in that. Take me and Light - in our own way we each ( I believe ) believe that our ideas revolve around better protecting those who could, or are, in prostitution. This at least establishes that we care in some way, it's one thing we share.
> Why won't it be done? They'll lose voters, but over 40% of this
> country don't vote. Many of my friends fall into this category, and
> they all agree that they'd vote for a party that was not afraid to
> be
> liberal as long as they used their heads as well.
Bear in mind though that the same could be said for France, until Le Pen tried his little stunt, and that mobilised the voters in droves. People won't come out and vote unless they think their is a damn good reason to - in many cases anyway. Hef**k, I'd vote for a party that was more liberal if I thought they'd actually achieve anything and not get bogged down in pressure groups, protests e.t.c
> The fear of outsiders looking down on us; then how come we're still
> supporting Dubya and his Daddy's war despite the entire rest of the
> known world thinking it's a dreadful idea? I agree with you're
> implication that the UK (well...I can only speak for the English
> here
> so apologies to the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish) population are
> a
> proud bunch, yet we're currently going down a road that is leading
> us
> to being seen as a faithful lapdog.
Here is where I disagree, mainoly because of your sweeping generalisations and inaccuracies. Firstly it was nor former President Bush who started the Gulf War - it was Iraq and it's invasion of Kuwait followed by it's treatment of the Kuwaiti people, secondly it was a UN coalition, and thirdly, what war ? I see not war yet. You are working on presumption on this - on the same afternoon that Hans Blix announced evidence of illegal importation in Iraq. If Iraq has been able to import material illegally and until now undetected, then don't rule out anything. Then the "lapdog" opinion. Did we moan when America entered the Second World War ? Nope, Churchill conspired with Roosevelt to ensure it, and in the Falklands did we complain about their help ? Nope. Now they want our help with this, even if it is just symbolic, so why not ? Claire Short, and Tony Blair have all but admitted there will be no war without a new UN resolution. On another note, there are few nations that can stand alone today in this world, the UK is not one of those that can anymore, any idea we can is a delusion of Empire. And yes, all this is in my opinion.
> I disagree - I think that Blair is seen as a lapdog, not the
> population in general. And the countries whose opinions we value I
> don't think are really against the war (correct me if I'm wrong by all
> means). In fact I think everyone is kind of half-for, half-against the
> war. I don't really know what I want on this issue myself.
Which countries ? Public opinion is against joining Europe in the single currency, most people don't care about the Middle East because it is so far away that they cannot see how it affects us, Asia only makes it into the papers when China or N.Korea decide to utter something significant, same goes for Australia - whose treatment of asylum seekers our media had fun lambasting - and so on. I too agree that most countries do seem to be half on half off with a conflict against Iraq, it is as if they're all waiting for someone to force them into something, wallowing in indecision - apart from America and the UK.
> Well I mostly agree with you on the legalisation issue, I just don't
> think it'll happen for the reasons I've given. It's all religion's
> fault, turning the very thing that keeps the human race going into
> something dirty, and a taboo.
I agree with that, it's as if sex is something taboo, but I don't think the answer is found in allowing it to be bought.
~~Belldandy~~
> But it is possible to engage in prostitution without soliciting, I'm
> sure. If a man goes up to a woman (not necessarily haning around
> anywhere), and says "Fancy a shag?", and teh woman says
> "It'll cost you fifty", then she didn't solicit. She may not
> have even decided to be a prostitute until that very moment when she
> was asked. It was the chap who was in the wrong.
But what kind of person is that man - if he isn't completely out of it due to alcohol - if he goes and does that anyway ? Still, it is a good point that the roots of prostitution lie in those who create the deman - men.
> Basically, it would mean that the pimp would become a legitimate
> Boss,
> yeah. And that would mean he's got to comply with all sorts of rules
> and regulations, not which of least would be the ones pertaining to
> safe working conditions for employees. I accept that they won't just
> fade away, but this would in my opinion make it easier to identify
> the
> REALLY bad apples and make life safer for prostitutes.
I think the point of legalisation would be to remove "pimps" entirely ? If this did happen those same pimps would switch to other forms of prostitution or crime, shifting the problem elsewhere.
> Point taken, although it would still be possible to make the
> woman/girl/man/boy/whatever do the job under illegal circumstances, eg
> forcing her to do it. Plus he/she can still not comply with
> regulations and get away with it - there are thousands of bosses up
> and down the country in "normal" jobs who don't obey the
> rules, and their employees are too scared to rat on them. You
> shouldn't think that it'll be any different in this profession if it
> was made legal, because it wouldn't be.
100% with you there.
> Ah, but wouldn't it also look better on the pimp if he was forcing her
> to do something legal rather than illegal? He would hardly get any
> punishment for exactly the same crime.
Another good point. Many people around the world are trapped in legal employment they don't ant ot do but are forced to continue in because fo fear over debts they owe to criminals and illegal operations like smuggling rings.
> If people disagree with you on something, they start to disagree with
> you on everything. After you and Belldandy have had this little scrap,
> neither of you will ever take the other's opinion rationally or
> without a huge dollop of salt for a very, very long time.
Another fair point.
> If we do this, then the countries that disagree with us will reject
> our other proposals, agendas etc, they'll think that our opinion
> doesn't count. For instance, if someone said "For Europe to go to
> war with Iraq (stupidly generalised but bear with me) then we need
> Holland's opinion", someone else could say "Holland? They
> don't give a crap! Legalisation of prostitution and drugs? They're
> opinion doesn't even matter!", and very few people would bat an
> eyelid.
Another good point - forget any standing we have with America for a start...
> And just because we have been at war with people in the past doesn't
> mean we should just say "Ah, f*f**k 'em" now. We need to keep
> things running smoothly with other countries.
Another good point. The problem is that we still often view other nations, and religions, by difference rather than similarity, and find a point of conflict in that. Take me and Light - in our own way we each ( I believe ) believe that our ideas revolve around better protecting those who could, or are, in prostitution. This at least establishes that we care in some way, it's one thing we share.
> Why won't it be done? They'll lose voters, but over 40% of this
> country don't vote. Many of my friends fall into this category, and
> they all agree that they'd vote for a party that was not afraid to
> be
> liberal as long as they used their heads as well.
Bear in mind though that the same could be said for France, until Le Pen tried his little stunt, and that mobilised the voters in droves. People won't come out and vote unless they think their is a damn good reason to - in many cases anyway. Hef**k, I'd vote for a party that was more liberal if I thought they'd actually achieve anything and not get bogged down in pressure groups, protests e.t.c
> The fear of outsiders looking down on us; then how come we're still
> supporting Dubya and his Daddy's war despite the entire rest of the
> known world thinking it's a dreadful idea? I agree with you're
> implication that the UK (well...I can only speak for the English
> here
> so apologies to the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish) population are
> a
> proud bunch, yet we're currently going down a road that is leading
> us
> to being seen as a faithful lapdog.
Here is where I disagree, mainoly because of your sweeping generalisations and inaccuracies. Firstly it was nor former President Bush who started the Gulf War - it was Iraq and it's invasion of Kuwait followed by it's treatment of the Kuwaiti people, secondly it was a UN coalition, and thirdly, what war ? I see not war yet. You are working on presumption on this - on the same afternoon that Hans Blix announced evidence of illegal importation in Iraq. If Iraq has been able to import material illegally and until now undetected, then don't rule out anything. Then the "lapdog" opinion. Did we moan when America entered the Second World War ? Nope, Churchill conspired with Roosevelt to ensure it, and in the Falklands did we complain about their help ? Nope. Now they want our help with this, even if it is just symbolic, so why not ? Claire Short, and Tony Blair have all but admitted there will be no war without a new UN resolution. On another note, there are few nations that can stand alone today in this world, the UK is not one of those that can anymore, any idea we can is a delusion of Empire. And yes, all this is in my opinion.
> I disagree - I think that Blair is seen as a lapdog, not the
> population in general. And the countries whose opinions we value I
> don't think are really against the war (correct me if I'm wrong by all
> means). In fact I think everyone is kind of half-for, half-against the
> war. I don't really know what I want on this issue myself.
Which countries ? Public opinion is against joining Europe in the single currency, most people don't care about the Middle East because it is so far away that they cannot see how it affects us, Asia only makes it into the papers when China or N.Korea decide to utter something significant, same goes for Australia - whose treatment of asylum seekers our media had fun lambasting - and so on. I too agree that most countries do seem to be half on half off with a conflict against Iraq, it is as if they're all waiting for someone to force them into something, wallowing in indecision - apart from America and the UK.
> Well I mostly agree with you on the legalisation issue, I just don't
> think it'll happen for the reasons I've given. It's all religion's
> fault, turning the very thing that keeps the human race going into
> something dirty, and a taboo.
I agree with that, it's as if sex is something taboo, but I don't think the answer is found in allowing it to be bought.
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Superb! You've actually gotten round to researching your opinions!
> About bloody time...
An opinion doe not actually need research - as the Daily Mail continues to prove....
> Strangely, I get a "The Page cannot be found" when I cut and
> paste this. An accident, or are you making stuff up and hoping I won't
> check?!
And how many web site addresses have you been to with a space in them eh ? Didn't you think it rather odd, or try it without the space ? SR has a character limit for one word, so we have to break up long URLs to get them on a post.
> Ah yes, a pressure group with an agenda. Looking for objective
> information on here is like looking for breasts on a bull. For
> example, they work on the assumption that all prostitution is violence
> against women. In other words, they assume that women would not take
> this career option if they had others available. They offer no
> evidence in support of this claim.
Well, if you are calling for legalised prostitution then you are no different to them - a person with an agenda. You yourself can offer no evidence as to women taking up this option when there are other available. you may not like what they say but;
a) They are women, hence I think we have to respect they may have more insight into what it is like to sell yourself for money.
b) You cannot offer evidence to contradict them.
c) Part of the point is to show I am not the only person to think like this - as you seem to imply with your many, and varied, remarks.
> And, as per my favourite bugbear, what they have done is given a list
> of their opinions with no evidence (subjective or otherwise) to back
> it up. I'll admit that posting other peoples unsupported opinions is
> an improvement, but still not up to scratch I'm afraid. However,
> you've made the effort so I'll have a hunt for a Prostitutes Group
> opinion.
Lets see, number of websites/evidence posted by Light, 0, number by me, 3. 3-0 I think. You've also made statements with no backup other than your say so.
> Nope, I'm saying that the latter page (the only one that I can
> actually access) has a certain political dogma underpinning it that,
> as per the commonly understood meaning of victorian morals and values,
> refuses to take account of the realities and actualities of a
> situation (the situation being that, legal or illegal, prostitution
> will always exist)
You to have a political dogma underpinning your opinions, as does everyone. As for not being able to access the others thats a misunderstanding on your part, and not my fault. Again, your assertions about the Victorian age are more likely those drawn from classical history and not a more realistic history, one such example can be found at;
http://www.hackwriters.com/victorianp.htm
http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/ burning/vicera.htm - this one in particular shows the levels to which some of that age sank to.
So much for your idealistic Victorian morals eh ?
> I'll say it again - I say it is better that it is legal in order to
> afford maximum protection to the prostitutes in their working lives.
> Admittedly, I've only been able to see one of the pages you've put
> here, but it offers nothing in rebuttal of that, only the opinion of a
> group of people.
And you are only offering your opinion, as that is all anyone can do in any debateable situation - just as it was in the Israeli government's opinion that the Palestinian delegation for todays summit should be stopped from travelling. Doesn't make them right, doesn't make them wrong. Picking up on another point, what do you define as working lives that would be acceptable ? Do we start at the age of consent, or higher ? What's the limit to age ?Retirement age for women is either 60 or 65 isn't it ? Not wanting to appear sexist, but seeing as we're talking about realism I don't think a prostitute is going to be able to make that somehow....The best way, in my opinion, to protect prostitutes to firstly try and offer viable alternatives to that career/profession, and to switch attention to arresting and charging those who run the operations and the punters who use them.
> Either that or just give me your number and we can get sweaty like you
> know we want to...
"we want to" ? Referring to yourself in the third person ? Royalty are you ? :) Anyway, you're not my type, being male and all :P
~~Belldandy~~
> Superb! You've actually gotten round to researching your opinions!
> About bloody time...
An opinion doe not actually need research - as the Daily Mail continues to prove....
> Strangely, I get a "The Page cannot be found" when I cut and
> paste this. An accident, or are you making stuff up and hoping I won't
> check?!
And how many web site addresses have you been to with a space in them eh ? Didn't you think it rather odd, or try it without the space ? SR has a character limit for one word, so we have to break up long URLs to get them on a post.
> Ah yes, a pressure group with an agenda. Looking for objective
> information on here is like looking for breasts on a bull. For
> example, they work on the assumption that all prostitution is violence
> against women. In other words, they assume that women would not take
> this career option if they had others available. They offer no
> evidence in support of this claim.
Well, if you are calling for legalised prostitution then you are no different to them - a person with an agenda. You yourself can offer no evidence as to women taking up this option when there are other available. you may not like what they say but;
a) They are women, hence I think we have to respect they may have more insight into what it is like to sell yourself for money.
b) You cannot offer evidence to contradict them.
c) Part of the point is to show I am not the only person to think like this - as you seem to imply with your many, and varied, remarks.
> And, as per my favourite bugbear, what they have done is given a list
> of their opinions with no evidence (subjective or otherwise) to back
> it up. I'll admit that posting other peoples unsupported opinions is
> an improvement, but still not up to scratch I'm afraid. However,
> you've made the effort so I'll have a hunt for a Prostitutes Group
> opinion.
Lets see, number of websites/evidence posted by Light, 0, number by me, 3. 3-0 I think. You've also made statements with no backup other than your say so.
> Nope, I'm saying that the latter page (the only one that I can
> actually access) has a certain political dogma underpinning it that,
> as per the commonly understood meaning of victorian morals and values,
> refuses to take account of the realities and actualities of a
> situation (the situation being that, legal or illegal, prostitution
> will always exist)
You to have a political dogma underpinning your opinions, as does everyone. As for not being able to access the others thats a misunderstanding on your part, and not my fault. Again, your assertions about the Victorian age are more likely those drawn from classical history and not a more realistic history, one such example can be found at;
http://www.hackwriters.com/victorianp.htm
http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/ burning/vicera.htm - this one in particular shows the levels to which some of that age sank to.
So much for your idealistic Victorian morals eh ?
> I'll say it again - I say it is better that it is legal in order to
> afford maximum protection to the prostitutes in their working lives.
> Admittedly, I've only been able to see one of the pages you've put
> here, but it offers nothing in rebuttal of that, only the opinion of a
> group of people.
And you are only offering your opinion, as that is all anyone can do in any debateable situation - just as it was in the Israeli government's opinion that the Palestinian delegation for todays summit should be stopped from travelling. Doesn't make them right, doesn't make them wrong. Picking up on another point, what do you define as working lives that would be acceptable ? Do we start at the age of consent, or higher ? What's the limit to age ?Retirement age for women is either 60 or 65 isn't it ? Not wanting to appear sexist, but seeing as we're talking about realism I don't think a prostitute is going to be able to make that somehow....The best way, in my opinion, to protect prostitutes to firstly try and offer viable alternatives to that career/profession, and to switch attention to arresting and charging those who run the operations and the punters who use them.
> Either that or just give me your number and we can get sweaty like you
> know we want to...
"we want to" ? Referring to yourself in the third person ? Royalty are you ? :) Anyway, you're not my type, being male and all :P
~~Belldandy~~
Pssst Light, you need to get rid of the spaces in the URL...
Blank: I'm off home now, so I'll read and reply tomorrow.
Belldandy wrote:
> Incidentally Light; if legalising prostitution is a winning idea why
> did the Swedish government, which had legalised prostitution in 1995,
> reverse it's decision ?
Superb! You've actually gotten round to researching your opinions! About bloody time...
>
> Some of the reasons can be found on this page;
> http://www.dfl.org.za/issues/ Prostitution/analysis.htm - the negative
> effects of doing so - the very ones you say have no consequence
> because, in your words "Women can do what they want with their
> bodies".
Strangely, I get a "The Page cannot be found" when I cut and paste this. An accident, or are you making stuff up and hoping I won't check?!
But seriously, could you check the spelling and re-post it please? I tend to prefer to see what I'm arguing against before making a statement.
>
> This page also includes some thoughts on why it is wrong, in the
> context of Indian women;
>
> http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ wpnz/may19-02prostitution.htm
404 not found here. If it exists, could you check the spelling and repost please? Thank you
>
> And we have another page here from a Norwegian Women's group;
>
> http://www.kvinnefronten.no/ENGELSK/prostitution.htm - focusing on
> criminalising the men involved in particular
Ah yes, a pressure group with an agenda. Looking for objective information on here is like looking for breasts on a bull. For example, they work on the assumption that all prostitution is violence against women. In other words, they assume that women would not take this career option if they had others available. They offer no evidence in support of this claim.
And, as per my favourite bugbear, what they have done is given a list of their opinions with no evidence (subjective or otherwise) to back it up. I'll admit that posting other peoples unsupported opinions is an improvement, but still not up to scratch I'm afraid. However, you've made the effort so I'll have a hunt for a Prostitutes Group opinion.
>
> So, let us look back at this. You've said my views are victorian,
> repressive, e.t.c Now does one of these pages originate from england ?
> Er, nope. So are all three, seperate sources, also guilty of the same
> short sightedness you accuse me of ?
Nope, I'm saying that the latter page (the only one that I can actually access) has a certain political dogma underpinning it that, as per the commonly understood meaning of victorian morals and values, refuses to take account of the realities and actualities of a situation (the situation being that, legal or illegal, prostitution will always exist)
I'll say it again - I say it is better that it is legal in order to afford maximum protection to the prostitutes in their working lives. Admittedly, I've only been able to see one of the pages you've put here, but it offers nothing in rebuttal of that, only the opinion of a group of people.
> Any response (that actually involves these points and not just your
> stream of somewhat weird insults, like "Pumpkin") ?
Yup; unlike you (mostly), I actually bother myself to respond to valid points. And once more, I will point out the base irony of your mewling and whining about being insulted when that is almost all you ever do.
I say almost; notice how I've replied and addressed your points where able, and where they are valid? Once more; that is something you should learn how to do rather than insulting those who disagree with you, and complaining when they do the same back. Grow up, eh?
Either that or just give me your number and we can get sweaty like you know we want to...
> Incidentally Light; if legalising prostitution is a winning idea why
> did the Swedish government, which had legalised prostitution in 1995,
> reverse it's decision ?
Superb! You've actually gotten round to researching your opinions! About bloody time...
>
> Some of the reasons can be found on this page;
> http://www.dfl.org.za/issues/ Prostitution/analysis.htm - the negative
> effects of doing so - the very ones you say have no consequence
> because, in your words "Women can do what they want with their
> bodies".
Strangely, I get a "The Page cannot be found" when I cut and paste this. An accident, or are you making stuff up and hoping I won't check?!
But seriously, could you check the spelling and re-post it please? I tend to prefer to see what I'm arguing against before making a statement.
>
> This page also includes some thoughts on why it is wrong, in the
> context of Indian women;
>
> http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/ wpnz/may19-02prostitution.htm
404 not found here. If it exists, could you check the spelling and repost please? Thank you
>
> And we have another page here from a Norwegian Women's group;
>
> http://www.kvinnefronten.no/ENGELSK/prostitution.htm - focusing on
> criminalising the men involved in particular
Ah yes, a pressure group with an agenda. Looking for objective information on here is like looking for breasts on a bull. For example, they work on the assumption that all prostitution is violence against women. In other words, they assume that women would not take this career option if they had others available. They offer no evidence in support of this claim.
And, as per my favourite bugbear, what they have done is given a list of their opinions with no evidence (subjective or otherwise) to back it up. I'll admit that posting other peoples unsupported opinions is an improvement, but still not up to scratch I'm afraid. However, you've made the effort so I'll have a hunt for a Prostitutes Group opinion.
>
> So, let us look back at this. You've said my views are victorian,
> repressive, e.t.c Now does one of these pages originate from england ?
> Er, nope. So are all three, seperate sources, also guilty of the same
> short sightedness you accuse me of ?
Nope, I'm saying that the latter page (the only one that I can actually access) has a certain political dogma underpinning it that, as per the commonly understood meaning of victorian morals and values, refuses to take account of the realities and actualities of a situation (the situation being that, legal or illegal, prostitution will always exist)
I'll say it again - I say it is better that it is legal in order to afford maximum protection to the prostitutes in their working lives. Admittedly, I've only been able to see one of the pages you've put here, but it offers nothing in rebuttal of that, only the opinion of a group of people.
> Any response (that actually involves these points and not just your
> stream of somewhat weird insults, like "Pumpkin") ?
Yup; unlike you (mostly), I actually bother myself to respond to valid points. And once more, I will point out the base irony of your mewling and whining about being insulted when that is almost all you ever do.
I say almost; notice how I've replied and addressed your points where able, and where they are valid? Once more; that is something you should learn how to do rather than insulting those who disagree with you, and complaining when they do the same back. Grow up, eh?
Either that or just give me your number and we can get sweaty like you know we want to...
Light wrote:
> And it's enjoyable debating with someone who doesn't take themselves
> too seriously, isn't priggish to the nth degree, and who has a sense
> of humour (yes; I am talking about BellEndy again. I admit it; I want
> a night of sweaty lurve with his bluer than blue cheecks grinding
> achingly against my....okay, that was too much information, right?)
Correct. The bluer than blue cheeks bit shows you really care, though. :)
> And it's enjoyable debating with someone who doesn't take themselves
> too seriously, isn't priggish to the nth degree, and who has a sense
> of humour (yes; I am talking about BellEndy again. I admit it; I want
> a night of sweaty lurve with his bluer than blue cheecks grinding
> achingly against my....okay, that was too much information, right?)
Correct. The bluer than blue cheeks bit shows you really care, though. :)
Page: