Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're "loose", "wore out", and "have too many miles" by default. Even though they probably have access to the latest and greatest technology to fix these problems.
Because prostitutes are more visible than the people who utilize their “services.” People know that most prostitutes have probably had many, many sex partners, which lowers the level of respect that many might otherwise have for them.
Haha - and the johns haven't had a lot "partners"? Or are they faithful to their favorite prostitute?
Fundamentally how is prostitution any different from a woman who dates or marries a man for his wealth?
Yup...all women are ho's...including your mom and sister...just thought I'd point that out for ya...because some guys think that if you even pay for a "date's" coffee they're a gold digger.
Because no one should be paying you money top see you naked or have sex, 2 things that are completely free. Its just legal prostitution.
I still cant grasp the concept of, here is $50, because you are naked in front of me shaking yo azz SMH
And yet people buy bottled water. Free doesn't mean available nor does it mean available in the way one might like it. Think of it like you have all the water you want at home but you have a hankering for something flavoured or fizzy. No industry survives unless it fills a need.
Yup...all women are ho's...including your mom and sister...just thought I'd point that out for ya...because some guys think that if you even pay for a "date's" coffee they're a gold digger.
I used that analogy as a way call attention to the hypocrisy in the way society views sex workers.
If a woman marries a man because he is wealth, that is normal (by our societies standards). If a woman exchanges sex for money, that is wrong (by our societies standards). Fundamentally both involve exchanging money for sex, why is one socially acceptable and the other not?
If a woman marries a man because he is wealth, that is normal (by our societies standards). If a woman exchanges sex for money, that is wrong (by our societies standards). Fundamentally both involve exchanging money for sex, why is one socially acceptable and the other not?
I don't agree. Most marriages aren't strictly an exchange of money for sex, there is usually at least a pretext of love or companionship in them. And in cases where there isn't we look down on that and condemn it as gold digging. Same condemnation, just differs by degree.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,607 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50628
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Fundamentally how is prostitution any different from a woman who dates or marries a man for his wealth?
That post sent me to YouTube to try to find comedian Leanne Morgan's bit about prostituting herself to her husband. She's from Tennessee, and has a twang that's almost a speech impediment, and she's got this bit about when she was a teenager something about a hay ride would really turn her on, and if she could get that hot again with her husband "I could earn me a purse". Some other bit about oohhie I'm going to have to do something nasty tonight - I need a new refrigerator. But that's not as bad as in December, Christmas is coming and the kids wanted an XBOX.
Couldn't find the clip. But I did watch other stuff of hers and she's just one really funny woman. And now I'm "thinking in her voice."
I don't agree. Most marriages aren't strictly an exchange of money for sex, there is usually at least a pretext of love or companionship in them. And in cases where there isn't we look down on that and condemn it as gold digging. Same condemnation, just differs by degree.
I never said "all marriages" I wouldn't even say "most marriages" can be described as such. The percentage of such marriages where that arrangement occurs are generally seen as socially acceptable. Specifically for the man! The woman may get a slight degree of flak but the man gets none. Case in point, look at our president and his many marriages. Social and economic condemnation for such arrangements do not occur.
We still don’t have an answer to the question. Why judge two or more adults for doing what makes them happy and isn’t hurting anyone? And they can make decent money from it. They’re not doing anything illegal or on welfare (God forbid). Who made the rules as to what’s immoral? Like I said before people don’t know why other then someone else told them it’s iky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
