Is Prostitution Neccessarily Bad?


Marcus

Recommended Posts

And I think you're starting to troll my thread.

80% means far more. And "spending" money is not the same as "earning" it.

First of all, you are not worth trolling, however you would define it.

Your discussion on "your" thread my fine friend was about prostitution, correct?

Therefore, are you now changing the focus of "your" thread?

Just want to be sure.

A...

LOL you but you *are* trolling my thread. The irony....

And no, I'm not changing the focus of the thread. I was drawing similarities between prostitution and the modern institution of marriage. It's playing out to be not all that different if you pay attention to the real world around you. From a purely mathematical perspective marriage does'nt make a whole lot of sense for most men.

Oh and by the way, if you can't play nice just GTFO. I don't have the time or the inclination to address assclowns jamming up my thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've never known a professional prostitute, at least not to my knowledge, but I have known lots of wives, and even was one myself for a time. There wasn't one of them who ever considered sex to by the only duty (or privilege) of her role. A wife, or a husband, for that matter, is not in the marriage to exchange sex for money or items of monetary value. She, or he, is in the marriage to be, and to have, a partner in life. That's not what a prostitute is. Stop comparing them.

Yeah, a wife and a prostitute are not exactly the same thing. However, this does not take away the fact that there are financial transactions in both wife/husband and prostitute/johns relationships and it's usually from man to woman. This "gender skew" of wealth transfer leads me to believe there are underlying biological/evolutionary reasons for this.

Why are prostitutes mostly women? Why are johns mostly men (gay and straight)? Why are there no "male" mistresses?

You say marriage means a life partner (assuming this means "lifelong" partner), but you are no longer married? I don't want to know why your not married (not my business) so much as why you didn't follow your own principle/belief?

Actually, no, there are no rules in marriage that would qualify as a "financial transaction... from man to woman" at least not any that are required. Not in the US in present day, anyway. If a man buys a woman an engagement ring, that is his choice. If he doesn't want to buy an engagement ring, he need not do so. It is not a requirement of marriage. If his intended demands it or demands a style and size of ring that is outside of his financial ability to provide regardless of his desire to do so, then he is free to go find some other intended. Financial transactions executed within a marriage are joint ventures that rightly ought to be agreed upon by both spouses.

I don't have any statistics, but I would guess that more prostitutes are women because the demand for female prostitutes is higher than the demand for male prostitutes.

No, I am no longer married, and in so choosing, did not surrender my principles. In fact, I upheld my principles.

Marcus, you opened this thread with the question, "Is prostitution necessarily bad?" Yet, your comments have less to do with what you think about prostitution and more to do with what you think about marriage. If you think marriage, as an institution, is skewed unfairly against you, then either don't get married or prior to doing so, execute a prenuptial agreement to protect yourself.

There are no rules in marriage that qualify as a "financial transaction"? You should check your own statement.

97% of the people who seek and require alimony are women

Check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/millionaire-divorce/

Notice any patterns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha!! I thought it was worth a chuckle!

Btw basketball was invented in Canada!

I knew it was Naismith, however, I did not know where he was born and where he attended and coached,

McGill University, great school. Marshal McLuhan taught there I believe.

Ah, however, the dirty little secret is that he invented it in the good old US of A, well sort of, it

was Massachusetts which is not really part of the United States.

Kansas History Web Sites

History of Basketball

Dr. James Naismith, Inventor of Basketball

KU Basketball Program Founder

[photo: James Naismith with basketball. All rights reserved. Kansas Heritage Group.

Dr. James Naismith is known world-wide as the inventor of basketball. He was born in 1861 in Ramsay township, near Almonte, Ontario, Canada. The concept of basketball was born from Naismith's school days in the area where he played a simple child's game known as duck-on-a-rock outside his one-room schoolhouse. The game involved attempting to knock a "duck" off the top of a large rock by tossing another rock at it. Naismith went on to attend McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

After serving as McGill's Athletic Director, James Naismith moved on to the YMCA Training School in Springfield, Massachusetts, USA in 1891, where the sport of basketball was born. In Springfield, Naismith was faced with the problem of finding a sport that was suitable for play inside during the Massachusetts winter for the students at the School for Christian Workers. Naismith wanted to create a game of skill for the students instead of one that relied solely on strength. He needed a game that could be played indoors in a relatively small space. The first game was played with a soccer ball and two peach baskets used as goals. Naismith joined the University of Kansas faculty in 1898, teaching physical education and being a chaplain.

James Naismith devised a set of thirteen rules of basketball:

1.The ball may be thrown in any direction with one or both hands.

2.The ball may be batted in any direction with one or both hands, but never with the fist.

3.A player cannot run with the ball. The player must throw it from the spot on which he catches it, allowance to be made for a man running at good speed.

4.The ball must be held in or between the hands. The arms or body must not be used for holding it.

5.No shouldering, holding, pushing, striking or tripping in any way of an opponent. The first infringement of this rule by any person shall count as a foul; the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game. No substitution shall be allowed.

6.A foul is striking at the ball with the fist, violations of Rules 3 and 4 and such as described in Rule 5.

7.If either side make three consecutive fouls it shall count as a goal for the opponents (consecutive means without the opponents in the meantime making a foul).

8. Goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the ground into the basket and stays there, providing those defending the goal do not touch or disturb the goal. If the ball rests on the edge and the opponents move the basket, it shall count as a goal.

9.When the ball goes out of bounds, it shall be thrown into the field and played by the first person touching it. In case of dispute the umpire shall throw it straight into the field. The thrower-in is allowed five seconds. If he holds it longer, it shall go to the opponent. If any side persists in delaying the game, the umpire shall call a foul on them.

10.The umpire shall be judge of the men and shall note the fouls and notify the referee when three consecutive fouls have been made. He shall have the power to disqualify men according to Rule 5.

11.The referee shall be the judge of the ball and decide when it is in play in bounds, to which side it belongs, and shall keep the time. He shall decide when a goal has been made and keep account of the goals with any other duties that are usually performed by a referee.

12.The time shall be two 15-minute halves with five minutes' rest between.

13.The side making the most goals in that time shall be declared the winners.

In addition to the creation of the basketball, James Naismith graduated as a medical doctor, primarily interested in sports physiology and what we would today call sports science and as Presbyterian minister, with a keen interest in philosophy and clean living. Naismith watched his sport, basketball, introduced in many nations by the YMCA movement as early as 1893. Basketball was introduced at the Berlin Olympics in 1936. Naismith was flown to Berlin to watch the games. He died in Lawrence, Kansas, in 1939.

Today basketball has grown to become one of the world's most popular sports.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think you're starting to troll my thread.

80% means far more. And "spending" money is not the same as "earning" it.

First of all, you are not worth trolling, however you would define it.

Your discussion on "your" thread my fine friend was about prostitution, correct?

Therefore, are you now changing the focus of "your" thread?

Just want to be sure.

A...

LOL you but you *are* trolling my thread. The irony....

And no, I'm not changing the focus of the thread. I was drawing similarities between prostitution and the modern institution of marriage. It's playing out to be not all that different if you pay attention to the real world around you. From a purely mathematical perspective marriage does'nt make a whole lot of sense for most men.

Oh and by the way, if you can't play nice just GTFO. I don't have the time or the inclination to address assclowns jamming up my thread.

The threads belong to the site owner. Who has a "corner" has some control over what others post. You have none. "Your" thread is the thread you started, period. It does not include any ownership rights. I don't appreciate you calling Adam names. Maybe you should GTFO of OL.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice any patterns?

Yep. I'd say you're unqualified to be married.

Sometimes I think it too likely, that the End of History will be sexually inert, with millions of nerds trapped in digital realms, gawking at fantasy images and popping rave drugs like X and LSD to make indoor life interesting. I know several bright, handsome men in their mid-20's who prefer to remain closeted with computers day and night, interrupted only by DVD cartoon compilations and cheeseburger wrappers — and who are psychologically unqualified to romance a woman, no matter how cooperative the lady in question may be. It is not for lack of testosterone. The Third Wave digiratti are not homosexual. But they are sexually dysfunctional, unable to grapple with the physical reality of females, whom they worship from a safe distance like smitten schoolboys. A nerd's plight consists of feeling overwhelmed by a complex operating system he does not comprehend, because females are neither Windows nor Linux. This is why John Gray's stand up comedy (Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus) became a Third Wave default faith. There is no Ctrl-Alt-Del command to reboot a romance, and the only executable submodules are marriage and family life, success at which requires considerably more effort than an occasional mouse click.

[Laissez Faire Law, p.111]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL you but you *are* trolling my thread.

Make your case. If this definition is not acceptable, suggest a different one.

Internet Troll

A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL you but you *are* trolling my thread. The irony....

And no, I'm not changing the focus of the thread. I was drawing similarities between prostitution and the modern institution of marriage. It's playing out to be not all that different if you pay attention to the real world around you. From a purely mathematical perspective marriage does'nt make a whole lot of sense for most men.

Oh and by the way, if you can't play nice just GTFO. I don't have the time or the inclination to address assclowns jamming up my thread.

Marcus,

Like Brant said above, starting a thread on OL does not come with ownership privileges. If you have any doubts about how things work here, please consult the posting guidelines.

Just to be clear, I set the rules on OL. You don't.

I'm flexible and try to be a gracious host, but that's not negotiable.

So tone it down and cut the crap.

You seem like you have a good mind, so you are welcome here. But you are not welcome to make up rules and boss people around.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several of Rand's heroines essentially prostituted themselves.

They had their reasons, but they slept with men they despised in exchange for some personal unrelated value they got from those men, so prostitution is a good description of what they did.

Not disagreeing with the "prostitution" description. However, the twist I find really interesting in Rand's stories of a woman sleeping with a man for some personal unrelated value is that in three of the four cases, the woman came to respect the man she was using. Indeed, he was presented as largely admirable: the commandant in Red Pawn, Andrei in We the Living, Wynand in The Fountainhead.

In the first two cases, I find the man the woman is sleeping with for ulterior purposes a stronger character than the man she loves, and in the third, equally strong.

Larry once incurred some moments of Rand Wrath by telling Rand that he thought Andrei was more interesting than Leo. I heard of others saying likewise to her, and likewise being treated to some wrathful moments.

Ellen

Ellen,

As you know, I recently read--very slowly--The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ron Merrill. (Actually I reread it.) I am now reading Ayn Rand Explained, Marsh Enright's reworking of that book. A few times now, I have been able to detect certain things that jump out at me that Marsha added or modified.

Here is one such passage that is part Merrill and part Enright, but is pertinent to this thread. From Ayn Rand Explained, pp. 91-92.

Paradoxically, it is by seeking her deepest degradation that Dominique finds the way out of her morass. Voluntarily prostituting herself for the benefit of the man she despises, she encounters Gail Wynand. There is a parallel here between Kira and Dominique, both of whom imitate romantic relationships aristocratic 'supermen' by acting as prostitutes. Similarly, in Penthouse Legend, Karen Andre's affair with Bjorn Faulkner begins when he attempts to buy her favors for a thousand kroner. Even in Atlas Shrugged there is a hint of the same theme, when Rearden and Dagny wish they had begun their affair in such a way.

The "supermen" she is talking about is the Nietzschean type who are "beyond good and evil." Also, Dominique's "morass" is the pressure of having a vital life force while trying not to feel anything at all because she doesn't believe the good has a chance on earth. So she has to degrade herself to see if she can kill her own integrity.

All this sounds like Rand ultimately disapproved of prostitution, but the way she had her female characters act, I think it's fair to say prostitution held a deep fascination for her. It's a recurring theme in her writing, but like you said, generally wedded to her "price no object" mentality of serving a higher value.

On a strictly behavior level, there's an old (male-oriented) saying that men who treat whores like ladies and ladies like whores tend to get along well with all women. I can easily see Rand in that frame of thinking.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this sounds like Rand ultimately disapproved of prostitution, but the way she had her female characters act, I think it's fair to say prostitution held a deep fascination for her. It's a recurring theme in her writing, but like you said, generally wedded to her "price no object" mentality of serving a higher value.

There's also that story where a man crashes onto the balcony of the woman's apartment - is that how it goes? - and she has to make up her mind on the spot whether to help him or not.

And, related: Her defense of Marilyn Monroe, and her reported complete comfort conducting the Playboy interview at the Playboy Club.

[CORRECTION: It wasn't the magazine interview, done by Alvin Toffler, which occurred at the Club. Toffler interviewed Rand at her apartment. It was publicity interviews, arranged by Tania Grossinger, Director of Broadcast Promotion for Playboy magazine.]

I've long wondered where she got the idea for the Commandant in Red Pawn and for Andrei in We the Living, if those two characters were complete inner fantasy projections.

Do you remember the story about how she was invited to talk at some kind of literary club meeting in California, and one of the women asked about the sex scenes in The Fountainhead - this would have been before Atlas was published - and she said in her heavy accent, "Vishful thinking."

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this sounds like Rand ultimately disapproved of prostitution, but the way she had her female characters act, I think it's fair to say prostitution held a deep fascination for her. It's a recurring theme in her writing, but like you said, generally wedded to her "price no object" mentality of serving a higher value.

There's also that story where a man crashes onto the balcony of the woman's apartment - is that how it goes? - and she has to make up her mind on the spot whether to help him or not.

And, related: Her defense of Marilyn Monroe, and her reported complete comfort conducting the Playboy interview at the Playboy Club.

I've long wondered where she got the idea for the Commandant in Red Pawn and for Andrei in We the Living, if those two characters were complete inner fantasy projections.

Do you remember the story about how she was invited to talk at some kind of literary club meeting in California, and one of the women asked about the sex scenes in The Fountainhead - this would have been before Atlas was published - and she said in her heavy accent, "Vishful thinking."

Ellen

Where did you read or how did you learn where the Playboy interview was conducted?

I when to that club in 1966 in uniform for dinner with a bunch of older men who were partially interested in honoring me for my military service. The bunnies-waitresses were professional with none of the whorish attitude I encountered the one time I ever went into a Hooters (in Fl). I was only there for the food as my RV was being repaired across the street (1994). As soon as my waitress realized I wasn't there for her boobs she switched off the crap and turned into a decent young lady and waitress. For me imitation-whore is worse than real-whore. I don't know from experience but I'd think a real high-class prostitute would be able to completely sublimate her whoreness (and even become a mistress?).

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember the story about how she was invited to talk at some kind of literary club meeting in California, and one of the women asked about the sex scenes in The Fountainhead - this would have been before Atlas was published - and she said in her heavy accent, "Vishful thinking."

Ellen

Ellen, I have said this before, when I looked into her eyes from about twenty (20) feet away at one of the opening NBI Basic Principles, I "perceived" "something" that I did not have a name for then. I was probably 20 at the time. I just started teaching at one of the CUNY campuses. So this would have been around 1966.

As powerful as her mind was and as dominant as she was in her argumentation, she was a submissive

sexually.

For the record, the largest class of characters in the D/s community is composed of male submissives.

Many powerful male and female corporate executives seek being submissive sexually. Surrendering to

the Dom/Domme is desired because of the trust and because of the security and safety it provides.

Dick Morris, Marv Alpert are recent examples.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you read or how did you learn where the Playboy interview was conducted?

Brant,

Oops. I corrected the post as follows:

And, related: Her defense of Marilyn Monroe, and her reported complete comfort conducting the Playboy interview at the Playboy Club.

[CORRECTION: It wasn't the magazine interview, done by Alvin Toffler, which occurred at the Club. Toffler interviewed Rand at her apartment. It was publicity interviews, arranged by Tania Grossinger, Director of Broadcast Promotion for Playboy magazine.]

The source is 100 Voices:

100 Voices

pp. 298-299

I'm curious about her attitude to nudity; did she ever discuss that?

No, but she was very comfortable being at the Playboy Club. I remember asking her once, before she did an interview, if she would like to join me at the Club or if there is some other place she'd like to go. She said, "No, the Club's fine."

She went a few times, usually with Frank. I once said to her, "Look, we don't really have to go to the Club tonight, we can go somewhere else." She said, "No, I like it.?

Grossinger tells a funny story about an occasion when Ayn pretended to be her and caused some consternation.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, I have said this before, when I looked into her eyes from about twenty (20) feet away at one of the opening NBI Basic Principles, I "perceived" "something" that I did not have a name for then. I was probably 20 at the time. I just started teaching at one of the CUNY campuses. So this would have been around 1966.

As powerful as her mind was and as dominant as she was in her argumentation, she was a submissive sexually

I'm not sure what the characteristics are of the "submissive," as understood in the D/s community, but I think that Rand announced awfully plainly in her fiction that she wanted to be dominated sexually.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice any patterns?

Yep. I'd say you're unqualified to be married.

You're probably right.

Marcus,

Like Brant said above, starting a thread on OL does not come with ownership privileges. If you have any doubts about how things work here, please consult the posting guidelines.

Just to be clear, I set the rules on OL. You don't.

I'm flexible and try to be a gracious host, but that's not negotiable.

So tone it down and cut the crap.

You seem like you have a good mind, so you are welcome here. But you are not welcome to make up rules and boss people around.

Michael

Fair enough. Sorry and my mistake.

Selene: Make your case. If this definition is not acceptable, suggest a different one.

You gave an insult by implication. You said I was not "worth trolling" like you are somehow above me. You called me "effete" and "clueless" with not basis whatsoever and no provocation. Then you nit and pick at my arguments.

I think that qualifies you, honestly, as a troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gave an insult by implication. You said I was not "worth trolling" lke you are somehow above me.

You called me "effete" and "clueless" with not basis whatsoever and no provocation. Then you nit and

pick at my arguments.

I think that qualifies you, honestly, as a troll.

Marcus:

Is that definition of an internet troll that I posted acceptable or not? Yes, or, No...and no singing

paradise by the dashboard lights while you think of your answer.

That will determine whether I could understand how you could say it was an insult by implication.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice any patterns?

Yep. I'd say you're unqualified to be married.

You're probably right.

Marcus,

Like Brant said above, starting a thread on OL does not come with ownership privileges. If you have any doubts about how things work here, please consult the posting guidelines.

Just to be clear, I set the rules on OL. You don't.

I'm flexible and try to be a gracious host, but that's not negotiable.

So tone it down and cut the crap.

You seem like you have a good mind, so you are welcome here. But you are not welcome to make up rules and boss people around.

Michael

Fair enough. Sorry and my mistake.

Selene: Make your case. If this definition is not acceptable, suggest a different one.

You gave an insult by implication. You said I was not "worth trolling" like you are somehow above me. You called me "effete" and "clueless" with not basis whatsoever and no provocation. Then you nit and pick at my arguments.

I think that qualifies you, honestly, as a troll.

Trolling seems to me to be Web site not thread specific. That is you are a troll to a site, not a thread. As a troll you don't belong on the site you visit for troll reasons. But if you are not a troll to the site you are not to a thread. Of course a troll is IDed through his thread postings but they will not be found to be thread specific qua trolling unless the troll only posts on that one thread. Or, if you want to ID a troll--Adam in this case--why so late to know this after he's posted here over 15,000 times? Most trolls give up after they can no longer have any troll fun.

Now Adam has his own style of posting. It may be the style that you find bothersome. It irks me a little from time to time. However, trolling is about the substantive nature of posting, not style. The site owner has never told anyone I can remember, "You're a troll--get out!" Instead, we bounce the troll back and forth between us like killer whales playing with seals on a beach in Argentina! Only one has managed to survive and thrive. She dropped dishing out her absolutist moral relativism crap. She only comes by from time to time now though she posted a lot for years, welcomed with open arms by her former animadversionaries. The first year was rough, but she was tough. I beat her down with my "Gates of Vienna" argument.

--Brant

I love trolls--eat 'em for lunch! (with a nice bottle of chianti)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never known a professional prostitute, at least not to my knowledge, but I have known lots of wives, and even was one myself for a time. There wasn't one of them who ever considered sex to by the only duty (or privilege) of her role. A wife, or a husband, for that matter, is not in the marriage to exchange sex for money or items of monetary value. She, or he, is in the marriage to be, and to have, a partner in life. That's not what a prostitute is. Stop comparing them.

Yeah, a wife and a prostitute are not exactly the same thing. However, this does not take away the fact that there are financial transactions in both wife/husband and prostitute/johns relationships and it's usually from man to woman. This "gender skew" of wealth transfer leads me to believe there are underlying biological/evolutionary reasons for this.

Why are prostitutes mostly women? Why are johns mostly men (gay and straight)? Why are there no "male" mistresses?

You say marriage means a life partner (assuming this means "lifelong" partner), but you are no longer married? I don't want to know why your not married (not my business) so much as why you didn't follow your own principle/belief?

Actually, no, there are no rules in marriage that would qualify as a "financial transaction... from man to woman" at least not any that are required. Not in the US in present day, anyway. If a man buys a woman an engagement ring, that is his choice. If he doesn't want to buy an engagement ring, he need not do so. It is not a requirement of marriage. If his intended demands it or demands a style and size of ring that is outside of his financial ability to provide regardless of his desire to do so, then he is free to go find some other intended. Financial transactions executed within a marriage are joint ventures that rightly ought to be agreed upon by both spouses.

I don't have any statistics, but I would guess that more prostitutes are women because the demand for female prostitutes is higher than the demand for male prostitutes.

No, I am no longer married, and in so choosing, did not surrender my principles. In fact, I upheld my principles.

Marcus, you opened this thread with the question, "Is prostitution necessarily bad?" Yet, your comments have less to do with what you think about prostitution and more to do with what you think about marriage. If you think marriage, as an institution, is skewed unfairly against you, then either don't get married or prior to doing so, execute a prenuptial agreement to protect yourself.

There are no rules in marriage that qualify as a "financial transaction"? You should check your own statement.

97% of the people who seek and require alimony are women

Check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/millionaire-divorce/

Notice any patterns?

Alimony is not about marriage. Alimony is about divorce. Again, there are ways to protect yourself against that - a prenuptial agreement is one. Others include marrying someone who has a means of supporting herself, marrying someone who has the desire and integrity to support herself, having a marriage that does not include one spouse becoming a stay-at-home partner and thereby seriously limiting his or her future ability to be successful in the workforce, and not being the kind of person who will make your former beloved want to stick it to ya, to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant said "I love trolls--eat 'em for lunch! (with a nice bottle of chianti).

lol. Yes, but I prefer the skunk juice, as Adam refers to it, ice cold, with the meal.

Thanks for the reminder Brant. Think it's time to watch Silence of the Lambs again. It's been several yrs since I've seen it.

-Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here's Terry, a well-known prostitute (although not by me), grabbing the genitals of her victim & securing a jackpot.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/vegas-prostitute-250-plus-run-ins-law-indicted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now