Here's a compelling question for all the self-righteous types:
In what respect is any women who factors suitors' incomes into her choice of spouse materially different from a prostitute?
A woman who wants to marry a doctor, is looking for marrying into financial security, didn't necessarily arrive at that conclusion because her uncle/dad/pastor sexually molested her.
Here's a compelling question for all the self-righteous types:
In what respect is any women who factors suitors' incomes into her choice of spouse materially different from a prostitute?
Stesilaus
Thats an incredibly easy question to answer. THat woman is concerned about having money for her and her children so that they can live good lives. She is not having sex for money. She is having sex becomes she loves the man who has provided her and their kids with a happy, luxurius life.
in my opinion, every woman should ask a man how much he makes on the first date. Financial security for you and your kids is serious business. Its smart, its not shallow. It shows a woman cares about the house her kids will grow up in, and the toys they will have, and education, etc, etc.
Not caring how much your boyfriend makes is just plain stupid.
Here's a compelling question for all the self-righteous types:
In what respect is any women who factors suitors' incomes into her choice of spouse materially different from a prostitute?
STAR_Admiral
Thats an incredibly easy question to answer. THat woman is concerned about having money for her and her children so that they can live good lives. She is not having sex for money. She is having sex becomes she loves the man who has provided her and their kids with a happy, luxurius life.
What if she doesn't want or plan to have kids and just wants a rich husband so she can do all the shopping she wants and live pretty much however she wants? :?
Still...get a real job...i find them to be one of the most pathetic beings to exist..selling their bodies because they're too lazy to look for a real job..it's not that hard to pick up a newspaper even and look..MCdonald's is always looking for employees yes?
Xx_Hopless_xX
You can degrade the prostitutes all you want. But what about people that can't find sexual partners through non-paying means? Why can you go to a bar, find some random person, have consensual sex, but as soon as money is involved, you both go to jail?
Because it's wrong to pay people for their bodies?..
I agree, sex laws are becoming more and more draconian. What really gets me is that the laws, which are designed to help minors, are now being used against them in cases where a minor takes a picture of themselves naked. While they shouldn't be doing that, the government shouldn't be trying to screw up their lives for it -- there are much better ways to deal with it.
Look at what happened to Genarlow Wilson. It's like the Salem Witch trials, or McCarthyism, all over again. People just want to screw other people over, and that is sickening.
Here's a compelling question for all the self-righteous types:
In what respect is any women who factors suitors' incomes into her choice of spouse materially different from a prostitute?
Thats an incredibly easy question to answer. THat woman is concerned about having money for her and her children so that they can live good lives. She is not having sex for money. She is having sex becomes she loves the man who has provided her and their kids with a happy, luxurius life.
What if she doesn't want or plan to have kids and just wants a rich husband so she can do all the shopping she wants and live pretty much however she wants? :?
Well as long as she is not sleeping with anyone else and being faithful to the man, then she is not a prostitute. Her love may have a price but its always with the same guy. you made her happy and she makes you happy. a prostitute does it with anyone who will pay her and does not love that man, nor is she loyal to that man.
in my opinion, every woman should ask a man how much he makes on the first date. Financial security for you and your kids is serious business. Its smart, its not shallow. It shows a woman cares about the house her kids will grow up in, and the toys they will have, and education, etc, etc.
STAR_Admiral
That sounds like a really good way to make sure there won't be a second date :roll: Here's a better idea: The woman gets herself a good secure job that provides enough income that she herself is financially secure. That way she won't have to be mercenary about it and marry a guy for his paycheck, or his future paychecks, and can focus on marrying him for who he is as a person instead.
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
esb1118
Actually, prostitutes in brothels are much less 'slaves' than ones owned by pimps on the streets... it's much safer when it is legal.
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
esb1118
...how is it anything like slavery? they arent forced to do anything, and theyre paid (quite well).
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
Engrish_Major
Actually, prostitutes in brothels are much less 'slaves' than ones owned by pimps on the streets... it's much safer when it is legal. If it was legal, all laws about a harassment-free and safe workplace would apply to prostitutes as well. The problem with the sex offender laws is that it's so easy to become one, the really dangerous ones get lost in the crowd...
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
Actually, prostitutes in brothels are much less 'slaves' than ones owned by pimps on the streets... it's much safer when it is legal. If it was legal, all laws about a harassment-free and safe workplace would apply to prostitutes as well. And, like I described earlier in this thread, legal prostitutes can actually go to the police when they are a victim of rape or violence (unlike street prostitutes).
And, like I described earlier in this thread, legal prostitutes can actually go to the police when they are a victim of rape or violence (unlike street prostitutes).Engrish_Major
By the laws in Sweden prostitution is not a crime, so for a person to provide sexual services in exchange for money is perfectly legal. However, to purchase sexual services is a crime by law, or to hire someone to provide the service and taking a cut of their income, is also illegal. So the business itself is still in that sense a crime, however, a prostitute that is abused, raped, or treated badly by customers or by her pimp, will not go to court and jail along with them if she goes to the police. There is of course still the social stigma associated that makes it hard for them to get legal help or other, but I personally like the above way of thinking. If it's already so degrading for them, why pile it on by making them criminals on top of that?
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
Engrish_Major
Actually, prostitutes in brothels are much less 'slaves' than ones owned by pimps on the streets... it's much safer when it is legal.I was actually talking about those owned by pimps. In your previous posts I thought you meant prostitution on the streets should be legal. Which is completely absurd. Still, I think the idea of paying for sex, even in a brothel, is wrong.
There is too much of the criminal element surrounding prostitution for it to be legalized. Not to mention that it is completly degrading and is essentially a form of slavery.
Sword-Demon
...how is it anything like slavery? they arent forced to do anything, and theyre paid (quite well).
It should be legal when they are old enough to do it and want it. Before that, it won't matter because they most likely won't know what it is. It should be legal if it's a choice that someone makes. If someone is physically forced into it and they don't have a choice then it should be illegal.
It should be legal when they are old enough to do it and want it. Before that, it won't matter because they most likely won't know what it is. It should be legal if it's a choice that someone makes. If someone is physically forced into it and they don't have a choice then it should be illegal.
It should be legal when they are old enough to do it and want it. Before that, it won't matter because they most likely won't know what it is. It should be legal if it's a choice that someone makes. If someone is physically forced into it and they don't have a choice then it should be illegal.
LJS9502_basic
Children don't always make informed choices..... That's where a large problem with the debate is though. When are they no longer children? Most states in the US allow teenagers below the age of 18 to drive a car, but then turns around and tells them they are too young and immature to be allowed to have sex. So you're an adult when it comes to driving, and with the expectations they have on you at the new job your parents are so proud of you for getting, but when it comes to cuddling your loved one without either of you having clothes on, you're still a child and you'll be punished for doing it. That's not exactly consistent.
It should be legal when they are old enough to do it and want it. Before that, it won't matter because they most likely won't know what it is. It should be legal if it's a choice that someone makes. If someone is physically forced into it and they don't have a choice then it should be illegal.
ChiliDragon
Children don't always make informed choices..... That's where a large problem with the debate is though. When are they no longer children? Most states in the US allow teenagers below the age of 18 to drive a car, but then turns around and tells them they are too young and immature to be allowed to have sex. So you're an adult when it comes to driving, and with the expectations they have on you at the new job your parents are so proud of you for getting, but when it comes to cuddling your loved one without either of you having clothes on, you're still a child and you'll be punished for doing it. That's not exactly consistent.Ah but at 16 or 17 if you sign a contract it can't be enforced. That's a plus for the minor.
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] That's where a large problem with the debate is though. When are they no longer children? Most states in the US allow teenagers below the age of 18 to drive a car, but then turns around and tells them they are too young and immature to be allowed to have sex. So you're an adult when it comes to driving, and with the expectations they have on you at the new job your parents are so proud of you for getting, but when it comes to cuddling your loved one without either of you having clothes on, you're still a child and you'll be punished for doing it. That's not exactly consistent.LJS9502_basic
Ah but at 16 or 17 if you sign a contract it can't be enforced. That's a plus for the minor. Um, you've lost me... :? Elaborate?
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] That's where a large problem with the debate is though. When are they no longer children? Most states in the US allow teenagers below the age of 18 to drive a car, but then turns around and tells them they are too young and immature to be allowed to have sex. So you're an adult when it comes to driving, and with the expectations they have on you at the new job your parents are so proud of you for getting, but when it comes to cuddling your loved one without either of you having clothes on, you're still a child and you'll be punished for doing it. That's not exactly consistent.ChiliDragon
Ah but at 16 or 17 if you sign a contract it can't be enforced. That's a plus for the minor. Um, you've lost me... :? Elaborate?A minor can't legally be held to any contract they sign.
This is sad; people need to loosen up a bit. No doubt we have to go after those who truly are a danger to society like rapists and child molesters, but this is getting stupid. An 18 year old and a 16 year old having sex is somehow worse than a 17 year old and a 15 year old doing it? And then there's the matter of peeing outside making someone a sex offender. Since when is urinating a sexual act? Sure it's wrong if it's done in front of others, but calling it a sex offence is equally wrong.
As for prostitution, it isn't my cup of tea but I don't see why it should be illegal. It's a business, a simple exchange of services for profit. Both parties are getting what they want out of the transaction, and no one gets hurt. If it's legalized and regulated, it only makes it safer for those involved in the trade. What's the problem?
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah but at 16 or 17 if you sign a contract it can't be enforced. That's a plus for the minor.
LJS9502_basic
Um, you've lost me... :? Elaborate?A minor can't legally be held to any contract they sign. Granted, but what does that have to do with whether they are children in a mental and emotional way or not? From a certain point of view, if teenagers are mature enough to hold jobs and drive cars, isn't it only consistent to also assume they are mature enough for sex?
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] Um, you've lost me... :? Elaborate?ChiliDragon
A minor can't legally be held to any contract they sign. Granted, but what does that have to do with whether they are children in a mental and emotional way or not? From a certain point of view, if teenagers are mature enough to hold jobs and drive cars, isn't it only consistent to also assume they are mature enough for sex?Sex is much more emotional and can have more consequences than a job or a license. Though I think 16 is too young to drive....
in my opinion, every woman should ask a man how much he makes on the first date. Financial security for you and your kids is serious business. Its smart, its not shallow. It shows a woman cares about the house her kids will grow up in, and the toys they will have, and education, etc, etc.
ChiliDragon
That sounds like a really good way to make sure there won't be a second date :roll: Here's a better idea: The woman gets herself a good secure job that provides enough income that she herself is financially secure. That way she won't have to be mercenary about it and marry a guy for his paycheck, or his future paychecks, and can focus on marrying him for who he is as a person instead. i don't see the problem with it
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]A minor can't legally be held to any contract they sign.
LJS9502_basic
Granted, but what does that have to do with whether they are children in a mental and emotional way or not? From a certain point of view, if teenagers are mature enough to hold jobs and drive cars, isn't it only consistent to also assume they are mature enough for sex?Sex is much more emotional and can have more consequences than a job or a license. Though I think 16 is too young to drive.... The law is filled with little inconsistencies. You're allowed to go to war for your country and vote at 18, but can't legally have a beer until you're 21. You're allowed to drive a car, potentially killing other people, at age 16 (or 15 in my state) but you can't have sex with people 18 years old if you're 17. I think the point is that setting an arbitrary age is just that: arbitrary. It is intended (clumsily) to catch the "majority" of that age. So while it is probably true that there are 14 year olds out there who are physically, emotionally and mentally capable of safely driving a car, the law that you have to be 15 in my state reflects the belief that MOST 14 year olds are not. The general point is that the punishment doesn't always really seem to fit the crime where sex offender laws are concerned. If an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, and it gets reported to the police, then that 18 year old will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life in many states. This doesn't strike me as particularly just or right. The delta in maturity levels of your average 17 year old and your average 18 year old is substantially smaller than, say, a 40 year old and a 17 year old, but the laws as written treat instances of both examples having sex together as the same.
To say that there is no problem with making no differentiation between these two examples strikes me as wrong, and this is where I wouldn't mind seeing some updates to the laws. One is horny teenagers exercising no self control or patience. The other is potentially predatory behavior.
Sex is much more emotional and can have more consequences than a job or a license. Though I think 16 is too young to drive....
double_decker
But also depends on the person as well, there are girls are age that shouldn't be having sex. :lol: I don't know about that... I've seen a lot of 16-year-olds texting while driving, and as a result driving their cars into other people's cars. I still maintain though that the biggest thing is: Teenagers have sex, whether we want to admit they do or not. The least we can do is teach them how to have safe sex.
Sex is much more emotional and can have more consequences than a job or a license. Though I think 16 is too young to drive....
ChiliDragon
But also depends on the person as well, there are girls are age that shouldn't be having sex. :lol: I don't know about that... I've seen a lot of 16-year-olds texting while driving, and as a result driving their cars into other people's cars. I still maintain though that the biggest thing is: Teenagers have sex, whether we want to admit they do or not. The least we can do is teach them how to have safe sex.The illegality isn't teenagers having sex....but adults having sex with minors. They are two different things......
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] I don't know about that... I've seen a lot of 16-year-olds texting while driving, and as a result driving their cars into other people's cars. I still maintain though that the biggest thing is: Teenagers have sex, whether we want to admit they do or not. The least we can do is teach them how to have safe sex.LJS9502_basic
The illegality isn't teenagers having sex....but adults having sex with minors. They are two different things...... I agree, and is why I said our age to LJS Chili, we are older (but still sexy) but just because they are older doesn't mean they are mature enough for sex :P
The illegality isn't teenagers having sex....but adults having sex with minors. They are two different things......
LJS9502_basic
The problem is that if the minor is 17, the law doesn't care if the adult is 18 or 48, and that's really my biggest complaint. The law needs to be rewritten to let the 18-year old off the hook.
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] I don't know about that... I've seen a lot of 16-year-olds texting while driving, and as a result driving their cars into other people's cars. I still maintain though that the biggest thing is: Teenagers have sex, whether we want to admit they do or not. The least we can do is teach them how to have safe sex.double_decker
The illegality isn't teenagers having sex....but adults having sex with minors. They are two different things...... I agree, and is why I said our age to LJS Chili, we are older (but still sexy) but just because they are older doesn't mean they are mature enough for sex :P The point that I think got lost earlier is that nobody is disputing that adults having sex with children/minors is wrong. The point being disputed is what the age cutoff is. The reason the car example is used is that it, arguably, is something that highlights an inconsistency that we allow people to drive two ton vehicles at high speeds where they could potentially fatally injure or kill other people but restrict their sexual options at that age. LJS stated that he believed this example was not a good one because, again arguably, it takes less maturity to drive a car than it takes to make good decisions around sex because of the emotional nature of sex. My point was related, but somewhat off on a tangent. Why is it that we treat 18 year olds having consensual sex with 17 year olds with the same lifetime stigma that we treat 40 year olds having consensual sex with 17 year olds? In both cases, the crime is statutory rape because - by law in most US jurisdictions - the 17 year old can't make an informed decision on having sex with a consenting adult until she magically turns 18. But one sexual pairing is far more likely to be predatory and involve large differences in maturity levels than the other.
The illegality isn't teenagers having sex....but adults having sex with minors. They are two different things......
ChiliDragon
The problem is that if the minor is 17, the law doesn't care if the adult is 18 or 48, and that's really my biggest complaint. The law needs to be rewritten to let the 18-year old off the hook.And if the minor is 14 do we still let the 18 year old off the hook? That becomes a slippery slope....there has to be a definitive age.
The illegality isn't teenagers having sex....but adults having sex with minors. They are two different things......
LJS9502_basic
The problem is that if the minor is 17, the law doesn't care if the adult is 18 or 48, and that's really my biggest complaint. The law needs to be rewritten to let the 18-year old off the hook.And if the minor is 14 do we still let the 18 year old off the hook? That becomes a slippery slope....there has to be a definitive age. True. Deciding what the cutoff is for letting people "off the hook" can lead to the slippery slope problem. But what about having a sliding scale of punishments based on the delta in age? That way the law recognizes that not all examples of sex between an adult and a minor are equally bad (as in the example of the 18 year old having sex with the 17 year old) and therefore doesn't PUNISH equally? Making ALL instances of violation of this law a LIFETIME sex offender registry is a clumsy and hamfisted approach.
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] The problem is that if the minor is 17, the law doesn't care if the adult is 18 or 48, and that's really my biggest complaint. The law needs to be rewritten to let the 18-year old off the hook.nocoolnamejim
And if the minor is 14 do we still let the 18 year old off the hook? That becomes a slippery slope....there has to be a definitive age. True. Deciding what the cutoff for letting people "off the hook" can lead to the slippery slope problem. But what about having a sliding scale of punishments based on the delta in age? That way the law recognizes that not all examples of sex between an adult and a minor are equally bad (as in the example of the 18 year old having sex with the 17 year old) but doesn't PUNISH equally? Making ALL instances of violation of this law a LIFETIME sex offender registry is a clumsy and hamfisted approach.Because that is part of the slippery slope. Laws are not supposed to have wiggle room. It's either against the law or it's not. I dare say most of the minors that have an adult partner are not getting reported. It's not an easy case to prove by any means...nor would anyone know unless they advertised the fact. If they are in love and one is a minor they have but to wait one year. If they can't wait....is it really love on either part?
Though I believe in some states there is a bit of leeway depending on the age of the minor in relation to the age of the adult. But don't quote me on that.
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]And if the minor is 14 do we still let the 18 year old off the hook? That becomes a slippery slope....there has to be a definitive age.
nocoolnamejim
True. Deciding what the cutoff for letting people "off the hook" can lead to the slippery slope problem. But what about having a sliding scale of punishments based on the delta in age? That way the law recognizes that not all examples of sex between an adult and a minor are equally bad (as in the example of the 18 year old having sex with the 17 year old) but doesn't PUNISH equally? Making ALL instances of violation of this law a LIFETIME sex offender registry is a clumsy and hamfisted approach. That's the point I was trying to make... set the cut-off age to, say, 16, and then evaluate and treat each situation based on the age difference between the two.
If they are in love and one is a minor they have but to wait one year. If they can't wait....is it really love on either part?LJS9502_basic
True romantic love has always had an erotic component. That's what makes it romantic and special. So yes, it really could be. :) (added as an edit to avoid double-posting)
The point that I think got lost earlier is that nobody is disputing that adults having sex with children/minors is wrong. The point being disputed is what the age cutoff is. The reason the car example is used is that it, arguably, is something that highlights an inconsistency that we allow people to drive two ton vehicles at high speeds where they could potentially fatally injure or kill other people but restrict their sexual options at that age. LJS stated that he believed this example was not a good one because, again arguably, it takes less maturity to drive a car than it takes to make good decisions around sex because of the emotional nature of sex. My point was related, but somewhat off on a tangent. Why is it that we treat 18 year olds having consensual sex with 17 year olds with the same lifetime stigma that we treat 40 year olds having consensual sex with 17 year olds? In both cases, the crime is statutory rape because - by law in most US jurisdictions - the 17 year old can't make an informed decision on having sex with a consenting adult until she magically turns 18. But one sexual pairing is far more likely to be predatory and involve large differences in maturity levels than the other.nocoolnamejim
Yeah, I got the point, wasn't arguing and I agree with you actually, the laws need to be updated, maybe with degrees depending on specific ages, but as you said, it would still be a line, and where to draw the line on things has been an issue in a plethera of issues.
Yeah, I got the point, wasn't arguing and I agree with you actually, the laws need to be updated, maybe with degrees depending on specific ages, but as you said, it would still be a line, and where to draw the line on things has been an issue in a plethera of issues.double_decker
In addition, if we changed the age to 16....then people would say it's unfair for a 16 year old to be arrested for having consensual sex with their 14/15 year old partner.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If they are in love and one is a minor they have but to wait one year. If they can't wait....is it really love on either part?ChiliDragon
True romantic love has always had an erotic component. That's what makes it romantic and special. So yes, it really could be. :) (added as an edit to avoid double-posting)Well if you knew there was a chance your boy/girl friend would be arrested for having sex with you.....wouldn't you want to prevent that by waiting? Conversely if you knew your boy/girl friend was underage and maybe not emotionally really for a physical relationship...would you pressure them into it? Because in neither case do I see love but lust....
In addition, if we changed the age to 16....then people would say it's unfair for a 16 year old to be arrested for having consensual sex with their 14/15 year old partner.
LJS9502_basic
I think maybe one of the best ways would be for them to first, take the age of both parties into consideration. Then have them get a psychological evaluation provided by the court, and if both parties are deemed in the clear then all the charges should disappear. But I'm just one little voice in the pool of billions.
Because that is part of the slippery slope. Laws are not supposed to have wiggle room. It's either against the law or it's not. I dare say most of the minors that have an adult partner are not getting reported. It's not an easy case to prove by any means...nor would anyone know unless they advertised the fact. If they are in love and one is a minor they have but to wait one year. If they can't wait....is it really love on either part?
Though I believe in some states there is a bit of leeway depending on the age of the minor in relation to the age of the adult. But don't quote me on that.
LJS9502_basic
To be clear, I'm not arguing that BOTH instances wouldn't still be a crime if that's the way the law is written. I'm arguing that both instances shouldn't be PUNISHED the same. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving kid and stealing a new video game are both classified as petty theft under the law, but one is likely to be punished less severely than the other based on the circumstances involved. The injustice that concerns me is that a lot of jurisdictions punish all instances of sex between an "adult" and a minor equally through lifetime sex offender registration, even in instances where the age difference is quite minor and clearly it is more hormones at work than predatory activity.
Log in to comment