There was a story on the news about this, and I thought it would be an iteresting debate. I am undecided.

plain, why do I sense that you just like giving me a hard time?

Because I do. I like the debate, and even if I don't agree with your positions, you at least give logical response, instead of "building a straw man" (ie, calling me small-minded, or a religious fanatic, or whatever else I've seen in this thread). I love to play Devil's advocate. In my experience, it makes both parties think about their positions more. And thinking is never a bad thing.

If prostitution were legal, it would be easier to monitor who is doing what to whom in that profession.

But that wouldn't be saving taxpayers any money. Instead, there'd have to be more government agencies to keep track of this, to make sure all prostitutes were compliant with the new standards, etc. I don't think the prostitutes would be so keen to pay for liscenses, health care exams, or even declare income on taxes

But that wouldn't be saving taxpayers any money. Instead, there'd have to be more government agencies to keep track of this, to make sure all prostitutes were compliant with the new standards, etc. I don't think the prostitutes would be so keen to pay for liscenses, health care exams, or even declare income on taxes

I don't know, that might be something we would have to walk a mile in their stilettos to know. The ones who are being beat by a pimp, and turning over all their money---might see how even paying that to the gov't. and not getting smacked would be better.

And if it were legal, it might "draw" a whole different group of women...

Kat

And if it were legal, it might "draw" a whole different group of women...

Sexist....Let's not forget about the gents, lol

If it were legal, I don't think it would change anything. The prostitutes aren't any more likely to leave their pimps even if it were legal.

They very well may not leave their pimps, I can't say, BUT it would give those wanting their services and option to use that is safer for them----you always hear about Johns getting the crap beat out of them too. Plus they would not be supporting the pimped out hookers.

I know prostitutes are not the same thing as abused wives, but having been the abused wife, and never a prostitute, I know how hard it is to get out of the marriage safely. It has to be a similar situation, you find yourself in a no win place, and no options left for you.

I realize that would not change for them. BUT it very well might make the next girl considering turning tricks for a living to take the legal way as opposed to being pimped.

And it might make John Doe spend his paycheck where taxes will be taken out and he knows he can walk in, get some, and leave as opposed to doing so with the fear of arrest, or being jumped by the pimp and his guys.

Is it ideal? No, not at all! But what it is now is not either.....

Kat

Wasa, geez, I'm surprised that you got so up in arms about my remarks. I don't have any problem with the idea that women (and men) can be manipulative in relationships. Sure, we all do that from time to time. What I have a problem with is saying that women are prostitutes when they manipulate their husbands. I thought I explained it better. Looks like you and I had a breakdown in communication. Both of us seem to have misunderstood the meaning of our posts.

This thread is about prostitution and you had said something similar in an earlier post about women (and secretaries were mentioned by someone) being no different than prostitutes when they give it up for a new car, and I was reacting to that silly premise.

plain I knew it! You like to fan the flames.

I mostly love your posts. Not when you disagree with me, especially because you're always wrong then, but you always have something interesting to say and you're usually very witty and I really enjoy it when you're funny.

I too try to get a good debate going and I love to read different viewpoints. I also try to be funny, but I'm not nearly as good at it as you are. Keep up the good work, dude. I miss it when you're not posting.

kat you're spot on, as usual!! :bananalama:

Wasa, geez, I'm surprised that you got so up in arms about my remarks. I don't have any problem with the idea that women (and men) can be manipulative in relationships. Sure, we all do that from time to time. What I have a problem with is saying that women are prostitutes when they manipulate their husbands. I thought I explained it better. Looks like you and I had a breakdown in communication. Both of us seem to have misunderstood the meaning of our posts.

This thread is about prostitution and you had said something similar in an earlier post about women (and secretaries were mentioned by someone) being no different than prostitutes when they give it up for a new car, and I was reacting to that silly premise.

Are you sure it was me that said something about secretaries giving it up for a car? I don't recall such a post. It's not ringing any bells.

If a prostitute has sex for money and a wife has sex for a new kitchen, they are both getting something for their time.

In many ways the two are quite similar.

I was a bit annoyed with this comment:

Wasa you sound extremely cynical about relationships. We discussed those types of comments earlier. Having a man purchase a boat or a kitchen or a new car isn't usually just about a sexual exchange in most marriages. Marriages and intimate relationships are more complicated than that.

I never claimed that the basis of a marriage is trading sex for kitchens and boats. I think my post was pretty clear at face value.

I didn't suggest that it was you who referred to secretaries - in fact I said "someone" - quoted from my post wherein I intentionally did not suggest that you said it.

Aw come on Wasa, you were not equating wives who trade sex for objects as being no different than prostitution? Cause that's how I read it.

I didn't claim that trading sex for kitchens and boats is the basis for marriage. You took that part of my discussion out of context.

What I was talking about was the comparison between wives (and secretaries) to prostitutes.

If you don't understand why I have a problem with that, fine. But don't try to make out like you weren't comparing the two. That was what your post was about. As I read it, on face value, it had nothing to do with saying that the barter system, in whatever form, is the basis for marriage.

Once again, communication breakdown.

I didn't suggest that it was you who referred to secretaries - in fact I said "someone" - quoted from my post wherein I intentionally did not suggest that you said it.

Aw come on Wasa, you were not equating wives who trade sex for objects as being no different than prostitution? Cause that's how I read it.

I didn't claim that trading sex for kitchens and boats is the basis for marriage. You took that part of my discussion out of context.

What I was talking about was the comparison between wives (and secretaries) to prostitutes.

If you don't understand why I have a problem with that, fine. But don't try to make out like you weren't comparing the two. That was what your post was about. As I read it, on face value, it had nothing to do with saying that the barter system, in whatever form, is the basis for marriage.

Once again, communication breakdown.

No, you did not say "someone" and here is your quote:

Wasa you sound extremely cynical about relationships. We discussed those types of comments earlier. Having a man purchase a boat or a kitchen or a new car isn't usually just about a sexual exchange in most marriages. Marriages and intimate relationships are more complicated than that. There's always a give and take between partners. If one of the partners reduces the relationship to nothing more than a barter of sex for goods, it isn't much of a marriage or even a relationship!

I am certainly not saying it doesn't happen. I've had friends who married very wealthy men who were much older than they were and it was not uncommon for them to say that they had to go give their spouses a blow job so the men would agree to something they wanted. Even so, it is not the same as prostitution. But it is much closer to it than the average couple who married for love, not money.

Most couples marry for a long list of reasons. Sex and money are two of them, but they are certainly not the only reasons. And it is disgusting to me to think that all married women think of their spouses as nothing more than johns.

Why wouldn't I think you were directing it at me?

Again, yes... I think there are similarities between a spouse who sets the mood for something they want to bolster their chances for getting it and prostitution. I am the one telling YOU that I see some similarities. I've repeated it twice now (okay, three times now.) so I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting something I have now repeated three times isn't what I wrote. The ultimate goal is not an orgasm or sharing love. While they surely are in love if they are in a committed relationship and they both get off on the act, there is still a motive.

Now, I never claimed this is the reason for the relationship as a whole. I never claimed that, I never inferred that, and I never really needed an explanation for the reason people get married or have relationships. I'm saying there are times both partners could USE sex to get something they want.

Wasa: The is the relevant portion that you could have posted of mine is:

"This thread is about prostitution and you had said something similar in an earlier post about women (and secretaries were mentioned by someone) being no different than prostitutes when they give it up for a new car, and I was reacting to that silly premise."

Again, (for the umteenth time) I'm not saying that prostitutes don't get married. And I'm not saying that there aren't male prostitutes. And I'm not saying that people don't trade their cars for sex. And I'm not saying that marriages aren't made in heaven. And I'm not saying that you're saying any of those things. Okay? Are we done?

(Hi, Plain :confused:)

Wasa: The is the relevant portion that you could have posted of mine is:

"This thread is about prostitution and you had said something similar in an earlier post about women (and secretaries were mentioned by someone) being no different than prostitutes when they give it up for a new car, and I was reacting to that silly premise."

Again, (for the umteenth time) I'm not saying that prostitutes don't get married. And I'm not saying that there aren't male prostitutes. And I'm not saying that people don't trade their cars for sex. And I'm not saying that marriages aren't made in heaven. And I'm not saying that you're saying any of those things. Okay? Are we done?

(Hi, Plain :confused:)

I wasn't responding to that post, I was responding to the more recent post.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. You do not understand my point and I don't agree with yours.

Wow. In 3 sentences you pretty much nailed it on what it took hundreds of replies to get to.

Great job and I completely agree!!

lol thank you, thank you!!:confused:

Well Wasa I'm not convinced that we do totally disagree. I am definitely convinced that we aren't communicating well.

I want you to know that I do fully understand your point. For what that's worth. And I wasn't attempting to tell you that you don't have a valid point. Of course you do. I was merely saying that I think it is silly, or maybe inane is a better term.