Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Legalized Prostitution?Follow

#27REDACTED, Posted: Aug 01 2011 at 12:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Keep it illegal....that's all I need is the gubement taxing my ho's.
#28 Aug 01 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
Keep it illegal....that's all I need is the gubement taxing my ho's.
Didn't know that male prostitution was that big in Tennessee.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Aug 01 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Obvious sexist comments in the OP aside:


Seriously? WTF? I actually altered words to not "offend" you and you still claim it was sexist? How? Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.



Almalieque wrote:
On the other hand, I do realize that you're paying for it regardless...


And it gets better from there. And it's not like I'm the only one who picked up on it...


How is that sexist? Are you implying that women have sex with complete strangers without at least trying to know the person?

Belkira wrote:

If you did alter it, then you did a **** poor job of it. Smiley: frown

Honestly, I'm not in the least surprised that most chicks would rather "just be friends" with you.


Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.

Your "good" memory of previous threads is lacking.
#30 Aug 01 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Obvious sexist comments in the OP aside:


Seriously? WTF? I actually altered words to not "offend" you and you still claim it was sexist? How? Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.



Almalieque wrote:
On the other hand, I do realize that you're paying for it regardless...


And it gets better from there. And it's not like I'm the only one who picked up on it...

If you did alter it, then you did a **** poor job of it. Smiley: frown

Honestly, I'm not in the least surprised that most chicks would rather "just be friends" with you.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is sexist to believe that men pay for sex regardless of the nature of the transaction? If so, that's the sort of dozy feminist bullsh:t one should be accustomed to from PC liberal twats.

If not, carry on.
#31 Aug 01 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:


If not, carry on.

How much?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#32 Aug 01 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Decent
I once went out with a French girl who wouldn't let me pay for her stuff. She demanded to split the costs, etc. We didn't @#%^ but the point still stands.

Cool story, huh?

I really wanted to **** her. Woe is me.

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 2:27pm by zukunftsangst
#33 Aug 01 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nevada already has legal brothels. Might as well open up the concept and tax the hell out of it.

This. It works.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#34 Aug 01 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
How is that sexist? Are you implying that women have sex with complete strangers without at least trying to know the person?


Nope.

Almalieque wrote:
Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.

Your "good" memory of previous threads is lacking.


Who said I had a good memory of previous threads...?

MoebiusLord wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that it is sexist to believe that men pay for sex regardless of the nature of the transaction? If so, that's the sort of dozy feminist bullsh:t one should be accustomed to from PC liberal twats.


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.


Edited, Aug 1st 2011 1:32pm by Belkira
#35 Aug 01 2011 at 12:33 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
zukunftsangst wrote:
I once went out with a French girl who wouldn't let me pay for her stuff. She demanded to split the costs, etc. We didn't @#%^ but the point still stands.

Cool story, huh?

I really wanted to @#%^ her. Woe is me.

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 2:27pm by zukunftsangst


What point is that?

You said that you wanted to sleep with her. So, if she said "Let's just go back to your place or do you want to go out to eat?" Which would you have chosen?




Edited, Aug 1st 2011 8:33pm by Almalieque
#36 Aug 01 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.


Edited, Aug 1st 2011 1:32pm by Belkira
Perhaps, but as Proof just so eloquently pointed out, if a woman has no intention of doing the deed with the dude (on this date or in the near future), she's much more likely to insist on going dutch.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#37 Aug 01 2011 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
Almalieque wrote:
zukunftsangst wrote:
I once went out with a French girl who wouldn't let me pay for her stuff. She demanded to split the costs, etc. We didn't @#%^ but the point still stands.

Cool story, huh?

I really wanted to @#%^ her. Woe is me.

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 2:27pm by zukunftsangst


What point is that?


It's related to the post just made by Belkira. "As if she owes you something". That's generally the result of having money spent on you. This remnant of chivalry seems to be decidedly more common in the US than elsewhere in the west. It's easily avoided by women paying for their own things.

Quote:
You said that you wanted to sleep with her. So, if she said "Let's just go back to your place or do you want to go out to eat?" Which would you have chosen?


Ideally I'd have taken her to a pool hall, had her buy me beer and then @#%^ed her in the bathroom. Of the two proposed I'd go with the former, and then the latter after our business had been properly concluded. Why do you ask?

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 2:50pm by zukunftsangst
#38 Aug 01 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.


Edited, Aug 1st 2011 1:32pm by Belkira
Perhaps, but as Proof just so eloquently pointed out, if a woman has no intention of doing the deed with the dude (on this date or in the near future), she's much more likely to insist on going dutch.


I disagree. If a guy asks me out and insists on paying, I don't think, "oh, he must figure I'm going to have sex with him because he's paying for me." Perhaps I have a naive view on things...

Hell, I've paid for dinner and a movie with a friend before, I certainly didn't expect her to scissor me later...

(I always have to look up how to spell the word "scissor." It's such a weird word.)
#39 Aug 01 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that it is sexist to believe that men pay for sex regardless of the nature of the transaction? If so, that's the sort of dozy feminist bullsh:t one should be accustomed to from PC liberal twats.


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.

The fact that you get what you just said from this -
Quote:
On the other hand, I do realize that you're paying for it regardless, with the amount of money spent on gifts, dates, etc. and the benefit of a "no strings" attached relationship.

-is what's f'ucked up. There's no assertion that sex is due if a guy takes a girl on a date. The assertion is that if sex is awarded, the guy who sprung for dinner, a show, some candy or a gift f'ucking well paid for it. In the long run he'd be better off saving himself the drama and heartache which are the most likely outcomes of dating and renting out the poonanie for 30 minutes at a time.
#40 Aug 01 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira wrote:
Nope.


So how is that sexist?

Belkira wrote:

Who said I had a good memory of previous threads...?


You're always bringing up stuff from old threads, but now you're misquoting from "Good guys finish last" thread.

So, are you going to answer the question?

Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.

Do you not find that sexist? How is it every time I say the word "woman" you say "sexist", yet others can say that women are naturally born ugly due to mutations and you say absolutely nothing?

Belkira wrote:
Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's @#%^ed up.


No one is suggesting that a woman owes a man anything. The suggestion is that a woman isn't just going to have sex with a complete stranger without having some form of a relationship. Relationships cost money. The topic is prostitution. You have men who are willing to pay a woman for sex. Then you have men who look down on that, but at the same time develop relationships with women for sex.

The bottom line is, if you want sex, you will more than likely have to spend some money, regardless.

Edited, Aug 1st 2011 8:47pm by Almalieque
#41 Aug 01 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that it is sexist to believe that men pay for sex regardless of the nature of the transaction? If so, that's the sort of dozy feminist bullsh:t one should be accustomed to from PC liberal twats.


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.

The fact that you get what you just said from this -
Quote:
On the other hand, I do realize that you're paying for it regardless, with the amount of money spent on gifts, dates, etc. and the benefit of a "no strings" attached relationship.

-is what's f'ucked up. There's no assertion that sex is due if a guy takes a girl on a date. The assertion is that if sex is awarded, the guy who sprung for dinner, a show, some candy or a gift f'ucking well paid for it. In the long run he'd be better off saving himself the drama and heartache which are the most likely outcomes of dating and renting out the poonanie for 30 minutes at a time.


Either way seems like a crass and jaded way to look at it. And either way, it's pretty sexist.
#42 Aug 01 2011 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
So, are you going to answer the question?


Probably not.

Almalieque wrote:
No one is suggesting that a woman owes a man anything. The suggestion is that a woman isn't just going to have sex with a complete stranger without having some form of a relationship. Relationships cost money. The topic is prostitution. You have men who are willing to pay a woman for sex. Then you have men who look down on that, but at the same time develop relationships with women for sex. That may not be their only reason for the relationship, but he isn't likely passing it up either.


You're assuming that the "cost of the relationship" is only paid by the man.

So yeah, sexist.
#43 Aug 01 2011 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that it is sexist to believe that men pay for sex regardless of the nature of the transaction? If so, that's the sort of dozy feminist bullsh:t one should be accustomed to from PC liberal twats.


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.

The fact that you get what you just said from this -
Quote:
On the other hand, I do realize that you're paying for it regardless, with the amount of money spent on gifts, dates, etc. and the benefit of a "no strings" attached relationship.

-is what's f'ucked up. There's no assertion that sex is due if a guy takes a girl on a date. The assertion is that if sex is awarded, the guy who sprung for dinner, a show, some candy or a gift f'ucking well paid for it. In the long run he'd be better off saving himself the drama and heartache which are the most likely outcomes of dating and renting out the poonanie for 30 minutes at a time.


Either way seems like a crass and jaded way to look at it. And either way, it's pretty sexist.

Only to one whose heart bleeds so badly that a dead octopus could produce a moral quandry. The rest of the world recognizes fact regardless of its crassness.
#44 Aug 01 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
Only to one whose heart bleeds so badly that a dead octopus could produce a moral quandry. The rest of the world recognizes fact regardless of its crassness.



I would much rather err on the side of doing no harm than stumble through life like a bull in a china shop. Smiley: smile
#45 Aug 01 2011 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:


Not exactly. I'm suggesting that it's sexist to say that taking a woman out on a date and offering to pay for dinner and a movie is in any way payment for sex. As if the woman owes you for something. That's fucked up.


Edited, Aug 1st 2011 1:32pm by Belkira
Perhaps, but as Proof just so eloquently pointed out, if a woman has no intention of doing the deed with the dude (on this date or in the near future), she's much more likely to insist on going dutch.


I disagree. If a guy asks me out and insists on paying, I don't think, "oh, he must figure I'm going to have sex with him because he's paying for me." Perhaps I have a naive view on things...

Hell, I've paid for dinner and a movie with a friend before, I certainly didn't expect her to scissor me later...

(I always have to look up how to spell the word "scissor." It's such a weird word.)
I dated quite a few guys and always let them pay. Rarely did I sleep with them. But a couple times I did. However, there were a couple guys that I knew I wasn't going to sleep with ever. To help drive home the point that we were only 'friends' I'd usually insist on paying my own way if we were anywhere costly.

The weird part is this; I ended up marrying (and subsequently sleeping with) one of them 'friends'.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#46 Aug 01 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Only to one whose heart bleeds so badly that a dead octopus could produce a moral quandry. The rest of the world recognizes fact regardless of its crassness.



I would much rather err on the side of doing no harm than stumble through life like a bull in a china shop. Smiley: smile

Thank the people who didn't hold your views for Modern Civilization.
#47 Aug 01 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Only to one whose heart bleeds so badly that a dead octopus could produce a moral quandry. The rest of the world recognizes fact regardless of its crassness.



I would much rather err on the side of doing no harm than stumble through life like a bull in a china shop. Smiley: smile

Thank the people who didn't hold your views for Modern Civilization.


I agree, honestly. I'm a little too bleeding heart for that. Which is why I don't mind being this way, since no laws will be made to my specifications.
#48 Aug 01 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Only to one whose heart bleeds so badly that a dead octopus could produce a moral quandry. The rest of the world recognizes fact regardless of its crassness.



I would much rather err on the side of doing no harm than stumble through life like a bull in a china shop. Smiley: smile

Thank the people who didn't hold your views for Modern Civilization.


To be fair there weren't many women among them.

Smiley: wink
#49 Aug 01 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
zukunftsangst wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:

Thank the people who didn't hold your views for Modern Civilization.


To be fair there weren't many women among them.

Smiley: wink

Heh.
#50 Aug 01 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.


This has nothing to do with this thread, or anything else, for that matter. Shut the fUck up.
#51 Aug 01 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.


This has nothing to do with this thread, or anything else, for that matter. Shut the fUck up.

Nads, don't make me send you to the naughty step. I know it's hard, for all of us. One day at a time.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 350 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (350)