-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Should Prostitution be Legalized?
- Thread starter ShiningIce
- Start date
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
Re: Re: Weird arguements
And the same logic demands that adultery should be made illegal, too. Cheating husbands or wife would have to go to jail.
No matter how you turn it, it comes down to being a matter of morals, not state laws. It's okay to say that you find it morally wrong, but does that give anybody the right to criminalize all immoral behavior?
Oh, BTW, such laws on immorality is normally an Islamic speciality: The Shari'a !
Sorry, omega, this kind of logic seems inconsistant to me. According to this, should visiting a prostitute be legal for unmarried men, only forbidden for husbands?omega said:
And the same logic demands that adultery should be made illegal, too. Cheating husbands or wife would have to go to jail.
No matter how you turn it, it comes down to being a matter of morals, not state laws. It's okay to say that you find it morally wrong, but does that give anybody the right to criminalize all immoral behavior?
Oh, BTW, such laws on immorality is normally an Islamic speciality: The Shari'a !
T
Ticklemmmeeeeeee
Guest
No....~ticklemmmeeeeeee 
avethibaltus
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2002
- Messages
- 258
- Points
- 0
Those of you homing in on the religious aspect please identify which version of which bible you are using as your reference, or are you simply driven by that very strong feeling of guilt that comes from violating "principles" pumped into you every Sunday for the first fifteen or so years of your life by "celibate" priests or preachers with little or no life experience outside their small community of admirers/worshipers. I can still remember how our honest and devout preacher convinced us children! how evil catholics were. The only difference between him and the some of the current troop of muslim clerics were the clothes.
Comparing the legalization of robbery to the legalization of prostitution is like comparing the campaign promises made by George Bush to his current practices - the two just don't match up. No one I interviewed ever consented to getting robbed and beat to crap or shot but I know a lot of people that had some really pleasurable experiences with hookers (male and female), at the end of which both were satisfied. Problems usually only came when the John didn't want to pay after reaching down and grabbing a hand full of balls attached to the supposedly female prostitute, but that's another post.
From personal experience I have seen that the German approach, for example (sorry warmongers but the Germans were right), to this particular problem (see Hal's posts) is much more effective in limiting the number and severity of adult/adult sex crimes than the puritanistic "my God told me to do this so you have to live with it" approach used in most US communities. There are similarities to other types of crime/conduct but historical reasons limit the applicability of a German/European type solution in the US.
My vote is for legalization of prostitution under a system similar to that used in Germany.
And while we are at it, we can do the same with legalizing marijuana under a system similar to that used in Holland.
And just to top it off, let's elect someone who will protect and defend the Constitution of the US and not the EBIT of Exxon.
Comparing the legalization of robbery to the legalization of prostitution is like comparing the campaign promises made by George Bush to his current practices - the two just don't match up. No one I interviewed ever consented to getting robbed and beat to crap or shot but I know a lot of people that had some really pleasurable experiences with hookers (male and female), at the end of which both were satisfied. Problems usually only came when the John didn't want to pay after reaching down and grabbing a hand full of balls attached to the supposedly female prostitute, but that's another post.
From personal experience I have seen that the German approach, for example (sorry warmongers but the Germans were right), to this particular problem (see Hal's posts) is much more effective in limiting the number and severity of adult/adult sex crimes than the puritanistic "my God told me to do this so you have to live with it" approach used in most US communities. There are similarities to other types of crime/conduct but historical reasons limit the applicability of a German/European type solution in the US.
My vote is for legalization of prostitution under a system similar to that used in Germany.
And while we are at it, we can do the same with legalizing marijuana under a system similar to that used in Holland.
And just to top it off, let's elect someone who will protect and defend the Constitution of the US and not the EBIT of Exxon.
BellaRisa
4th Level Blue Feather
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 5,981
- Points
- 38
We're not all Christian, Omega
Hi Omega,
I'd like to address a few of your comments:
Um, a lot of what you've said here goes against what the Bible actually says. The men in the Good Book are about as monogamous as the sky is pink. Heck, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, that ain't monogamy. It wasn't uncommon either. The book contains incest, sodomy, and several other kinds of sexual mayhem that God doesn't always condemn if you read the text. And please don't tell me 'that's just the Old Testament', as though it can just be ignored whenever it suits the needs of the debate 🙄. As a proud non-religious person the Bible means very little to me, there's so much mass murder and cruelty in it that reading it is a bit too upsetting. And I definitely can't allow a book written that many years ago to dictate my lifenow. Have you ever read how they treated women who gave birth to baby girls? (shudder).
As for AIDS, perhaps it would vanish if we were all monogamous. Perhaps it would just mutate and be spread in other ways, we don't know. But sex isn't the only way AIDS is spread, and just as we have ways to prevent it being passed on by those methods there are safe ways of enjoying sex without it being passed on. Also, you seem pretty big on keeping marriages together. Imagine how many more divorces, complete with the sad-poverty-stricken-no-child-support-getting-babies we'd have if everyone married first, THEN had sex, found out that they are so sexually incompatible they may as well be different species, and finally got divorced. I promise you the rate would be even higher than it is now.
And speaking of marriage:
What goes on in a marriage is between that couple. It's not up to the government to make various activites illegal so that married men will stay home. If a husband is doing things that he knows would anger his wife, he's asking for trouble; but you can NOT blame the activity itself, or prevent others from enjoying it. If a married man plays video games all night every night and neglects his family (a VERY common problem these days), should we ban XBoxes and Sega for everyone? Should I have to give up my monthly Zima because Joe Schmoe down the street is an alcoholic? I don't think so. And don't get me started on male with kinks like tickling or spanking, who's wife seemed interested until she got that ring on her finger, and then became a cold fish. I suppose he should either divorce her (more hungry babies) or just do without and become mean and bitter. Awesome choices.
And why this focus on married men? Many unmarried men engage the services of sex workers, without upsetting anyone at home. They get what they need no questions asked, and life goes on. She's happy, he's satisfied, the end. For the life of me I don't see the problem.
Bella
Hi Omega,
I'd like to address a few of your comments:
Um, a lot of what you've said here goes against what the Bible actually says. The men in the Good Book are about as monogamous as the sky is pink. Heck, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, that ain't monogamy. It wasn't uncommon either. The book contains incest, sodomy, and several other kinds of sexual mayhem that God doesn't always condemn if you read the text. And please don't tell me 'that's just the Old Testament', as though it can just be ignored whenever it suits the needs of the debate 🙄. As a proud non-religious person the Bible means very little to me, there's so much mass murder and cruelty in it that reading it is a bit too upsetting. And I definitely can't allow a book written that many years ago to dictate my lifenow. Have you ever read how they treated women who gave birth to baby girls? (shudder).
As for AIDS, perhaps it would vanish if we were all monogamous. Perhaps it would just mutate and be spread in other ways, we don't know. But sex isn't the only way AIDS is spread, and just as we have ways to prevent it being passed on by those methods there are safe ways of enjoying sex without it being passed on. Also, you seem pretty big on keeping marriages together. Imagine how many more divorces, complete with the sad-poverty-stricken-no-child-support-getting-babies we'd have if everyone married first, THEN had sex, found out that they are so sexually incompatible they may as well be different species, and finally got divorced. I promise you the rate would be even higher than it is now.
And speaking of marriage:
What goes on in a marriage is between that couple. It's not up to the government to make various activites illegal so that married men will stay home. If a husband is doing things that he knows would anger his wife, he's asking for trouble; but you can NOT blame the activity itself, or prevent others from enjoying it. If a married man plays video games all night every night and neglects his family (a VERY common problem these days), should we ban XBoxes and Sega for everyone? Should I have to give up my monthly Zima because Joe Schmoe down the street is an alcoholic? I don't think so. And don't get me started on male with kinks like tickling or spanking, who's wife seemed interested until she got that ring on her finger, and then became a cold fish. I suppose he should either divorce her (more hungry babies) or just do without and become mean and bitter. Awesome choices.
And why this focus on married men? Many unmarried men engage the services of sex workers, without upsetting anyone at home. They get what they need no questions asked, and life goes on. She's happy, he's satisfied, the end. For the life of me I don't see the problem.
Bella
DutchTickler
Guest
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2001
- Messages
- 302
- Points
- 0
Of course prostitution should be legalized. Why shouldn't it? In my country it is already legalized. But of course we're a guiding force in the world and other nations are a bit slow to catch up with us! 😀
This may be an amazing thing for me to say, but you all are starting to convince me. Perhaps prostitution should be legalized. After all, if we want the government to really control peoples lives we should make something legal. Then legislate, bureaucrat and red tape it to death.
I can just see it now:
Prostitute to John: "Now that we have agreed upon the services and the price, you have to fill out and sign this credit check form, show me two pieces of identification, wait for me to run a credit history check, initial this form which indicates I have your permission to run a background check, wait for me to run the criminal background check, fill out and sign this medical information release form, wait for me to contact your doctor to verify that you are disease free, sign this waiver of damages form indicating that you will not hold me personally responsible for any damage to your sex organs, fill out this personal references form, wait for me to contact your personal references, sign this form applying for a permit to engage my services and pay the $50 permit fee to the county, and of course this fee is in addition to my personal fee."
I can just see it now:
Prostitute to John: "Now that we have agreed upon the services and the price, you have to fill out and sign this credit check form, show me two pieces of identification, wait for me to run a credit history check, initial this form which indicates I have your permission to run a background check, wait for me to run the criminal background check, fill out and sign this medical information release form, wait for me to contact your doctor to verify that you are disease free, sign this waiver of damages form indicating that you will not hold me personally responsible for any damage to your sex organs, fill out this personal references form, wait for me to contact your personal references, sign this form applying for a permit to engage my services and pay the $50 permit fee to the county, and of course this fee is in addition to my personal fee."
Omega cometh again...lol
I warn them every time about you, ya slippery no holds barred trickster, but they just don't believe until they get socked by your Sunday punch...hehe. Glad to see you out and about on the boards Sir Omega. You don't have to wait for a religous topic.....feel free to drop in and verbally judo smack the unwary on some other areas as well. 😉 Q
I warn them every time about you, ya slippery no holds barred trickster, but they just don't believe until they get socked by your Sunday punch...hehe. Glad to see you out and about on the boards Sir Omega. You don't have to wait for a religous topic.....feel free to drop in and verbally judo smack the unwary on some other areas as well. 😉 Q
Looking for unregistered sex workers would'nt fall immiediatley into police jurisdiction, although they would be involved somewhere along the line. There definatley would NOT be the large amount of vice officers employed that there are now.omega said:
You'll never eradicate illegal prostitutes, but you would make life safer and cleaner for those in the majority who would pass the health check. Using that as an example against legalisation is just plain silly padre.
Precisely padre. Religion constricts two people to only having sex with each other and quite often a relationship that is forcibly held together long after the love has gone out of it, turns seriously blackened. Limiting two people only to EACH OTHER for their whole lives is what I was talking about; not restricting married couple's personal fetishes.omega said:
As for AIDS, well that's an erroneous belief. I am going to make a post in General Discussion about AIDS and it's fallacies, because the discussion came up on another forum that I'm a member of. To sum it up, AIDS is not sexually transmitted. HIV is, but HIV is not the cause of AIDS and that's easily provable. although it does apply to other STD's. However STD's might be wiped out if strict fundementalist christian beliefs dominated sexual activity, but mankinds greatest tool for exchanging energy and love would be curtailed. (Which is precisely what religion was manufactured to do in the first place. Only my opinion of course padre.🙂)
STD's would be far more easilly eradicated by individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, rather than draconian repression of sexuality.
Re: Re: Weird arguements
That doesn't explain why a single man or a widower could'nt use one padre.
But even in the case of the wife being the victim, it's utterly stupid to expect the state to interfere with personal family morality. Althouth government can encourage and spread information, for them to act in the way you seem to want them too is Stalinist, pure and simple.
Immoral the husband may be, but it's between him and his wife. The state should get the hell out of the argument.
omega said:
That doesn't explain why a single man or a widower could'nt use one padre.
But even in the case of the wife being the victim, it's utterly stupid to expect the state to interfere with personal family morality. Althouth government can encourage and spread information, for them to act in the way you seem to want them too is Stalinist, pure and simple.
Immoral the husband may be, but it's between him and his wife. The state should get the hell out of the argument.
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
ShiningIce said:
a big hell yes!
steve
rajee
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2001
- Messages
- 10,971
- Points
- 38
Prostitution is consentual (sp?) but it can only be victimless if 100% of the johns are law abiding, non-violent, sane and non-abusive. It is not an impossibility that some Johns would no want to pay for sex and give her or him a black eye, bloody lip, missing teeth, abrasions, lacerations, bruises, broken bones, internal bleeding instead of money. I am sure the prostitute does not consent to that each time it occurs.
I find the whole "not a victimless crime because the wife left at home is suffering" argument to have a lot of holes in it. You may just as well argue for banning automobiles because a percentage of drivers get drunk and mow people down.
The only justification for immorality of soliciting is from a fundementally religious standpoint and given that there are millions of atheists, agnostics, wiccans and spiritualists who don't believe it is immoral, there ain't no case to answer.
The only justification for immorality of soliciting is from a fundementally religious standpoint and given that there are millions of atheists, agnostics, wiccans and spiritualists who don't believe it is immoral, there ain't no case to answer.
Come to think of it, if we're going to ban goods or services based on potential immoral use, why not try banning firearms in America? I can really see that being popular!🙄
Firearms have caused more death, misery and destruction in the USA than a million times the prostitutes that ever did. You see while I fail to grasp the whole immorality argument?
Firearms have caused more death, misery and destruction in the USA than a million times the prostitutes that ever did. You see while I fail to grasp the whole immorality argument?
Re: Omega cometh again...lol
When I was in high school there was no debate team at my school. Can you imagine what I would be like if I had some training? 🙂
I would comment on other topics but I am such a one dimensional person.
(I couldn't find a judo smilie)
qjakal said:
When I was in high school there was no debate team at my school. Can you imagine what I would be like if I had some training? 🙂
I would comment on other topics but I am such a one dimensional person.
(I couldn't find a judo smilie)
Re: Re: Omega cometh again...lol
One dimensional my arse! lol
Padre I *shudder* to think what you would have been like a a pro debator. I think you're bad enough as it is. 😉
omega said:When I was in high school there was no debate team at my school. Can you imagine what I would be like if I had some training? 🙂
I would comment on other topics but I am such a one dimensional person.
(I couldn't find a judo smilie)
One dimensional my arse! lol
Padre I *shudder* to think what you would have been like a a pro debator. I think you're bad enough as it is. 😉
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
if i may?
i'd like to respond to a couple thoughts that have been expressed.
to wit: wives being the victim of their husband seeing prostitutes.
please, it's the wives' fault that their hubbies are forced to seek their pleasure out side of the conjigul(sp?) bed!
i have 3 friends that don't get sex at home, and instead have to go to prostitutes for sex. i myself have almost gone to prostitutes, for the same reason. if wives would hold up their end of the bargin, hookers would be out of buisness!
fire arms are now immoral? then i guess you believe that a hunk of metal has a soul, and the ability to think, and impose their will on people? you were more accurate in the idea of banning autos, they cause more death and destruction each year than the # of u.s. troops that died in viet nam! and how about alchohol?! i'm far from a tea totler, but booz is responsible for my problems in one week, or less, than all the guns in a year(or more)!
but this thread is suposed to be about prostitutes. god bless them.
steve
i'd like to respond to a couple thoughts that have been expressed.
to wit: wives being the victim of their husband seeing prostitutes.
please, it's the wives' fault that their hubbies are forced to seek their pleasure out side of the conjigul(sp?) bed!
i have 3 friends that don't get sex at home, and instead have to go to prostitutes for sex. i myself have almost gone to prostitutes, for the same reason. if wives would hold up their end of the bargin, hookers would be out of buisness!
fire arms are now immoral? then i guess you believe that a hunk of metal has a soul, and the ability to think, and impose their will on people? you were more accurate in the idea of banning autos, they cause more death and destruction each year than the # of u.s. troops that died in viet nam! and how about alchohol?! i'm far from a tea totler, but booz is responsible for my problems in one week, or less, than all the guns in a year(or more)!
but this thread is suposed to be about prostitutes. god bless them.
steve
areenactor said:
I don't know you and don't mean to be arguementative. But...I find that excuse insulting to women! It makes it sound like you believe that marriage is a liscense to get sex at every whim. That isn't what marriage is about. Marriage is a commitment between two people to love and respect one another...AND be faithful to one another. If a woman is ill and cannot engage in sexual activity, that's supposed to be an excuse to run out to screw someone else? Even if the woman simply isn't that interested in sex doesn't give the husband the right to run off and betray her. Yes, I said betray her. What else would you call breaking a promise of fidelity and risking coming back to her with some disease? Also, I don't think hookers would go out of business without married men. There are plenty of young pups out there wanting their jollies to keep them busy.
heyoka
BellaRisa
4th Level Blue Feather
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 5,981
- Points
- 38
That statement annoyed me too, but I found it more insulting to men. Comments like that feed the notion that men are mindless idiot creatures driven by their sexuality, with is utter baloney.
I agree wholeheartedly, but the definiton of faithfulness is different for every couple. Really. For some it means only having sex with each other, while for others it only refers to loving and caring for each other forever. If for some reason a spouse can't fulfill their partner's sexual needs-be it vanilla sex or tickling or whatever-an outside alternative may be just what the marriage doctor ordered; TRUST me. Sometimes the very best way to love and respect your partner is to stop pressuring them be someone their not, and love them for who they are.
This one kinda throws me. I'm a very open-minded person when it comes to sex, and I don't see this situation as a betrayal. If you're hungry and your spouse refuses to cook, is it wrong to go to Burger King? I know, bad analogy Bella...but that's how I see it. If you won't give your partner what they need, how can you get mad if they satisfy their need in another way? They're happy, and you didn't have to do what you didn't want to. As a married person with many married friends, lemmee tell ya it's WAY worse to badger your partner constantly for something they don't want to do, or go without and become so evil and resentful that you're unfit to live with-which is what REALLY leads to nasty fights and divorce.
I agree on the disease part, but that's another reason I'm for legalization and order in that business.
Bella
