I think if a woman has a right to an abortion and to control her body, then she has the right to exploit her body and make money from it. We have it hard enough. Why give up one of our major assets? – Kathy Keeton
I’ve been meaning to write a column like this for about two months now, but never quite got around to it until the subject of the conversation was clearly demonstrated by a recent interchange in a comment thread. Early in April, Emily Hemingway mentioned in an email that she thought it wasn’t a good idea to use the word “whore” in reference to housewives because they might feel that I was trying to say they are just as “dirty” as we are: “if a few girls think that you are dirty and you push them into a mud puddle, rub their faces in it, throw a few gobs of muck down their shirts, you can’t expect to then tell them, ‘See, now we’re both dirty and we can be friends.’” She felt that they might think I was pretending that there is NO difference, and that it would create bad feeling. I replied:
My issue is that prostitution is the only “crime” which is defined entirely by motive. It’s legal to provide sex in exchange for value as long as the exchange is indirect or dishonest, and it’s even legal to do it directly if there’s a marriage license involved. So my philosophy is…not “we’re both dirty”…but rather that whoring isn’t dirty, AT ALL. In fact, we are the only honest businesswomen operating in the otherwise-dishonest field of human sexuality.
Emily then answered:
I agree with you on both of those points; whoring isn’t dirty at all, and we (most whores) are indeed the only honest adults in the conversation on human sexuality. What I’m disagreeing with is your method of conveying those points. Others think a whore is a dirty thing, including women. The answer isn’t to call them a whore back and think they will see themselves as dirty, thus on our side after all. Because that isn’t what they’ll see – they’ll see you being offensive and insulting, and they’ll shut down…I have no issue with the word ‘whore’, but I acknowledge that other people do and I read things not only for how I see them, but how others will input false beliefs and take away the wrong message. And I think that’s what is happening. If this were just us gals emailing, we’d know exactly what was going on with the “wives as a subset of prostitutes” thing.
You’re speaking in Prostitute, and doing so very eloquently, but the problem is that people are listening in Repressive Christian Archetype.
I saw what she was saying, but since I hadn’t really seen it happen on the blog and a number of my non-harlot female readers (especially Andrea) have agreed with the principle, often very vocally, I figured I needn’t say anything yet. In other words, I knew that Emily was right in principle, but I figured that since nobody seemed to have misunderstood me yet I would cross the housewife-whore bridge when I came to it. Well, we finally came to it a week ago Tuesday (June 7th); reader JZ asked in a comment, “Why the denigration of housewives?” and I immediately recognized that this was exactly the situation Emily had anticipated so I answered, “What denigration? I’m a housewife, and was once before, and so are some of my friends and several regular readers. Remember, “prostitute” is not an insult to us; it’s merely an observation of fact.” But that was apparently an insufficient response, as were several other replies from other commenters, because JZ repeated several more times that she saw housewives often denigrated both by me and commenters. When I asked for a specific clarification, she replied “You call housewives whores. Simple enough.”
And this, of course, proves Emily’s point exactly. Despite the fact that I repeated several times that I didn’t consider “whore” or “prostitute” to be insults, the negative connotations of those words were too ingrained in JZ’s perception for her to think of them in any other way. As Emily had said in her email to me back in April (and both she and I quoted in that comment thread), I was speaking in Prostitute but JZ was hearing in Repressive Christian Archetype. This is not in any way JZ’s fault; she didn’t invent those negative connotations, and her life-experiences never gave her the opportunity to see them in any other way so until she started reading this blog, she had never heard the term used in any way but as an insult. So for her and other readers who may not understand my usage of the term, a bit of explanation is in order.
I feel that a woman’s sexual power is one of her greatest assets, and for her to reject that is as foolish as a man would be if he purposefully disdained the use of his physical strength, or any person would be if he intentionally denied himself the facts of a problem so he couldn’t use his thinking ability. A woman who rejects her sexuality cripples herself and weakens her ability to make her way in the world; to insist that a woman’s sex appeal only be used for her own direct sexual satisfaction and absolutely nothing else is like having a car one only uses to go to movies or parties, but never to work or the grocery store. A woman who uses her sexuality to make a living for herself, whether by direct cash exchange or some kind of indirect arrangement, is a kind of whore…and there is NOTHING wrong with that. The stigma traditionally applied to whores is nothing more than the resentment felt by insecure men for a woman who uses her abilities to get what she wants rather than meekly submitting to be chattel, a resentment shared by women who are too timid to do otherwise themselves. To accept the negative connotation of “whore” (the word or the concept) is to buy into the idea that, as Bernard Shaw put it, “Women are called womanly only when they regard themselves as existing solely for the use of men.”
It is what it is. By many legal standards, the prostitution statutes articulate activities between a husband and wife so clearly, that they must actually be given an exemption from prosecution under the law.
If the law states you are a prostitute if you do A, B, and C. Then it goes on to say that A, B, and C will be legal only if you are married to the one you are committing A, B, and C with…. then the married people engaging in A, B, and C are essentially the same as prostitutes, except in the fact that the law has given them an exemption from criminal prosecution. In essence, the law states that a marriage license is a license to commit prostitution.
Tell me housewives have never “held out” until they got something they wanted. It happens.
Getting caught up in semantics is just another way for society to ostricize hookers, and say that they are not like us, when in fact it is all the same…
Women have power. That scares the shit out of society, so they place a stigma on any woman brave enough to exude that power, so as to discourage the women from recognizing their power. Yes, Whores are a powerful species. So are housewives. Show me a clear difference between the two. Just like there is a difference between a GFE and PSE provider, there are differences in the housewife variety of whore, but it is just a style of service. GFE, PSE, and Wife. The three main categories of female prostitute.
I would ask JZ again, if housewives are not a form of prostitute, why is it necessary for the law to specifically protect married individuals from the statutory definition of prostitute?
You could flip it around and say that whores are really just housewives. With lots of husbands. That’s how some Mulsim cultures deal with the issue, isn’t it? You can get a marriage license that expires in an hour or something like that. So technically, he’s your husband for the duration of the appointment.
The word has been loaded with so much venom for so many years, it is obviously going to be hard for some women to wrap their heads around the fact that when they insult or denigrate whores, they are insulting ALL women. Because we all trade sex for material benefits, in one way or another (cue Laura who can now claim that she DOES NOT trade sex for benefits and therefore is not a whore like the rest of us!). *roll eyes* *cough – yes you are – cough*
“You’re nothing more than a glorified prostitute” is second only to “you’re a parasite”, in terms of what housewives get accused of. Slutty bugs! We’re just a pack of slutty, slutty bugs.
And becasue there IS such an obvious relationship between housewives and hookers, it behooves housewives to notice that any efforts to prevent hookers from controlling their own lives is an effort to control our choices, too. Ask any housewife if she would like to live in a world that forbids her from having sex with a man (her husband) in exchange for mortgage payments, groceries and all the other expenses of life, while she contributes to the family in non-economic ways.
That is the exact moral eqivalent of telling prostitutes that they are forbidden from having sex in exchange for money they use for mortgage payments, goroceries, and all the expenses of life.
Women either have a right to decide what goes in their own personal vagina, or they don’t. That means ALL women. Not just the ones JZ (and others of that ilk) approve of. And the ones JZ doesn’t approve of? Take a look in the mirror, JZ. Maybe what you don’t like is staring you back in the face.
In which case, get the fuck over it. I really don’t care what you put in your vadge. Carry an emergency pack of hotdogs, if you like. In return, you never mind what I put in mine. Housewife or hooker, it’s my cunt, my call.
One would think that it would be self-evident to any rational adult that every rational adult has the right what to do with his or her own body…but one would be wrong, and that’s not only sad but terrifying. It betokens an almost incomprehensible level of narcissism on the part of those who believe that they have the right to make such decisions for others while reserving the right for themselves. The most legitimate purpose for government of which I can conceive is to stop the majority from oppressing minorities, but in most “democratic” societies (including the United States) it’s usually exactly the opposite.
It betokens an almost incomprehensible level of narcissism on the part of those who believe that they have the right to make such decisions for others while reserving the right for themselves
Speaking of which have you seen the article latley about “jail abortion docors” Senetor Santorum had authorised an abortion for his own wife?
No, but I do know about “we need more gun control” Dianne Feinstein packing a pistol in her purse, which is pretty much the same thing.
Were I the dictatrix, I would require any legislator proposing a new restrictive law to live under his own proposed limitation, being closely monitored to ensure compliance, for at least five years before introducing it into the legislature; if it didn’t apply to him (i.e. if a male legislator proposed a law which only affected women) he would be ineligible to introduce it on those grounds.
The United States was meant to be a Republic, not a democracy, per the Federalist Papers. Like the rest of the spirit this country was founded upon, this concept was whored out on a level of whoring beyond anything a traditional prostitute could possibly conceive.
Technically, we’ve now become a syndocracy, that is a republic in which various organizations (such as parties, unions, lobbying group, etc) and large business interests choose the representatives.
Technically, we’ve now become a syndocracy, that is a republic in which various organizations (such as parties, unions, lobbying group, etc) and large business interests choose the representatives.
Now there’s a point I’ll argue you on, Maggie. My money’s on corporatocracy or kleptocracy. Organizations which fail to bring plenty of chop to the table are valued only for their ability to distract citizens.
There’s a comedian who said politicians should have to wear sponsor stickers at all times. Kind of like NASCAR. I like this approach. It’d stop the argument about Republicans vs Democrats, if nothing else.
Ugh. I need more coffee. The above wasn’t Brandy, it was me. Forgot to check who was logged in.
It can’t be a true corporatocracy, though, because even though corporations wield a lot of power so do certain special-interest groups (for example unions, AARP, NRA, etc). Also, the government tells corporations how to run their businesses as often as vice-versa. That of course means we’re headed toward fascism, but we still lack just a little bit to get there (though we’ve already got the police state and the military aggressiveness). By the end of the decade (sooner if we have a big crisis the government can excuse greater corporate controls with), we’ll cross into pure fascism.
It has been said that when fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a cross and wrapped in a flag.
Perhaps, but I think its main juice has been what the main juice of fascism always is, the illusory promise of “safety”, because that appeals to all sheeple no matter their religious or political background.
It’s astonishing how relevant this quote is today. We have come full circle.
True that. Of course, one great thing about flags and crosses is that they make a lot of people feel safe, and it’s convenient to be able to say that anybody not so wrapped and carrying is the danger you need to be kept safe from. Hey, gotta be able to tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys!
@Emily: Funny you should say that, considering the subject of my upcoming July 4th column. 😉
The “tunnel” of nested quotes prevent me from doing a direct reply, so I’ll just say here that Emily’s quote is awesome and going up on my wall!
(pauses to think for a minute.)
Nope. The wall of my office, big and bold, so all my employees can read it.
Yes, much better.
A perception which I don’t think bears out on examination. Government lives right up the ass of small business, yes. Moderately large businesses occasionally get a good screwing, true. But industry itself and the megolithic corporations? Never. Witness-
– TBTF.
– Fraudclosuregate. Big banks are committing felonies left, right and center. Sending third parties to play a little B&E, which the police refuse to prosecute. Countrywide admits in congressional testimony to fraudulent claims in MBSs and that 80% of their loans were bad with malice aforesight. Numerous judges have ruled fraud upon the courts. Not a perpwalk in sight.
– Jefferson County, AL. JPMorgan admitted to bribes all around, and that the matter was a crime is not contested, as local officials went to jail over that one. But not a single employee of the company that committed the crime did.
– Regulatory committees spending their time downloading porn and actively covering up that which they’re supposed to, you know, regulate. Manipulation in commodities (silver has been proven). The big three credit rating agencies state themselves upwards of 70% of reports contain mistakes.
– Obamacare gunna save us allll! Except for all the big companies that ask nicely, they get a pass because no healthcare for McDonald’s employees is good for the common man (trufax, politicians would never lie about that).
– Wells Fargo paid no income tax last year. GE collected the equivalent of an EITC. Warren Buffet famously stated that his secretary pays a higher portion of her income in taxes than he does. The larger the business, the less they pay.
The NRA is a pansy-assed whore – and I’m using the word in the derogatory sense. I’ll give you the unions and AARP being catered to, but I don’t think either are in control of the situation. It’s my considered opinion that both are used by politicians, along with race/orientation rights groups, to keep the masses fat, happy and entertained. They’ll be dropped like a slutty prom date the instant they’re no longer useful, and if it ever comes down to a choice for politicians between protecting unions or protecting Wall Street, the unions don’t stand a chance.
The AARP already knows this. They recently mouthed compromises in regards to SS, which is sort of like vegans saying sacred cows add a great depth of flavor to any couscous.
All this is true, but if you read Silverglate’s Three Felonies a Day you’ll realize that the feds have the power to shut down even the goliaths with their irresistible power of indictment, which is used on any company which fails to play by the government’s rules. In a true corporatocracy the push goes only one way, but in fascism it’s a symbiotic relationship between government and big business.
I think you mean “non-monetary ways” and not “non-economic ways”. Childcare, cooking, etc, are all services and are considered economic contributions.
LOL LOL LOL my vadge my call….nice one Andrea……
To be fair on that particular post Maggie didnt even mention housewives, she was mentioning “legit” careeres like actresses and massage therapists in most cultures past and a few today are equivelent to and the pervue of prostitutes but in our culture were desperatly trying to distance themselves from their roots.
I was the one who off handedly mentioned housewives should have been included as well.
When JZ popped up to express outrage, I asked why no rush to defend actresses and massage therapists, but JZ never answered that question
While I wholeheartedly agree with Maggie on pretty much every single point she makes here (and elsewhere, for that matter), I’d say that over-use of the loaded word “whore” (or any other pre-loaded term) can, eventually, be counter-productive. Yes, it is not Maggie, me, or whoever else you care to name that attached negative connotations, but we can’t escape from the fact that they are there. Also, I am not sure that, even if “our” side won, we’d want to continue using such a term, probably precisely for its once negative connotations.
So yes, wives, and lovers, and so on, and so forth (and software engineers, for that matter) are not essentially different from what repressed people would call “a whore”, but it just may be that making that point by using a word that elicits a visceral reaction may not always be the best idea.
I think what I’m actually trying to call for here is continued, but judicious, use of “whore”…
🙂
Dear Vlad, thank you! Some don’t WANT to have certain labels on them. Why should black people who don’t want to be called “nigger” be told TOUGHEN UP, GET WITH IT, RECLAIM THAT WORD, QUIT BEING A BABY, etc.? That’s literally ordering them to agree with something they don’t want or like. How about TACT? Tact isn’t very popular with many, unfortunately. I happen to be big (am working to get all the excess weight off though). I hate being called fat. That’s because that word to me and other big people is used as a shortcut to all the ###*** out there about big people: they don’t care at all; they don’t keep themselves clean; they aren’t even trying to lose weight; they’re complete losers for letting themselves get that way to begin with, etc., etc. Please realize that when you see big people, at least some of them ARE working on losing the weight. They’re “in transition”. A few years ago at my job a white woman I worked with made a remark about how black people live in the “projects” (government sponsored housing, etc.). The black women that heard it were furious. They should have been! We had the president of our branch come talk to all of us about this. He didn’t want to repeat the remark when asked what it was. He practiced TACT, thank God. He emphasized how our company has a no tolerance policy towards remarks like these. The woman who said it was warned to not do it again. She wasn’t fired. I think the whole thing was handled reasonably and she wasn’t punished to an unfair degree. Anyway, I was so glad that her remark wasn’t just “let go”. Not long ago I had some co-workers joking about the show “Snapped”. This is a series about women who murder. 1 was saying “that show gives you GREAT TIPS! It lets you know how to get rid of your husband. You can learn a lot from that show.” along with a lot of laughter. I was floored by this. I purposely kept my mouth shut because I knew if I started in on the subject, the whole thing could escalate and distract everyone from working, etc. I told 2 of my bosses about it (I purposely didn’t name names, i.e., saying who said it, etc.). They were floored also and agree with me that some education in this area is NEEDED. I offered to do the educating and was given permission to bring some of my writing about the surviving friends/family of murder victims to them for review. They liked how I handled the situation. I was literally shaking with anger when I heard this talk, but I held back. In my anger, I could have gotten on the level of the 1’s who think learning about ways to murder and certain murder cases are literally funny and just some form of ghoulish “entertainment” instead of involving real people who go through HELL. Thanks for listening.
Laura, you seem to be confusing the concept “advice” with the concept “command”. If someone prefers to be thin-skinned it’s certainly his choice, but I personally feel it’s self-destructive to give complete strangers weapons they can easily and legally use against me. If you like being a target that’s your getout, but I prefer to render myself immune to all the obvious verbal assaults.
There are people out there who are mean and cruel and will use words purposefully to hurt the feelings of others. Not wanting or liking for another person to call you something is not going to stop them from doing it. You can’t control what other people call you, particularly in a heated argument or debate. What you can control is your reaction to it. If my reaction is not to get upset about it, to reply with “So? What’s your point?” then what is the use of them using that word to get a reaction out of me? There is none.
Hmmmm….not sure how to comment.
It would seem to be an instance of normalizing behavior, but then again, the point is that the behavior IS normal.
But there is a difference between many clients and one client, or does that not matter either?
So here’s what I’m trying to understand. Is it:
-Prostitution is natural for women
-We should then encourage all girls to become prostitutes, or they will anyway
-That degree of prostitution doesn’t really matter
-That the distinction between wife & prostitute is legal and perceptual not actual
or something else?
Traditional cultures DO encourage girls to become prostitutes; just the contracted kind (wives) rather than the independent kind. And modern American culture also encourages the independent kind as long as she is dishonest about it, i.e. keeps the final bill secret and never lets the man know how much he’ll get for his money.
And yes, the distinction is only legal and perceptual, which under no-fault divorce is also the only difference between marriage and living together.
So then, you’re saying there’s no difference in clientele? By that I mean, if a woman says, “I’ll only give you some in exchange for money/a wedding ring/etc.,” or a woman has a regular roster of clients, it makes no difference, because the principle is the same?
Like, I won’t fuck my husband unless he does what I want is the same I have several paying clients, no freebies?
The clientele is slightly different, just as the clientele of a streetwalker is different from than of an escort, massage girl, porn star or sugar baby. But the principle is the same. It’s not “unless he does what I want”, though; that’s extortion, not commerce. The payment is financial upkeep, not pussy-whipped obedience.
So you’re saying that whenever a woman trades sexual favors on any level for financial support, it’s prostitution, regardless of circumstances or clientele.
That’s the definition of prostitution, isn’t it? The exchange of sexual favors for economic compensation.
I’m going to have to disagree here… but I don’t think we disagree on principle. Any type of exchange of goods or services is economic — money does not have to be involved.
So trading sex for non-monetary compensation — fixing your car, cleaning the gutters, watching the kids while you go out, etc, etc — is still prostitution. It may be barter, but it’s still prostitution.
That’s why I said “economic compensation” rather than “monetary compensation”. 😉
Okay. 🙂
The prior comments did use “financial support” and “financial upkeep” so I wanted to point out it’s still an economic arrangement even if no money changes hands.
Like, I won’t fuck my husband unless he does what I want is the same I have several paying clients, no freebies?
Let e ask you this, suppose your husband only made four grand a year pan handeling, couldnt affor the feed or clothe you or your kids, couldnt aford a car or a house payment?
Supsing you met a guy like that? Would you have sex with him? have his kids? knowing he would be incapeale and unwilling to support you in ant way what so ever?
Lujlp, Scorch is a guy. He was speaking for a hypothetical woman, not himself. 😉
Are you asking *me* or Maggie? Because I’m a guy. 🙂
If you’re thinking that I’m condemning women for seeking financial security for themselves & their children, I’m not, at all.
I’m trying to clearly understand the lines between what is considered prostitution, and what isn’t, or if it’s ALL prostitution. Many women would indeed take umbrage at the statement “all women are prostitutes” but if that’s what’s being said, I want to be sure I’m clear on that.
Also, I’m trying to understand in my mind how saying that a wife that gives her husband sex in exchange for financial support is the same as a woman that has a roster of regular clients that she services, or streetwalkers that service whomever(in some cases).
Also, it means that if I had a daughter, as she’s growing up, I have to expect her to trade her pussy for cash & favors, and as a father, what should be my position on that?
Your position should be to teach her right from wrong as you understand it, hope she learns, and then let her make her own choices once she’s old enough to do so. Ultimately that’s all you can do; that, and love her even if she (in your opinion) screws up.
Women are sexual beings; your daughter will be sexual with somebody, and all you can hope for is that her decisions are rational and right for her.
Not to be too nosey, but speaking as a father of young girl… How would you raise your daughter? Or, how would you have like to have be raised?
I think I summed it up above. I would want a daughter of mine to be confident, unashamed to face life and experience it as it should be experienced, fully and fearlessly. I would want her to know that she could ask me for advice on any subject and that I would try my best to be honest rather than selfish.
Here’s a column about the closest approach I have to a daughter.
I dunno…I’m still struggling with these equivalencies.
A woman having sex with her husband because he’s supporting the family being the same as a woman that has a roster of regular clients that she services for money…I dunno. Maybe I’m just not getting it.
Also, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that if the husband loses his job, or becomes disabled and can’t work, that the wife will stay with him and continue to have sex with him if they can, whereas an escort basically says, no money, no honey. Also, when the wife is the breadwinner….she still has sex with her husband if he’s a stay at home dad.
And yes, I’m one of those people where numbers of partners makes a difference. Perhaps that’s not enlightened, or mature, or open minded enough, but I can’t wrap my mind around a woman sleeping with 5-10 regulars per week for money being the same as a woman sleeping only with her husband, sometimes even if *she* earns the majority of the income.
Some courtesans have only one client at a time; how is that different from a woman who keeps divorcing and remarrying? As for women contributing more financially to the marriage than husbands, are you saying a business which loses money is not a business? With rare exception, women want a husband who can support them (whether he actually does so or not), which is why alimony and “child support” are still part of the divorce equation even when the wife makes more money in a year than you will see in your whole life.
Scorch, the reason you’re confused is that you’re choosing extreme examples of each; what you’re saying is “how can you say a tractor-trailer is the same as a moped?” when of course that isn’t what I’m saying at all. I’m saying they’re both motor vehicles, which they are. Is a four-wheeler a motorcycle or a car? It’s open, but is it much different from a dune buggy? How is a passenger truck different from a station wagon, really? What about those little European vans, are they cars or trucks? Is an APC a truck or a tank?
The problem is that the dividing lines are nonexistent, yet laws pretend otherwise.
Dear lujlp, I wouldn’t “write him off” as a sex only friend based on his income. I never did that and never will (with the people I saw their income was NO concern to me and that was on purpose).
Since we’ve already had this conversation, I have nothing of value to add except to giggle because now I feel important.
Also, this song will never stop being awesome.
I like that one very much, but I like “Dust in the Wind” even better. 🙂
Maggie–
Curious, is there anywhere in the US where prostitution is legal these days, other than many (but not all) counties in Nevada?
Were you ever arrested for it in New Orleans other than that one time you mention in part three of your being the only call girl in town for a while after H. Katrina?
No, and no. But keep in mind prostitution isn’t legal in those Nevada counties either, except under certain extremely strict conditions.
Speaking in Prostitute –
There are many women who fear whores because they believe it’s the same thing as cheating, and they’re also fearful of STD’s. These are some of the staunchest opponents of sex for trade, and these women don’t care what word is used.
Finding out her husband hired a whore makes a woman like this feel inferior to someone they despise. IMHO, there is no easy way out of this.
The only way out of it is to establish a legal tradition which absolutely forbids any restriction of consensual adult behavior, no matter how much any given group dislikes it. I don’t know why this idea is so hard for people to grasp; everyone at least pays lip service to the rights of minorities, and as Ayn Rand pointed out the smallest minority is the individual.
Leave it to dear old Ayn to point out the obvious.
I don’t think that is obvious to most people, though. How many people whine and bleat about “minority rights”, yet are perfectly happy to abrogate individual rights? They seem to feel one can only claim rights as a member of some officially-designated group, i.e. collective rights but not individual ones.
If prostitution were legal, you’d see signs advertising STD-free brothels which would eliminate that danger.
I also see offers for women to buy their husbands prostitute gift cards so she’d have some idea what he’s doing!
I’d also expect to see HIV+ only brothel clubs — where you have to have HIV to work there or join.
The whole “whores spread disease” fallacy is one of the most ridiculous myths about us, especially because the CDC has hard statistics on it: only 3-5% of all STDs in the US are related to prostitution (client or hooker), and 93% of that tiny share is streetwalker-related. Tune in a week from today (June 24th) for an in-depth look at whores and VD.
I should have said “fear” instead of “danger”. 🙂
No worries, Jason; I know that you don’t believe it! But you’d be amazed how many people do.
That’s why I think brothels would advertise that their girls (and boys!) are disease-free.
“Ours are clean… theirs… well, we don’t know about theirs.”
I’d expect to see certification agencies appearing, too. Plus I’d think there’s be prostitution clubs were a condition of membership would be periodic testing.
Also the appearance of STD positive prostitution clubs to cater to people who have STDs.
I know at least with regard to HIV, there are many different strains. An individual that is HIV positive can still be “reinfected” with a more aggressive strain.
I did not know they were multiple strains of HIV… I’m obviously not a doctor. 🙂
But how would you think legalized prostitution would deal with HIV and other STDs?
The government never does anything subtly or efficiently; rather than letting us handle it ourselves as we already do quite well* on our own, I’m sure there would be some cumbersome, expensive, egg-sledgehammer bureaucracy involved.
*See Friday’s column. You may be shocked at how well: try a 3-digit factoral difference in infection rates between escorts and promiscuous amateurs.
The government NEVER does anything efficiently? Really? Some things that were hidden for YEARS successfully by US government: Gulf of Tonkin, Tuskeegee Experiment, Greenbriar Hotel, MK-Ultra Program, a lot of information on the JFK assasination, Operation Ajax, Operation Paper Clip and information on 9/11. It’s STILL not fully known what all was done with the MK-Ultra Program. This is an outrage. Programs the government originated and have helped many: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security disability, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (this program has saved me and others like me who have chronic health problems from getting fired from our jobs), Veterans Administration benefits like disability for the children of veterans, loans to buy homes and GI Bill to help with college costs. There’s more programs I could name. Are all these programs run the way they should be at times? NO. But, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t any efficiency within them at all or that they don’t help MANY people HUGELY. I’ve never had any problems with the FMLA program as far as efficiency goes or anything else. I love to ask this of the 1’s who say all politicians are ###***; all in US government are out to get everyone at all times; there’s nothing good about US government, etc., etc.,: when you get your Social Security checks at retirement are you going to tear them up? When you become eligible for Medicare are you going to not use it? If the government is so bad, never does anything right, never helps anyone, then why not tear up those checks, not use Medicare, etc.? You don’t want anything from such a horrible system, RIGHT?
You’re confusing the words “effective” and “efficient”. They don’t mean the same thing. Breaking an egg with a sledgehammer is certainly effective, but it’s also highly wasteful. And so are those government programs you mentioned.
As for Social Security checks, if I get them I’ll keep them for the simple reason that getting back some of what was stolen from me over the years is better than getting back none.
Luara, if you think the VA is efficient then you arent a vet
Laura told me about this little exchange before I got here tonight. Yes, there is a difference between effective and efficient, or between successful and efficient.
I can tell a few stories about the VA. One of these stories was when I was in my later teens, and thus my mother had to be involved because of course I was seventeen-year-old widdle biddie chi-ald. After two day of weird runaround I turned to my mother and asked, “How do we ever manage to win any wars?” (once outside the building and thus out of earshot).
I try not to be a Grammar Nazi, but I can’t seem to help it, and Laura will probably be careful with the word “efficient” from now on.
OTOH, there is a tendency among the “government is bad” crowd to emphasize inefficiency while overlooking effectiveness, as well as an assumption that the private market would be better at both. This is sometimes true and sometimes not.
As someone pointed out on The Agitator once, government is fantastic at big, brute-force tasks like conquering countries, building highway systems and delivering tens of millions of pieces of mail; it’s when it tries to do things involving finesse that it falls flat. Hence, my sledgehammer analogy; a sledgehammer is absolutely the right tool for driving spikes, smashing down doors and the like, but not so good for breaking eggs or testing reflexes.
That’s right. I don’t want a dime from Social Security, Medicare, or anything of the like. Then again, I’ve never paid a dime in so I guess we’re even 🙂
Kelly James;
I’m happy that you can live out your life without Social Security, Medicare, etc. Not everybody can, and I’m also happy that it’s there for them.
Prostitution is legal in a number of European countries. Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, probably others. Non street walking prostitution is legal in England, but not for a man to have any pimp or brothel owning role in it. Female madams and arrangers of call girl dates are ok.
Are they allowed to advertise? Do they advertise being disease free?
Yes they can advertise. I don’t know if they advertise being disease free. Most men I think know as Maggie says that among non street walker prostitutes, disease isn’t a big issue.
It varies by country. Advertising is illegal in Canada and the UK, though of course they still do it. In the United States it’s pretty rare to see an escort advertise “disease free” because that’s a given and everyone who regularly sees escorts knows it. For an escort to include “disease free” in her ad would be sort of like a taxicab company putting “drivers are not drunk” on its doors or an electrician advertising “I won’t burn down your house.”
I get the impression that in most US cities call girls/escorts are very rarely arrested, unlike street walkers. They don’t seem to be much at all in NYC, the Spitzer scandal notwithstanding. Apparently the police were after something else when they stumbled on that agency.
Yes, that’s true; because streetwalkers have to make themselves visible, they are easily victimized by predatory cops. Escorts and call girls, because they are discreet, can’t easily be identified by predators so they have to resort to elaborate, time-consuming and expensive tricks in order to catch them, which produces a lower casualty rate.
Another reason you may not see “disease free” in escort advertising is that escorts are prudent (or should be) in their terminology. For instance, we sell time and companionship. If we advertise ‘disease free’ that would indicate a sexual service may be included (and used against us in a court of law).
Sorry Brandy, didn’t see that…
In some states advertising disease free can be used as evidence of intent to commit prostitution. Why bother to advertise disease free if you did not intend to have sex is the argument.
No worries love! I believe we were typing at the same time 🙂
Great minds and all that…
It’s also pretty the equivalent of saying, “my service includes sex,” which as we all know is illegal.
LOL!
Three of us pointed out the same thing.
Dear lujlp, please note I was giving examples of when the government HAS been efficient and that was the stuff they hid successfully for years. I brought up VA as an example of a government program that has helped people greatly. I wrote this: Are all these programs run the way they should be at times? NO. -This means I do acknowldge these programs could be run better. Despite that, they still help many truly in need a LOT. I’m not a veteran, but my fiance is the son of the veteran. Disability for the children of veterans has allowed him to live in his own apartment and pay his rent. I feel free to say this as he’s said earlier on here he’s on disability. This is an example of a case where VA has run at least efficiently in part by giving him a way to live independently. I know VA has problems that need to be fixed. But, they also deserve credit for what they do right and have improved over time.
I know I’m grateful for it.
But again, this is an example of effectiveness, not of efficiency.
Dear Gawaine, there’s also the possiblity the woman is upset because they had an agreement for him OR her to not have sex with anyone else. I could understand 100% a woman OR man being upset at being lied to in this area. It’s a horrible thing that can really destroy relationships. If the couple wants to live that way, they have the right to. I say if 1 person knows they can’t be faithful and doesn’t want to be THEN LEVEL WITH THE 1 YOU LOVE. Be honest instead of doing the evil, hurtful lying and hiding. Make the effort to FIND someone who can live with how you are. People have the right to take the stand that being with prostitutes OR non-prostitutes is cheating within their marriage, etc. Please note I said NON-prostitutes also. But, I thought the 1’s like me who won’t “admit what they really are” (eyeroll…isn’t it a wonderful thing to just not let up on people who don’t fit the mold you’re in and love the most?) just get on the women who charge, i.e., if they do it it’s not OK but if the non-prostitute women do it it’s OK. I’m not in this specific area and don’t in at least a few others also. HHMM…anyway, yes, this issue is more complicated than it’s made out to be at times.
American women being horribly upset about their men going to prostitutes once in awhile, so long as they don’t spend too large a percentage of their income in the process is pretty ridiculous. The chances of the call girl falling in love w/ her husband and vice versa are very long. He’s not gonna leave his wife for a call girl. Call girls typically insulated themselves emotionally from their clients.
I think it’s basically that wives want full marital leverage and control by having a total pussy monopoly, even when they’re not having sex very often with their husbands.
“I think it’s basically that wives want full marital leverage and control by having a total pussy monopoly, even when they’re not having sex very often with their husbands.”
THIS!!!!!!!
Dear Doug1, women who AREN’T call girls can ALSO have sex with no emotional attachments, strings, etc. I did this for years and have an agreement with my fiance that I can do that again at any time. I purposely did things the way I did to AVOID any RISK of attachment and am thankful that no one I saw ever interfered with my fiance and I’s relationship. There’s other reasons some couples choose to be monogamous besides the 1’s you’re talking about.
Some women can yes, but I don’t think most can have very good sex regularly with a lover and not develop in love feelings. Most don’t want to try not to. Most want strong emotions to go together with really good sex.
Does your finance have the same freedom and does he exercise it?
Dear Doug1, I was told by my 1st psychologist that women like me are rare. This has been confirmed by my own experience in that I’ve met few women like me (unfortunately) in the sexual area. But, I say give credit where it’s due and be thankful for those that ARE out there! I met the 1st 1 like me in this area in junior high school and she was a dear friend for years. Please note I’m speaking only of my experiences here. There might be more of us in the world than I know about. Yes, my fiance has the same freedom. He’s acted on it 1 time on his own and joined me a few times with sex only friends I had in the past. I’ve been more active than him overall, but have chosen for various reasons to not be with anyone but him for a little over 8 years now. I personally couldn’t live with an arrangement that would let him do what he wanted and I couldn’t (and vice versa). Yes, we’re rare, but we count as much as any individual or small group does.
OK now this was good. THAT’S how to make your posts.
{hugs Laura}
I have the same freedom, but being neither a hot, studly specimen of manhood NOR wealthy, and apparently lacking any bad-boy vibe, I haven’t had as many opportunities to practice honest promiscuity as Laura has. It’s harder for a man to get laid than for a woman, because basically all a woman has to do is NOT SAY NO. Hell, she can say no, as long as it isn’t to every offer.
And I think it’s basically that the number of adults willing and able to engage in honest conversation about sexuality, emotions and their respective needs can be fit onto the Love Boat without seriously overtaxing Isaac.
Dear Emily, isn’t it possible there’s more out there than you think?
Possible. Not probable.
This example of yours is exciting and new.
Laura, this is exactly what I did in my second marriage. I think it made my wife feel inferior, which I was too dense to notice at the time. But she had lovers too. The not lying to each other formed the basis for a lifelong friendshp.
Dear Gawaine, I’m very happy for you that this lead to a lifelong friendship!
This sentence and everything you said before it: good way to make your point. Everything that followed it: huh? And why the sudden defensive hostility? You were doing so well.
I’m putting this here instead of between us in private because I want you to really look at what you just posted. You are a wonderful girl, but that… huh?
“I feel that a woman’s sexual power is one of her greatest assets, and for her to reject that is as foolish as a man would be if he purposefully disdained the use of his physical strength.”
That comment really made me think.
I don’t have a college degree – never had the patience for it. All I ever wanted to do was go on “adventures”. And – looking back – I’ve pretty much made my entire living off either my physical strength or my physical stature. I was born a big redneck boy with a strong back and not a lot of intellect!
I like dangerous jobs that are exciting and, when I was really young – people would just throw me at a difficult physical problem because I could solve it. I still do that today – at age 49, I work on the backs of ships in the Arctic ocean – dangerous stuff but I love it like nothing else and people pay me well to do it because – they DO NOT want to do it themselves!
And, in the military – I rose very fast in leadership positions – not because I was smart – but because I had a physical stature that was imposing. I don’t care what anyone says – leadership is easy when you LOOK like a leader and, unfortunately – if you look like a big alpha male – it’s easier.
I had counterparts who were small women … MUCH smarter than me … with IDEAS that just blew my mind – and then I’d see that leading people wasn’t as easy for them. It didn’t seem fair – they had to work twice as hard as me to get people to follow them – when, with me – all I had to do was “walk around” and give orders.
So yeah – I think you are right … my success came from assets I was given at birth and society encourages me to use them. The sexual power of women though – society demands she completely surrender that.
Those are the people you hire as your staff and pay them very well to be loyal to you. 🙂
Exactly, Mark. People have nothing bad to say about men who use the natural, gender-based attributes with which they were born to make a living, but if a woman does the same she’s a “bimbo” or an “airhead” at best, and as was pointed out in this thread the specific word which most clearly describes a woman who uses her gifts thus is considered by many to be the worst insult which can be applied to a woman!
And if people of either sex use their natural skills – thinking, leadership, performing, organization, whatever – to make money, they’re “gifted”…but if those skills are sexual the woman who has them is vilified and oppressed.
“I feel that a woman’s sexual power is one of her greatest assets, and for her to reject that is as foolish as a man would be if he purposefully disdained the use of his physical strength.”-what about the women and men who choose not to have sex? If people choose that isn’t it their right?
“Sexual power” is not the same thing as “having sex”. That having been said, yes of course people have the right not to have sex; they also have the right not to eat meat, or not to listen to music, or to let other people boss them around, or to give away all their possessions and go to live in a cave, or to have their right arms amputated or their eyelids sewn shut. And I have the right to call any or all of those actions foolish, and they have the right to ignore my opinion and do it anyway. Individual liberty includes the right to be wrong, and to tell others when one thinks they’re wrong. Tolerance does not and cannot include mindless approval of everything.
Dear Maggie, just wondering: do you think it’s literally foolish for any woman to not profit off her sexual power, i.e., get money for it, get gifts, jewelry, free meals, etc.? I notice you compare the choice of some to not have sex with actions/mindsets that many would find negative and/or not want. The truth is the people who choose to wait until marriage to have sex or not ever have it get ###*** from people. They don’t deserve that just like the prostitutes and “wild women” don’t deserve to have lies put on them or have their life choices personally attacked. There’s also mindless DISapproval. This is seen in sad stuff like “they don’t agree with me on ____ so I don’t want to be their friend or have anything to do with them”.
Waiting until marriage to have sex is just another way for a woman to use her sexual power, can’t you see that? It’s just “you can’t even have a sample until I’m paid up front”. Good grief, even our grandmothers understood this; I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “why should a man buy a cow when he can get the milk for free?”
The only women who completely reject their sexual power are nuns, celibate old maids and neofeminists, all of whom tend to get “holier than thou” on women who are sexual and therefore deserve the disapproval of others not for what they do for themselves, but for attacking other women and trying their damnedest to suppress our choices.
At least sometimes waiting to have sex until marriage is a MORAL DECISION ONLY. Some people don’t believe that every single action is some kind of transaction. Isn’t there ENOUGH of that in the world system? Sometimes people want to do things for just moral reasons. They don’t want any money or any transaction connected to it. They just do things because they want to live that way. Yes, I’ve heard and read the “free milk” thing many times and have always hated it. Speaking of tending to disapprove, this is also done against the women like nuns, women who choose to not have sex, etc. There’s also getting “holier than thou” on THEM. It goes both ways. They get to hear ###*** like: you’re probably frigid; you probably think no one should ever have sex; you hate men; you’re a prude, etc. That’s no better than what the prostitutes and “wild women” hear. It’s just others on another side of an issue saying I don’t approve of your life choices. Yes, I know that some women do wait until marriage for reasons other than morality. But, they aren’t the only 1’s out there. There’s also women that don’t see every single thing in life as some kind of transaction and are following their moral beliefs ONLY.
It is NOT a moral decision only! I’m sure there are some who make that as a legitimate moral decision, but for most it’s simply brainwashing, fear of punishment or peer pressure.
If the 1’s who say it’s a moral decision only and their words AND actions match, they are consistent, etc. then I say give them the benefit of the doubt. People can and do make decisions on morals on their own without any church, preacher, peer pressure, etc. There’s a very popular lie that at least some religious people (especially Christians and Muslims) are willfully just “robot people”. They just say “yes” or “I’ll live that way” to any preacher, the Koran, the Bible, etc. Many question what they’re told/read and also work for REFORM within their belief system. If you question and research your beliefs, that’s not at all being some robot. It also doesn’t mean you “have to” or “should leave” your belief system.
Luara, even if it is a ‘moral’ decsion, they arent doing it because it is objectivly the right thing.
They are doing it for their own moral superiority, because doig the ‘moral’ thing makes them feel better about themselves. They are doing it because of self interest
Dear lujlp, say you think it’s wrong to steal. You choose not to steal because you want to live what you believe and not just say you believe in something and not back it up with actions, i.e., talk is cheap. No one else ordered you to feel this way. You came up with it in your own mind. Would you like it if someone said: you only don’t steal because you want to boost your ego, self-interest only, you want to be “above everyone”, be a snob, etc. I.e., think the worst possible thing about your motives. Would you like that and would it be a fair judgment of you?
I do think its worng to steal, the reason I dont is two fold. Fear of punishment, and I dont want my stuff stolen.
you dont take my things unfairly and I wont take yours
See – self interest
99.9999999999 of everything people do is self interest.
I ran a food bank distribution for a while, why? Because it gave me easy access to cheap food. Belive me given the way most of the people showing up to buy food behaved I’d have gotten far more satisfaction and sense of acoplishment had I been able o shot most of them in the head. It was too hot, to cold, too sunny, it was raining(we did it in a parking lot) the wasnt enough food. People would have one or two shoping cart full of food for 10 to 15 dollars and all they would do is bitch and moan about how incoveint it was for them to take two hours out of a saturdy morning to show ap and collect a handout.
St Marys shut it down because they made a backroom deal dividing the Phx valley geographically with another food bank for federal grant money. Food bank #2 didnt have the distribution syatem so by having our are considered theirs, they got more federal funds to get more delivery trucks, and the passed some of that money onto St Mary’s – so in charities are in the charity business for self interest
Don’t bother, Laura. I’ve run into the “everything is self-interest” argument before. It’s like solipsism: even if it’s true it doesn’t mean much of anything.
From Robert Heinlein:
There was a young lady named Wilde
who kept herself quite undefiled,
by thinking of Jesus
and contagious diseases
and the danger of having a child.
LOL! That’s a good one! I actually wrote a limerick myself once:
An eager young lady from Malverne,
To entertain groups of men did yearn.
When she did a big party
Some impatient smarty
At the back of the line yelled, “When’s my turn?”
“we (most whores) are indeed the ONLY honest adults in the conversation on human sexuality”-I capitalized only to make a point: so it’s really believed that 1 group of people has a total monopoly on running their sexual lives with honesty? Those high horses are smoking a lot at the party again.
Laura, how many times must I repeat that exceptions don’t invalidate rules?
Actually you don’t have to repeat anything. I got the message a long time ago and have said so. I find the literal fear of exceptions in some areas (especially the sexual area) to be entertaining (i.e., funny). Also sad at times.
It’s not a “fear”. Laura; it’s merely that I’m not going to encumber my statements with hundred-word disclaimers or fine print noting every single exception that might possibly exist, and IMHO the world would be a lot better off if everyone else stopped doing it as well.
Many people belong to groups that are seen as “write offs”, “don’t count”, etc., etc. I belong to at least a few. This is 1 of the biggest reasons I love to point out exceptions: to use the voice we deserve and not just be quiet and go along with the ###*** about not counting, etc. Pointing out these things educates also. That’s very needed in many areas. When I became an MVS, I was floored by how many lies, stereotypes, etc., are out there about us. It’s a horrible thing. So the world would be better for not pointing these things out? Really? Those that have had political and/or spiritual awakenings and their lives hugely changed for the better wouldn’t agree. They benefitted from those who spoke out against the world system with its defeatist thinking that includes the belief that individuals and small groups can’t change anything for the better, don’t have/shouldn’t have any influence, people can’t change, life is NEVER fair, etc. Some people like to use a lot of words to express themselves. Why should that matter in the whole scheme of things? Is there some rule saying “posts should only be ___ long”?
Fascinating. And what are your thoughts on yaoi?
If there is any flaw in your constitution, Laura, it isn’t your sexuality, your opinions on human sexuality or your thoughts on yaoi. It’s that you assume things, and then have hysterics in the flawed conclusion that this is educating public sentiment. It is, but I doubt they’re learning what you want them to.
Dear Emily, if you’re not being sarcastic on the yaoi question (I have a feeling you’re not) I’d be glad to answer. An FYI, I work on my flaws. 1 of them (I call it a problem also that resulted from abuse, trauma, etc.) is getting too emotional at times. I’ve done a lot of work on this and it IS greatly better. You wouldn’t have wanted to see how I acted online at times even a few years ago! Yes, I’m guilty of ASS-umptions at times, but I try hard not to be. I’ve had some about prostitutes broken on here. If I weren’t working on this flaw/problem, I wouldn’t have admitted that at least 1 got broken. I would have just willfully ignored the evidence and not said anything. As far as educating public sentiment, I’m not sure what you’re getting at exactly. If you like, could you please explain more? Thanks.
Sarcasm. Not in the manner you’re thinking though. I was mocking you for navel-gazing.
Try harder.
You make assumptions, read something into it that most everyone else could see was not there, and leap about the blog going on about ASS-umptions/MVS/everyone is a judgmental prick in big block Paragraphs of Doom. Maggie and/or Sailor points out the obvious (so do many others, but those are the two you listen to). You simmer down briefly.
You’ve done this in almost every blog this week. Sometimes twice.
This is not behavior calculated to teach that Laura is passionate and they should learn to be more sensitive. On the other hand, it’s very good at showing them Laura is an incoherent wanker spoiling for a fight on the internet.
If you want to accomplish the former, you need a better method. If you want the latter, I’m going to need more pictures of Alan Rickman.
Dear Emily, an FYI, I do work at all times on my faults/problems. “Try harder”-sometimes can be another way of saying “your work isn’t good enough”. Just wondering: how about I analyze your faults and/or problems? How would that be? Of course not a word is said about how I’ve had some of my own assumptions here broken, to my credit. Can’t give credit where it’s due. “You make assumptions, read something into it that most everyone else could see was not there, and leap about the blog going on about ASS-umptions/MVS/everyone is a judgmental prick in big block Paragraphs of Doom. Maggie and/or Sailor points out the obvious (so do many others, but those are the two you listen to). You simmer down briefly.”-I have some news for you. If you ever become an MVS (which I hope you don’t and I mean that, am not just saying it to look good), it’s going to be a huge part of your life. That’s how it is. I’ve done a pretty fantastic job of recovering as much as possible (I’m not just saying this to brag. Sailor Barsoom, my family that does care, friends, and the experts in recovery that I’ve worked with have all said the same REPEATEDLY). Unfortunately, there’s always some who if you talk about your MVS status a lot don’t want to hear it. I’ve heard all this stuff before, unfortunately. Notice I never have gotten on you once for talking a lot about your prostitute status (or ex-prostitute status). I’m not positive on which status you are, but hopefully you get what I’m saying here. I don’t say a word about how many words anyone else uses either. “This is not behavior calculated to teach that Laura is passionate and they should learn to be more sensitive. On the other hand, it’s very good at showing them Laura is an incoherent wanker spoiling for a fight on the internet.”-Wanker. THANK YOU for the compliment! I’ve never called you any kind of name and don’t plan to. Incoherent? Really? Funny, but for some reason my “incoherent” words have been published in a book that came out in 2001. It wasn’t self-published either. For some reason this “incoherent” person has gotten outstanding performance reviews at her job for the past 8 years including on getting along with co-workers. My job also requires that I communicate well in writing and speaking. I was asked several months ago to train the new employees in my department and have trained 1 so far and was told I did great. Sounds incoherent to me. “Spoiling for a fight”-this fault/problem of mine has gotten hugely better. Yes, I was full of repressed anger when I started counseling. This is the state of people who have been abused for years and also gone through trauma. But, I’ve put a lot of work into resolving it. Is some work still needed? YES. And that’s being done. I’ve already owned up to it on here and am doing so again. If I didn’t give a damn about how it effects others, I wouldn’t have done any work on it at all. Sailor Barsoom if he wants to can tell you how much our relationship has improved as far as my anger, etc., goes because of the work I’ve done. If I hadn’t done that work, he would have had every right to leave me. He hasn’t which says a lot. “If you want to accomplish the former, you need a better method.”-Really? Funny, but those I’ve helped online and off sure sing a different tune. I have accomplished at least some, but choose to be discreet about it. I also now know you have no interest in hearing about it. I find this stuff really sad. You’d said some kind words to me (which I said thank you for) and now all this is a bunch of negatives with no credit given at all. It looks like I’ve gone over a certain # of words again (gasp!). It’s really sad that has to be remarked on. I was going to say this soon, but will now as it fits with everything else I’ve said above: I’m going to be posting here a lot less in the near future. I have goals set (some include stuff I’m wanting to do online) that are ready to be worked on. This place has been wonderful as far as giving those like me who are fully coming out and admitting stuff about their sex lives, etc. a place to do so without embarrassment and censorship. It’s to Maggie’s credit she’s let me stay here as many of my views contradict the majority on here. I had some ASS-umptions about prostitutes broken. That was needed. I have a better understanding which was needed also. I also made a friend here (Joyce, who used to post here). If this stuff like “wanker” is brought up again, I’m not going to defend myself again. Enough’s been said already. I wish you the best and apologize for any upset I caused you.
Well, that’s not proving my point at all.
You’re having daily hysterics over your assumptions. Yeah, I think we can also go with that.
Considering you asked for me to do this, I think the lesson you need to take away is: Stop asking questions to which you don’t want the answer.
I don’t read most of your posts; they’re incoherent. If you’ve had some wonderful revelation of growth, feel free to point it ou-
You know what, never mind. You asked a question. I answered. You didn’t like what you heard so you made the assumption that I am a nasty, nasty person masturbating to the tinkling music of your tears. Responding is pointless, as you don’t listen, and reading further is pointless because I can pretty much write it out myself.
No one understands me. I have had a hard life. You are meeeean. I have done many good works in my time, which are somehow relevant to me behaving like a tit online. Me, me, me. So misunderstood. You are oppressing me! And also, mean.
Pretty close, huh? Should the irony ever strike you, send me
Alan RickmanDean Winchester photos if you want to kiss and make up.Laura, we need to talk. And you need to stop posting here until we do.
Now, I know that when you post here it is with your own WordPress account, with your own computer, in your own apartment. You have never taken any oath to obey me. So I understand that I can not ORDER you to stop posting here. I get that.
But I can ASK you to, until after we have talked. There are things that need to be said. Perhaps the first is: emilyhemmingway did not call you an incoherent wanker.
Just curious, how did yaoi enter the conversation?
P.S. I find it fascinating when subcultures cross. Don’t know why, but I did not expect so many people here to even know what yaoi is 🙂 This is awesome.
Because I will never learn to stop conversing in internet subculture lingo.
*facepalm*
Yeah, but I now have a bunch of threads in fandom_wank archives to procrastinate on my school work!
Dear Emily, “me, me, me”-speaking of that, statements like “whores are the ONLY honest 1’s in the sexual area (I don’t have the quote exactly right, but that’s the gist of it) that isn’t egotistical? RIGHT! It’s also not true and 1 of the most arrogant statements I’ve seen on here or anywhere online. If I said the wild women are the ONLY honest 1’s in the sexual area the screaming would never stop. But, I would NEVER say that except to make a point because the wild women AREN’T the ONLY honest 1’s. WOW! I just gave credit where it’s due to a group besides my own. That ego of mine just went away for a minute! The truth is no 1 group in the sexual area has a COMPLETE MONOPOLY on honesty. Also, you wonder why I listen to Sailor Barsoom and Maggie? Because they don’t talk to me using demeaning personal remarks and/or swear words. If anyone uses those towards me, they don’t get the same response from me. Those things bring back GREAT memories from my past (being sarcastic here).
You know, you’ve got a point. Neither ‘wild women,’ prostitutes, or really any other group has a monopoly on honesty (or dishonesty, for that matter).
Aaaannd now you just blew it. It may well be that nobody will recognize your point, because of stuff like this.
{sailor barsoom starts ripping his own hair out}
Dear emily, the reason I brought up examples from my life online and off was with the “wanker” remark I felt I needed to defend myself. I see now (after calming down) that it’s possible you didn’t call me that and were just saying I was acting like 1 (a wanker). I want to apologize to you and everyone else on here. I have at times what I call “bad days”. These are whole days when I think the worst of everyone and everything. I’ve had more of these lately for various reasons so, yes, some of my posts lately have been too defensive, etc. This is 1 reason I’m so big on talking about positives: I not only want to point them out as much as possible, but it helps me to do so also. It helps get me OUT OF the “bad days” thinking. I really have made a lot of progress in this area online and off, but there’s still some work to be done and it’s being done. I need to follow my own standards more and wait before posting at certain times. Again, I apologize for how lately some of my posts have been too defensive lately. Please know I’m making more efforts in this area to improve. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
Well, there’s also that one guy in New Jersey, but I figured it would be overkill to include him because everyone would recognize hyperbole when it slapped them in the face.
Dear Sailor B, we did talk about all this and I’ve calmed down for a while now. I just posted an apology. I’d already decided I won’t be posting on here as much as before or not at all. This ties in with the goals I’m wanting to meet next in my life and I’ve also pretty much left the other boards I’m on also. There’s 1 I’ll never leave and that 1 ties in with the goals that are to be met next in my life. Thanks for your patience and understanding. You know I still have a little bit of recovery work to do (thank God the biggest part of it is already done!) and I’ll keep going until it’s all done and your patience and understanding will help with that also.
Well, there are reasons why I stay around. Yes, the worst of Laura can be damned hard to deal with, but the best of Laura is pretty wonderful. As the years go by I’m seeing more of the best and less of the worst. And that’s due to your hard work, and your desire to be your best. As a certain big-eyed schoolgirl warrior might put it: Ganbaro!
Dear maggie, I apologize if I’ve not gotten it fully right about the exception thing and how you see it. I know how I see it is a big part of my life outside of the workplace that I choose to spend some of my spare time on. I think 1 reason we clash on this is because I see it as very serious and know it is with some things in life. Again, sorry if I caused you any upset.
You needn’t apologize, Laura, and you haven’t upset me. It’s just that there are far more people in this world using exceptions to justify injustice, than those using them to promote justice, so I think it’s important everyone realize exceptions are just that. Every day Puritans and busybodies regale the public with horror stories about liquor, drugs, prostitution, teenage behavior, “sex predators”, food and anything else which offends them in the hopes that people get upset enough about the 0.5% to accept Draconian restrictions on the 99.5%.
Dear Maggie, I’m 1 who uses the exceptions thing to break unfair stuff about the MVS and other groups including the “wild women”. Yes, I agree that too many are talking too much about the small %’s of a population that aren’t living healthy lives, etc. 1 thing I really hate with this is talk like: there’s some teenagers who are drug addicts/alcoholics. They NEVER mention the 1’s who have never been drug addicts/alcoholics OR the 1’s who once were but worked hard to get and stay sober. It reminds me of 1 of my “favorites”: once a drunk, always a drunk. I prove that 1 wrong and many others do also.
Ok, I’m still stuck on the “whores are dirty” concept. I think it stems from the idea that a woman having any sort of casual sex is “dirty”. In other words, a woman having any sex not society controlled is “dirty” or “wrong”. I hate that idea.
I certainly don’t think I was dirty. I took a shower/bath always between clients, always changed the sheets and cleaned the room at my in-call location. I had a doctor’s appointment regularly.
As for porn, while some of the locations had sufficient clean up facilities, not all did, but I did my best, and always cleaned up after. I was tested regularly.
So how was I any more dirty than anyone else? Especially someone never tested for disease?
Or was I only “dirty” in society’s terms, as in living outside the rules?
Now that’s a really good point ComixChik…it’s a distinction that people make in their minds.
First & foremost, it’s because so many people see prostitutes as streetwalkers only, full of drugs, etc.
But I’ve thought about that often, like if I meet a woman I have *no idea* about her past, or her number of former or current partners, and how is that *any different* from a prostitute.
And yes, you’re right that so much of that foolishness is rooted in the notion that women wanting or liking sex with anyone other than the man that they’re currently with makes her dirty, at least in some men’s minds.
A lot of it goes back to very ancient ideas about contamination; for example, women were “unclean” during menstruation and thus could not enter the temple. We still use the word “dirty” to mean “sexual” even when the sex is sterile, as in printed words on a page (“dirty books”). My column for this coming Friday (June 24th) explores the realities of disease in prostitution, and some of its contents may even surprise my pro readers.
So again….
if a woman trading pussy for money makes her a prostitute, then indeed, most women are prostitutes in some form at some point in their lives.
I’m just trying to understand if what’s being said is that the *degree* of the application of this definition *makes no difference.*
If my wife depends on me for financial support, but let’s say does adult films on the side, and has sex with others on film, that’s not the same to me as a wife that depends on me for financial support, and teaches a small number of piano lessons on the side.
I don’t know what people are going to call that, ‘prudish,’ ‘naive,’ ‘unenlightened’…..but it’s just not the same to me.
Dear thehumanscorch, ###*** anyone who makes fun of your life choices, calls you things like “prude”, etc. It’s your right 100% to not be sexually wild. Also your right 100% to be sexually wild.
There’s a joke, it’s so old that perhaps you haven’t heard it.
A fellow is having drinks and conversation at a bar with a classy lady, and the tone turns a little risque.
“Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?” he asks.
She thinks about it for a bit. “Yes, certainly.”
“Well, how about for ten dollars?”
This offends the lady. “What sort of girl do you think I am!”
“We’ve already established that,” he says. “Now we’re just negotiating the price.”
That’s attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to George Bernard Shaw.
Scorch, you said it yourself: “not the same to me” (emphasis added). Nobody’s arguing that individuals don’t have the right to make such decisions for themselves; the problem is when governments try to enforce arbitrary judgments on other people. It’s like the idea that some people have “too much” money; once we let a government decide some arbitrary amount is “too much”, and that the government steals the rest, you can bet that amount is going to drop every time there’s a budget shortfall. Nobody has the right to decide how much food goes on my plate but me, and nobody has the right to tell me how many men I can have sex with nor limit my reasons for doing so UNLESS I agree to that control, as in a personal pact with a husband.
I gotcha Maggie…
but what I mean, is that what *you* are saying?
That it literally does not matter to what degree a woman trades pussy for cash, it’s all prostitution?
That a whore is a whore is a whore whether she has a husband, 2 regular clients, or 2,000 regular clients? Are *you* saying that it doesn’t make any difference?
I’m saying that for the law to be just, it can’t make any difference. My personal morality or yours or Obama’s has nothing to do with it; women trade sex for economic support, period, and the only way to “eradicate prostitution” as the moralists and neofeminists claim they want is to make sex a capital crime…and somehow I doubt even that would accomplish it.
Hmmm. Okay, personal morality can’t be the barometer for policy because everybody’s is different,
You’re saying that the injustice lies in the fact that *wives* can trade pussy for economic support, and continue to financially rape through alimony & child support, and that sluts and golddiggers can trade ass for cash, as long as they do it dishonestly, but professional escorts, who are honest about goals, expectations, and price, somehow become vilified, are considered ‘dirty,’ and have *their* behavior criminalized, when they are doing relatively the exact same things as other women.
But you are also not saying that I, or anyone else, have to draw their moral lines of acceptable behavior in the same places that you do, correct? Because I’m not the kind of man who could deal with my wife being a part time escort, sleeping with clients on the side, and consider it the same kind of job as her teaching piano lessons on the side.
I also would not have the same reaction to a woman that told me(although there’s no way to prove if she’s lying or not) she’d slept with two men vs. a woman that told me she slept with 2,000 men, however politically incorrect that might sound.
I know that Brandy & Emily are constantly reminding me(read:ridiculing me) that I’m on a board full of hookers, but I have no experience with this world, which is why I read your information. I’ve learned a lot, and changed a lot, but I still am not *that* kind of man.
I see absolutely no point in making a commitment to a woman, and putting my heart and half my assets and any potential children at risk if she’s going to be fucking other people. Simple as that for me.
Nobody has to draw his moral lines any place but where he feels comfortable with them. I could never marry anyone who did cocaine, even occasionally, but I think it should be legal. And though I can handle my husband screwing other women, I could never be with a man whom I knew had been with other men. However, I don’t think male homosexuality should be illegal, nor would I look down on a woman who didn’t mind if her husband had gay lovers; that’s their business, not mine.
No consensual adult behavior should be illegal, period. End of story.
“No consensual adult behavior should be illegal, period. End of story.”
Totally agree with you there.
“I could never marry anyone who did cocaine, even occasionally, but I think it should be legal.
I could never be with a man whom I knew had been with other men.”
I know you’ve said all that before, but I thank you again for your refreshing honesty.
You’re welcome. I don’t call myself “The Honest Courtesan” for nothing. 😉
I think the bottom line is it is perfectly normal to those involved, because we see the reality of what it is. We do not have the image of a toothless trucker bending some poor victim over a bathroom sink at a truckstop as most of society pictures when they hear prostitution.
To those that are not involved, they will continue to be influenced by peer pressure of how prostitutes should be viewed and treated.
People often like or dislike things or ideas based on what their perception is of their peers approval. In other words, if they think others like it, they often like it too. If they fear others dislike it, they too will dislike it.
Like when I was young, a group of kids were talking about foods they hated. One boy made all of the “Yuck” faces and sounds when we named spinach. I made the yuck faces too, even though I loved spinach. All of the kids made the yuck faces. Later that afternoon, I overheard his mom talking to my grandmother about how much Ricky loved Spinach. I was really thrown by that. He lied. He liked it too. But, I lied as well. Neither of us wanted to be seen as approving of something that others likely wouldn’t. See what I mean?
Around 1986 or so, a guy took me to a pizza parlor and gave me some money for the jukebox. It was a new electronic one, and featured a prominently-displayed button marked “play the most popular song on this jukebox”. I was absolutely floored; why in the world, I asked, would anyone spend his own money to play a song (sight unseen, mind you) merely because everyone else likes it? It was like looking into an alien mind for me. Or like that game show “Family Feud” (or as I used to call it, “Conformity Food”), in which people are rewarded for thinking most like everyone else. 🙁
>A lot of it goes back to very ancient ideas about contamination; for example, women were “unclean” during menstruation and thus could not enter the temple.
I suspect that was basically a case of- “Hey guys, we can keep the power to ourselves if only we can be the priests, and run the temple. How about we declare menstruation unclean, and ban any women from the temple? That’s one thing they do and we don’t, so it’s perfect!”
And so women, even non-whores, get declared dirty once a month.
The not going to the temple while on your period thing ended after Jesus. The only parts of what are called by some the “Law” in the Old Testament that still apply to Christians are the things that Jesus SAID to do from it. This applies also to all other New Testament Scriptures. An example of this is believers were told the dietary laws from the Law were to be ended after Jesus. This is in the Book of Acts. I have some struggles with some of the stuff in the Law. I’d love to know all the reasons for some of the things in there and hope to find out 1 day.
One of the reasons given for what’s in the Law is to separate Jews from other people. The dietary laws are to make it difficult for Jews to eat with non-Jews.
Some of the prohibitions are based on what’s called “normative inversion”. For example, pigs were offered to the Egyptian gods, so they were declared unclean. The animals the Jews sacrificed were the animals the Egyptians used to represent their gods.
I did a column on that a while back. 🙂
I’ll admit its ben a while scince I did any reading on egyptian mythology, but I dont recall any goat or sheep based gods in egypt
LOL! More likely, it has to do with the fact of the blood; many ancient cultures viewed blood as taboo, for example prohibiting the eating of meat with blood in it or requiring ritual cleansing after contacting it.
Some Muslims still do stuff like this. Some only eat meats that are handled a certain way during the butchering process. I’m not positive, but think this is called “halal”. In the city I used to live in there were many of these “halal” butcher shops. I think these Muslims also follow dietary restrictions that are similar to those in the Old Testament law. The people who are Jehovahs’ Witnesses don’t take blood transfusions because of the Old Testament Law. I haven’t read about any who DO take transfusions. 1 of my bosses is a Jehovahs Witness and I think she’s a wonderful person and we talk about our religious beliefs in private at times. 1 thing I HATE about the workplace is that we’re not to talk about our beliefs out with everyone else. It can only be in private per company policy. GGGGRRRR!
In Judaism, at least, I think the ritual uncleanliness of menstruation may relate to sacred prostitutes — it separates them from the surrounding religions.
Dear Jason, yes, the God of the Old Testament ordered His followers to not do some things other people did. I personally am OK with that as God has the right to tell people the right way to live. This is why I’m OK with Jesus doing that also as am convinced He’s God and was also man while on earth. But, people also have the right to NOT follow God. I do have struggles with SOME of the Old Testament Law. I wonder about the “ultimate why’s” with some of it. Also with a few things in the New Testament. I’m a Christian who has some problems in the sexual area with my actions compared to my beliefs and think at times it’ll never be resolved. I want to point out Judaism wasn’t/isn’t the only religion where God told people to not do certain things other people did. This still applies in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. There’s others besides these but don’t remember them right off.
Religion is just another form of socail population control, tht is the long and the shrot of the “why’s” of any religious law
Yes, that’s it. The only reason that any religion says don’t do ____ is to make people be mindless, robot slaves and LIKE it. It’s never about don’t do certain things because they literally hurt other people (murder and assault are examples) and they shouldn’t be treated that way. It’s never about don’t take property that you don’t own, lying hurts people emotionally and mentally (especially in relationships), etc.
Religion was a form of control that predated secular law. You know why it was ‘wrong’ to fuck your friend’s wife? Cause more often the not he would kill you, and then his son or brother would kill you, and then your son or brother would kill them.
It was a way to prevent inter family blood feuds from splintering the tribe.
According to the laws of the Old Testament I am legally and ‘morally’ obligated to kill you for any number of things. When I get home I’ll post you a list of capital offences under the Law of Moses.
Also according to Paul – the second most powerful guy in Christian mythology – women are to keep quiet in matters of religion.
So, assuming for the sake of argument I am completely wrong about everything(I’m not btw), as a good and ‘moral’ Christian you can’t say anything to contradict me without going to hell.
Also slavery and rape were considered moral so long as it was done to one who wasn’t part of your faith.
Religion seems to be older than humanity. Once you study primitive religion, the kind that involves festival orgies and the pagan religions in which sacred prostitutes worked from temples, you get a fuller idea of what religion is about.
All women, if they ever have straight sex at all, are exchanging it for something of value, whether they see it that way or not. It’s that way from the guy’s point of view as well: TANSTAAFL. (There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.) If you get something, you pay for it.
The only difference between whores and women in other lines of business is that (at least sometimes) a whore will tell you the entire price up front. With other women, you never know the full price, even afterward, until she takes you to divorce court or uses a restraining order to take your home and civil rights away for some made-up crime.
Dear John, there are women who are completely up front about cost, etc. besides whores. I purposely kept sex as free of cost as possible when I had what I call “sex only friendships”. 1 of the things I did was pay for ALL condoms, lubricant, etc. I would usually go on 1 date before having sex and sometimes I paid for all of that also. Other times did Dutch treat or the man would pay. It depending a lot on our financial status at the time. It was also a guarantee that I would have sex if I had a date with you. I hate that ###*** of stringing men along where they don’t know if they’ll get sex or not. Yes, there aren’t many women who do this, but some ARE out there. 1 of the things I do like about whores is their honesty. I’m not being sarcastic here. With them (along with the women like me) you know what you’re going to get without mind games, being strung along, etc.
If I buy a lunch and give it to you, and you accept it, then you got a free lunch. And if you won’t accept it, then I’ll give it to somebody who will, and then THAT PERSON got a free lunch.
Yes, he really did. And so did you if you let it happen. It does no good to chant “TANSTAAFL, TANSTAAFL!” like a holy mantra, nor does it do any good to holler that it isn’t reeeeaaaalllly free because after all I paid for it. Yes, I did. But you didn’t, so you got a free lunch. And so did anybody else I gave a lunch to. And so did anybody else anybody else gave a lunch to. Not free for ME, but free for YOU.
TANSTAAFL has never really been true, and it’s getting more outdated with each passing day (when’s the last time you paid your Google bill?). The only way to “make” TASTAAFL true is to redefine the word “free” to mean something which nobody in the world (except TANSTAAFL advocates) means when saying “free.”
I like Heinlein’s writing too, but he wrote fiction, and he was a mortal, and he got some things wrong. We aren’t still using slide rules in an age of Lunar tourism, and Chinese intelligence agents won’t be fooled by igpay atinlay, and TANSTAAFL is silly.
Dear Sailor Barsoom, THANK YOU! This needed to be said by someone besides me.
TANSTAAFL has never really been true, and it’s getting more outdated with each passing day (when’s the last time you paid your Google bill?).-Great example! Thank you.
No, it’s always been true; you just have a narrow view of the concept of payment, as evidenced by your remark about a “Google bill”…which you pay with your attention and, if you’re not extremely careful, your personal data.
It’s never been true, ever, unless you stretch such words as “free” and “pay” to mean things which nobody not trying to prop up TANSTAAFL ever meant those words to mean.
You can argue that the oxygen you breath isn’t really free (some green plant worked hard to make that oxygen!), but it’s free in every way that actually makes any difference at all.
I make these bracelets out of stretchy string and plastic beads. I trade them with other people for similar bracelets. Sometimes (most of the time) I simply give them away. In these cases, I’m not paid. And please don’t say something like “You’re paid by the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you give them away.” The person receiving the bracelet doesn’t give up anything for me to get that warm fuzzy feeling; I take that from myself. The person receiving the bracelet didn’t have to give up anything in exchange for the bracelet.
And where did you get the string and beads? SOMEBODY paid for them. People are donating money for my tour; that money was NOT free. It was earned by the people who donated it to me. All resources come from somewhere and cost something; those who pretend otherwise are not your friends. Among them are people who believe that “free” oxygen will continue to appear no matter how many forests we destroy to put up more concrete, and those who believe that the supply of fossil fuel is inexhaustible.
Oh absolutely somebody paid for the string and beads. Namely me.* But then nobody claimed that I got any free bracelet. But the person I gave it to did. He got it for free. He didn’t pay for it. He didn’t work for it. He didn’t promise me something in the future. It was free. Utterly free and without cost. To him.
Nobody ever said it was free in every possible way for everybody who ever lived, lives now, or ever will live. That’s not what “free” means, except to the TANSTAAFL crowd, who need it to mean that so that their favorite acronym can be true. But that’s not what the word means to anybody else.
* My first beads were actually given to me (for free) by a niece who received them (for free) by an aunt who died. I’m not sure where the aunt got them, but we can safely assume that at some point, somebody bought them with money.
Except that you’re completely wrong. That’s the interpretation you need it to have, so the acronym can be false. But it’s not what it means to me, and it isn’t what it meant to its most famous popularizer, Robert Heinlein, which you would know if you’d read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress recently (if you have read it, you clearly don’t remember it well). The point of TANSTAAFL isn’t that nothing comes without a direct exchange; it’s that somebody is footing the bill, and unless the reason is obvious it is prudent to ask why.
It’s the interpretation the vast majority of humanity has, and always has. If I give you something, you got it for free. Doesn’t matter how much I paid for it.
Don’t quote Heinlein like he’s God speaking from the peak of Mt. Sinai; he was a mortal human being like the rest of us. He was right about some things and wrong about others. Remember the slide rules co-existing with Lunar tourism. As has been pointed out, he wrote liberal, conservative, libertarian or socialist SF depending on who he was married to at the time.
Excuse me? Do you remember whom you’re talking to here? I’m not quoting Heinlein like he’s a “god”; I’m quoting him like he’s the most popular proponent of the fucking expression we’re discussing. And since the conversation has reached that point, it is now officially over.
You’re right, that was out of line. Sorry. It’s probably best if we don’t talk about it anymore.
Dear Sailor Barsoom, all I really have to say is “Thank you God” for speaking out on this and refusing to give that up no matter what comes your way.
http://linkis.com/www.newrepublic.com/YPWrU -Sailor Barsoom, just remembered this. I found it on Twitter from one of my followers/friends.
Thank you. That was interesting. He really was an excellent writer.
I know its a little late but here are the things under the law of moses you are to be put to death for – please not in these circumstances the murder is “moral”
Accidental Death (man slaughter)
Assualt of Parents
Being a missonary for wrong church
Being raped
Claiming to be psycic
Defending a member of a different religion
Disobeying parents
Touching Mount Siani
Going to church on wrong day
Homosexuality
Improper slaughter of sacrifical animal
Mocking church officials
Murder
Rape – but only of a married woman
Selling flawed animals for sacrifice
Selling someone elses slave
Taking lords name in vain
Swearing @ parents
Adultery
Beastiality
Wanting to be a priest and not being a member of the tribe of Levi
Idolitry
Not going to church
Working on sabbath
Dear lujlp, thanks for the list. I’ve had some modem problems the past few days so haven’t been able to get anything done online. I’ll answer you when I can on this plus will answer some other stuff as I have time also. Thanks for your patience.
Dear Maggie, I thought I had to log in under the WordPress ID for my gravatar to work. I just saw I can go by “Laura” only to have it work also. This is great as the “laura24lb” name I picked am not the happiest with and only picked it because I had to use a name not already taken by someone else. This is the 1st time I’ve used the gravatar thing so am glad I’ve learned something good already…smile.
I fixed them. 😉
I’m waaaay past late to this discussion, but…
(posted above by Laura)”Laura
At least sometimes waiting to have sex until marriage is a MORAL DECISION ONLY. Some people don’t believe that every single action is some kind of transaction. Isn’t there ENOUGH of that in the world system? Sometimes people want to do things for just moral reasons. They don’t want any money or any transaction connected to it. They just do things because they want to live that way. Yes, I’ve heard and read the “free milk” thing many times and have always hated it. Speaking of tending to disapprove, this is also done against the women like nuns, women who choose to not have sex, etc. There’s also getting “holier than thou” on THEM. It goes both ways. They get to hear ###*** like: you’re probably frigid; you probably think no one should ever have sex; you hate men; you’re a prude, etc. That’s no better than what the prostitutes and “wild women” hear. It’s just others on another side of an issue saying I don’t approve of your life choices. Yes, I know that some women do wait until marriage for reasons other than morality. But, they aren’t the only 1′s out there. There’s also women that don’t see every single thing in life as some kind of transaction and are following their moral beliefs ONLY.”
“Money” or material goods or services aren’t the only ways by which a person might be benefited — psychological/sociological benefits can be important or essential to a person, too. As mammals possessing self-awareness and higher consciousness, our needs seem to include not only physical needs which are usually more directly satisfied by concrete “money” and materials/services, but also psychological needs which are sometimes satisfied more abstractly.
And, while a person might not consider a particular “thing in life” to be a “transaction” does not mean that the thing is not in fact a transaction.
Consequently, I think it’s possible that a person — say, a woman — who does something for “a moral reason” might not realize that she is, after all, transacting — for, she is acting in a certain way (for example, waiting until marriage before engaging in sex) in order to receive the psychological benefit of satisfying what she has adopted (whether thoughtfully or uncritically, whether actively or passively) as “moral truth”. She receives from her behavior the satisfaction/fulfillment of having “done what she believes is morally right”. She doesn’t perform a transaction is the usual use of the word — as an economic transaction — but she has “transacted” in order to receive a benefit she desires.
The problem with this is that it means everything, which means that it means nothing. Words like “transaction,” “paid,” or “reward” are expanded to the point that, no matter what she does, it’s a transaction for which she receives a reward. If she goes nuts and decides that she MUST have sex on any Tuesday with a full moon because that’s what the Elves are telling her to do, well she’s rewarded by the sense of relief that the Elves approve of her actions.
Put another way: what can she do, deliberately, which is not a transaction? If the answer is “nothing,” then words like “pay” and “transaction” don’t really mean anything other than “she did it on purpose.”
Agreed, that semantically, that words “paid” and “transaction” are stripped of their communicational value of meaning “economically-wise” when expanded to that point.
My thought is that some who consider their actions as being “not for their own benefit” are actually receiving what they consider a benefit, albeit a non-material sort — for example, that sense of relief that the Elves approve of her actions.
Dear joesantus, I happened to come across this not long ago (am looking through some old stuff I didn’t answer, etc., while in the process of leaving here) so would be glad to answer this for you if you’re still interested. Please just let me know.
Laura, I’d be glad for your subsequent thoughts on this.
Dear joesantus, I apologize that I’m remembering this now. My short-term memory problems have gotten worse for various reasons. I’m curious if you’re on Twitter? If so I can answer on there. If you’re not then I’ll answer on here soon. Thanks for your patience.
Nope, I’m not on Twitter nor the like, Laura.
Reblogged this on johnomason.
I think we’re possibly missing a significant *unspoken* point about monogamy; its the idea that both partners are willing to forsake other people sexually *because I undertake to fulfill your sexual needs myself*.
If that mutuality breaks down by you denying your partner’s long term sexual fulfillment, thus breaking that contract, don’t bleat about the ensuing consequences.
If you have inalienable sexual agency, so do they.
I’m quite aware that typically the male urge to mate is constant, and the female urge to mate is more cyclic (it’s those pesky science hormones. I blame the beef 😉) so there’s a *tendency* to a disparity as a result.
But variability in need doesn’t give one the excuse to leave a partner unfulfilled, that’s just a shitty thing to do to someone you *purportedly* care about.
Having reached this blog post again, by moving forward chronologically rather than leaping, I want add this :
The problem with the printed word is this : while I might say
“You’re a dirty naughty horny slut” using *words*
my coincident body language and facial expression and … ardent desire… turns it into:
“You’re a sexual goddess, woman, and it’s totally *hot*”
which isnt conveyed by the written words *at all*
💕