|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:57 AM November 17th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Wonderfull! I believe that all prostatution should be legal anyway. But, since marriage has been used to institutionalize the figurative castration of the male in so many cases no wonder men are afraid. I am sure that with the current job situation as it is there would be plenty of men willing to rise to the occassion. Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 12:57 PM November 17th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Q: What's Heidi Fleiss' favorite breakfast cereal?
A: Trix!
Sorry, couldn't resist that one ;)
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 01:25 PM November 17th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I've always wanted to be a magician ever since my girlfriend told me she gets $50 a trick!
Drum roll ... tiddlyboom!
I realized that I had the wrong girlfriend when we walked by the VD clinic and the staff there called out her name!
Drum roll ... tiddlyboom!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:16 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Q; What is a back-hoe?
A; A prostitute in reverse.
Sorry, I wanted to get in on this, too. :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 05:56 PM November 17th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with this at all. I just wonder if there is really much of a market for it, and there is also the technical issue that it is much more difficult for men to fake it.
We have abundant evidence from all around the world that making prostitution illegal doesn't stop it happening - it just makes it dangerous.
In most places where prostitution is illegal, the trade is controlled by gangsters, and young women and men are coerced into working in the trade, where they become prey to disease, violence and abuse.
The only way to improve the situation is legalisation. I offer the Australian model of legalised prostitution as a shining example to everyone. If anyone can identify a problem with it, I'd like to know. It seems to be a model we could all follow.
In the UK we have a vocal lesbian-feminist anti-prostitution campaigner called Julie Bindel. I have never heard her even mention the Australian case.
The basic issue Ms. Bindel has is that she is rampantly heterophobic. Feminists like her see heterosexuality as an aspect of The Evil Patriarchy (TM), and prostitution as a part of the machinery of heterosexuality. The only way to improve the world - and they consider themselves to be on a mission to improve the world - is to overturn The Evil Patriarchy (TM), which involves dismantling heterosexuality, which in turn means opposing prostitution, pornography, marriage and the family. It is really a version of 1970s Marxism. It has obvious attractions for a certain kind of lesbian, as she gets to see herself as part of a bold, world-saving revolutionary vanguard, instead of just a normal person. Feminism is partly about money, but it is also about Psychology; people adopt it as a world-view because it brings them certain kinds of cognitive benefits - they see themselves as important, they have a ready-made social circle and a sense of purpose and structure in their lives. It is, in essence, a kind of cult religion.
In the case of prostitution, they are able to add their voices to those of the already influential Conservative Right. What strange bedfellows they seem. In fact the two world-views are structurally very similar. They also both make the same mistake, in thinking that making some economic activity illegal stops people from doing it.
The feminists I've known never seem to join the dots. They are quite right about abortion - people will always feel the need for it, and making it illegal doesn't stop it, it just makes it dangerous - but they do not apply the same logic to pornography and prostitution.
They could think it through if they wanted to, but that would mean questioning their religious dogmas.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 08:41 PM November 17th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
We have abundant evidence from all around the world that making prostitution illegal doesn't stop it happening - it just makes it dangerous.
In most places where prostitution is illegal, the trade is controlled by gangsters, and young women and men are coerced into working in the trade, where they become prey to disease, violence and abuse.
This seems to be true in Colorado, as the only place in the state where sex takes place seems to be the red light district a.k.a. "East Colfax." Of course the East Colfax area in Denver has a reputation for being seedy and dangerous.
Well, it's not entirely true that East Colfax is the only place in the state where sex takes place. They do import people from California and Texas to keep the population up, and apparently its the Californians who breed here because they're known as Californicators. Whenever the population of the state reaches the desired level, the native Coloradans let the Californians know that their job is done and that they can leave the state by displaying bumper stickers saying "Californicators go home." In this amicable way the state's population is regenerated and relations between the two states are kept warm ;)
Steve
[Disclaimer: No offense to Californians - I was born there myself. And I've really only seen about two of these bumper stickers in the eight years that I've been here so the state isn't all that hostile to non-natives.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:44 PM November 17th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Very well put, and sadly true. But your caveat to the invester was profound! Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:05 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome!
After listening for years how men objectify and abuse poor desperate women thrue prostitution we can finally fight back.
This is a great chance for all of us. We have to mention this as many times as possible to any woman that consider us "pigs" or whatever you want.
It doesn't matter if this business will have clients or not (and I bet it will) the only things that matter is that it will give us a chance to fight back anytime we hear the objectification again.
We are too good and nice to take advantage of this episodes, but, see, I think we HAVE to do it, we have to start to fight back with the same techniques that feminists use: little, tiny, episodes brought into the spot as a general example.
Do I make any sense?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:32 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you make sense. This is not all that new, though. In the Carribean There was a male prostitution ring for women, particularly Western women, that as far as I know is still operating. I always mention that (among other things) when anyone gripe about male "pigs" going after female prostitutes. This Nevada development just gives additional ammo.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:04 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
If only that psychotic pig Andrea Dworkin could have lived to see the day! Now we'll have a poster-child of a man gain 200 lbs and start a virulent woman-hating movement because he was exploited.
Of course, the feminists of the world will chant on about The Evil Patriarchy (TM) - sorry, had to use it, it was just too appropriate - and how only they can be victims, blah blah, poor me, blah blah blah, give me money and my husband's too, congress, boo hoo.
Fortunately, the varnish is wearing thin on that old line, and the more shit like this is reported, the more ridiculous raunch, anti-male culture is viewed by TV zombies and the more violent little bitches there are murdering boys in high schools, the shorter the lifespan of this ridiculous rationalization for hatred and anti-social behavior will be, and then some actual progress towards real equality might be made. First, we need the same level of control over our bodies that the pill gave women so they could start all this shit in the first place, but that's coming, and I hear it's 100% effective in clinical trials.
I see the future, and it makes me smile. Just imagine this at a feminist hate-in/testimony before congress coming soon to a town near you:
Androphobe: "Say, do you hear those drums? Wonder what they mean?"
Random Man: "They mean war, babycakes, and we don't fight to lose."
Naturally, I refer to a cultural and political war, not one of violence. Aside from being a pacifist myself and opposing violence against anyone as wrong in the absolute sense, even the imaginary violence that feminists see, pacifism is far more effective. Gandhi knew it, and look what it did for his cause.
Women aren't the only ones who can mis-read history, you see.
Hey: I just got me a nick: RandomMan
(I needed a nick fast, and it seems appropriate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Alitax on 07:11 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
What that an argument, or a pseudo-political diatribe?
Strangely enough, a reasonable person (feminist or otherwise) would see a callgirl/boy, who was not sollicited by the agency, being paid 125 USD/hour and go "damn, s/he's making a lot to lie on her/his back"; and maybe sniff because sex isn't very intellectual in itself (and so many people find it necessary to look down on the service industry).
But really, if you must apply the term 'feminists', don't be quite so riduculous and pretend that all women are either foaming at the mouth to castrate the opposite sex, or plan to chain themselves to the kitchen. Women do not exist as a dichotomy, and I pray that men don't either.
I don't believe Gandhi promoted pacifism by using derogatory language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:42 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:44 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
More trolling. "Timmy" is a handicapped, macrocephalic kid with ADHD in a wheelchair on South Park (and the earlier poster boy of some notoreity for some disability or another which led to the name being used, I'm sure) who in his latest incarnation can only say his name - hence "Timmy!"
Useless trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by unrulypassenger on 06:10 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Geez. Oh well. It finally happened. The surprise is that it took so long and there's still only one (that i know of). I think that poor homely little Heidi may have found her niche. I wish her luck, or if she blows it, then maybe it will spawn more (ahemm) ranches for the ladies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:30 PM November 19th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know. Isn't "Blowing it" what got her in trouble in the first place...? *cringe*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by unrulypassenger on 11:02 AM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO noooo really it seems that ya never really get into trouble until the IRS starts sniffin around...then you're history.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
I guess I'll just say, "Make of