# whores



## Vic (Dec 4, 2010)

The world's oldest profession is on my mind. This could mean a male, female, etc. Whatever brings you pleasure.


I also don't know if one can 'employ someone's services'. Sounds incorrect. If a mod knows the correct way to write it, feel free.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

I don't see how this is different from any other job that requires physical labor. A man can sell his body by getting employed to move bricks, why can't a woman sell her body if she wants to?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Personally, I would never. It's too impersonal, there's no love involved and unless I had known them for months, I wouldn't be comfortable having sex with them anyway.



alphacat said:


> I don't see how this is different from any other job that requires physical labor. A man can sell his body by getting employed to move bricks, why can't a woman sell her body if she wants to?


There are also males who prostitute themselves, as well as female bricklayers.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> There are also males who prostitute themselves, as well as female bricklayers.


And what does that have to do with the point I was making with my post?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I wonder why its referred to as the oldest profession anyway. I'm sure there existed hunting and gathering, farming perhaps, before prostitution. Or if they mean female profession solely, gathering would still be a possibility - maybe even midwifery. If they mean profession in the sense that there is actual money exchanged, rather than just trading other goods or services, then I suppose banking would have to precede prostitution.

So far as my opinion on it - it cheapens the meaning of sex. But for those who don't mind a cheapened sense of what sex means, and an std or three, go for it.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

alphacat said:


> And what does that have to do with the point I was making with my post?


You commented that why shouldn't a woman be able to sell her body if she wants. I was pointing out that not all prostitutes are female, and not all bricklayers are male.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Promethea said:


> I wonder why its referred to as the oldest profession anyway. I'm sure there existed hunting and gathering, farming perhaps, before prostitution. Or if you mean female profession solely, gathering would still be a possibility - maybe even midwifery. If they mean profession in the sense that there is actual money exchanged, rather than just trading other goods or services, then I suppose banking would have to precede prostitution.
> 
> So far as my opinion on it - it cheapens the meaning of sex. But for those who don't mind a cheapened sense of what sex means, and an std or three, go for it.


I'm fairly sure gathering or midwifery were around a long, long time before prostitution. I believe it wasn't until the invention of politicians that the world saw the development of prostitution.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> I'm fairly sure gathering or midwifery were around a long, long time before prostitution. I believe it wasn't until the invention of politicians that the world saw the development of prostitution.


I googled around a bit and there are only theories, nothing conclusive - but it seems that hunter or shaman is more of a possibility. I know that there were some female hunters, and certainly gatherers like I'd mentioned.

As I was looking around, I noticed that people will refer to prostitution as the oldest profession, in a sort of off-the-cuff way of justifying its existence. Sort of 'could it be wrong if its been around for such a long time?' - which is fallacious. Not saying that was the OPs intention here - rather that it was a general observation that annoyed me.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> You commented that why shouldn't a woman be able to sell her body if she wants. I was pointing out that not all prostitutes are female, and not all bricklayers are male.


Why are my points keep flying over your head? Did I say all prostitutes were women and all brick movers are men? The answer is no.

By the way, I also want to point out how absurd your little derailment is, please look at the topic title, do you know what that word means? A whore is a female prostitute, and a gigolo is a male prostitute. So what if my post was addressing female prostitutes?

Please don't start arguments when you have next to nothing of substance to add.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

To be on topic, whores? Really? Prostitutes or Prostitution would have been a nicer title. I don't know...that's just my preference.


----------



## Peacock (Mar 11, 2011)

I personally would never hire a "professional lover." Although, I do believe it should be legalized because even if it isn't the earliest profession, it sure has been around for a long time and won't fade away anytime soon. Legalization would have many benefits like protection for the workers, STD tests which would benefit both workers and customers, ID required so less abuse happens, the workers would get a fair share of money instead of it going to the pimp, and generally the workers will be cleaner.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

Peacock said:


> I personally would never hire a "professional lover." Although, I do believe it should be legalized because even if it isn't the earliest profession, it sure has been around for a long time and won't fade away anytime soon. Legalization would have many benefits like protection for the workers, STD tests which would benefit both workers and customers, ID required so less abuse happens, the workers would get a fair share of money instead of it going to the pimp, and generally the workers will be cleaner.


Ya, so much benefit for legalizing this than not.

I believe the only argument against legalizing prostitution would be an moral one, and I don't find that compelling at all.


----------



## Peacock (Mar 11, 2011)

alphacat said:


> Ya, so much benefit for legalizing this than not.
> 
> I believe the only argument against legalizing prostitution would be an moral one, and I don't find that compelling at all.


 Exactly. Although I try to keep a moral code if I see that something is going to keep people from being abused and keep people cleaner and healthier, I definitely support it. Plus, I see nothing wrong with sex. Some people just can't get laid without paying.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Peacock said:


> STD tests which would benefit both workers and customers, ID required so less abuse happens, the workers would get a fair share of money instead of it going to the pimp, and generally the workers will be cleaner.


Not possible to stop the spread of STDs by testing for them.. Firstly, some STDs take a while to show up. A person can be transmitting it before they know they have it. Theres also the issue of people faking documents to show they have no STDs when they do. This happens in the porn industry when someone is required to have a clean bill of health - but they don't, and of course they still want to be able to do their job so they find an "illegal" way around it. That will always be a problem.

And yes, ultimately its up to the individual whether or not they want to engage in this, but they should be informed as to how safe its.. not.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Not possible to stop the spread of STDs by testing for them.. Firstly, some STDs take a while to show up. A person can be transmitting it before they know they have it. Theres also the issue of people faking documents to show they have no STDs when they do. This happens in the porn industry when someone is required to have a clean bill of health - but they don't, and of course they still want to be able to do their job so they find an "illegal" way around it. That will always be a problem.
> 
> And yes, ultimately its up to the individual whether or not they want to engage in this, but they should be informed as to how safe its.. not.


Indeed. However, it is more of a testament for the corruptness of the individual who goes around having unprotected sex while knowing he has HIV than how the system is a complete failure. Having sex workers submit themselves for a test that is not perfect is still better than having absolutely no standard of practice, much like what we have today. It surely will not prevent the spread of HIV, however, if it is able to slow it down, or create roadblocks, then these regulations are doing their jobs.


----------



## Peacock (Mar 11, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Not possible to stop the spread of STDs by testing for them.. Firstly, some STDs take a while to show up. A person can be transmitting it before they know they have it. Theres also the issue of people faking documents to show they have no STDs when they do. This happens in the porn industry when someone is required to have a clean bill of health - but they don't, and of course they still want to be able to do their job so they find an "illegal" way around it. That will always be a problem.
> 
> And yes, ultimately its up to the individual whether or not they want to engage in this, but they should be informed as to how safe its.. not.


You're right. I guess that's probably one of the biggest issues. I still believe it would be slightly more safe to test and treat the STDs that can be cured. I doubt that many men would use condoms when hiring a worker.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

_"I do not understand why prostitution is illegal. Why should prostitution be illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away. I can't follow the logic on that at all. Of all the things you can do to a person, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people. Civilian life, you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm. Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it_." - George Carlin


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

First of all, I thought "whores don't get paid". At least that is what my dorm mate's Jewish grandmother once told me.

And I've never hired a prostitute. However, I once broke up with my boyfriend and I did take him back after he bought me flowers and brand new high grade tires for my car. 

I still feel cheap to this day. :sad:


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> *First of all, I thought "whores don't get paid". At least that is what my dorm mate's Jewish grandmother once told me.*
> 
> And I've never hired a prostitute. However, I once broke up with my boyfriend and I did take him back after he bought me flowers and brand new high grade tires for my car.
> 
> I still feel cheap to this day. :sad:


Whores get paid, sluts don't. 

Sluts are amateurs, they love what they do.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Not possible to stop the spread of STDs by testing for them.. Firstly, some STDs take a while to show up. A person can be transmitting it before they know they have it. Theres also the issue of people faking documents to show they have no STDs when they do. This happens in the porn industry when someone is required to have a clean bill of health - but they don't, and of course they still want to be able to do their job so they find an "illegal" way around it. That will always be a problem.
> 
> And yes, ultimately its up to the individual whether or not they want to engage in this, but they should be informed as to how safe its.. not.


You can't stop it, but you can reduce it by having these STD tests and requiring both the workers and customers to wear protection.


----------



## Ylajali (Mar 27, 2011)

sup gurl??


----------



## chaeriean (Jan 18, 2011)

"what is 'up'?!?!?!"


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

chaeriean said:


> "what is 'up'?!?!?!"


I laughed so hard I pee'd... just a little.


----------



## chaeriean (Jan 18, 2011)

i wasn't capable of resisting. i don't usually significantly derail threads like that but, that photo. yes.


----------



## Ylajali (Mar 27, 2011)

what should the new topic be. jewel encrusted, inverted penises?


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

I agree, and although it was a derailment, it was a necessary one. :laughing:


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

Ylajali said:


> yeah. no response


That's because you just got wtfpwned.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Ylajali said:


> sup gurl??


What the fuck. Only the internet. Ylajali, why would you ever write this? What do you think would happen?

Ylajali: sup gurl??
Gurl: ZOMFG! BOYZZZZ!!!
Ylajali: Hey can I get you digits and pics????
Gurl: YaaAaaAAaa~!!!11
Ylajali: K, wanna hook up?
Gurl: ZOMFG YES! I <3 boiz on teh internet
Ylajali: K cool where you live
Gurl: 555 immastupidcunt rd, wtflol california united fucking states of america
Ylajali: K

^ I just don't see this as a possibility. Sorryz


----------



## SyndiCat (Oct 2, 2010)

I would rather use cheap benefits.


----------



## Ylajali (Mar 27, 2011)

Troisi said:


> What the fuck. Only the internet. Ylajali, why would you ever write this? What do you think would happen?
> 
> Ylajali: sup gurl??
> Gurl: ZOMFG! BOYZZZZ!!!
> ...



The context of the post was absurd; I was being sarcastic


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Troisi said:


> What the fuck. Only the internet. Ylajali, why would you ever write this? What do you think would happen?
> 
> Ylajali: sup gurl??
> Gurl: ZOMFG! BOYZZZZ!!!
> ...


Wait...so you're telling me there's BOYS ON THE INTERNET?!?!? 

*foams at the mouth and tears down curtains and flips tables*


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

Troisi said:


> What the fuck. Only the internet. Ylajali, why would you ever write this? What do you think would happen?
> 
> Ylajali: sup gurl??
> Gurl: ZOMFG! BOYZZZZ!!!
> ...


This reminds me of trade chat on World of Warcraft.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Wait...so you're telling me there's BOYS ON THE INTERNET?!?!?
> 
> *foams at the mouth and tears down curtains and flips tables*


Fizz, I can almost imagine you actually doing that, lol.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

alphacat said:


> And what does that have to do with the point I was making with my post?


S/He was just making the same point you were making, thinking it was a jab at you. Consequently, s/he just ended up agreeing with you if you think about it. .02cents 

On topic: 

My physical body is too priceless to be sold at a price. ;P I kid only (not really). Prostitution would go against my value system.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Infrared said:


> Fizz, I can almost imagine you actually doing that, lol.


If we were all together in person at a table, I GUARANTEE YOU that I would.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> If we were all together in person at a table, I GUARANTEE YOU that I would.


Wanna meet up for a drink? I'll act like a non-INTP and step out of my hermit shell for a bit. Would be a nice head-change. I'll wear a depends adult diaper under my pants so that when I accidentally piss myself, no one will know.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I've considered prostitutes, but I don't want STD's, a regrettable first time, or to have a criminal record.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Infrared said:


> Wanna meet up for a drink? I'll act like a non-INTP and step out of my hermit shell for a bit. Would be a nice head-change. I'll wear a depends adult diaper under my pants so that when I accidentally piss myself, no one will know.


I'm worse when there's an audience to perform for. Worse in a good way :crazy: Then again, that's "good" to me. Some people might go, "Oh my goodness, I don't know this cavewoman, take her out of here!"


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I've considered prostitutes, but I don't want STD's, a regrettable first time, or to have a criminal record.


Regrettable first time would be a bigger concern for you on a personal level. Some women may find that unappealing in the future, but for you as an individual, you may feel like you just wasted your money. 

Think about it, would you want to shell out some cash for _one lay_? How satisfying will that be in the long-run? You may not be satisfied with it and may even _crave more_ of what you just had. If you had a stable physical partner, you could explore much more and save money. Not all prostitutes carry STIs, but their job is dangerous (depending upon their location). 

I personally would wait to find a stable partner because first time may be awkward. I know some will justify having sex with someone they don't care about because it doesn't "matter" that they were lousy. I think that's just their preference, not mine. I would like to know the person and trust them.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> I'm worse when there's an audience to perform for. Worse in a good way :crazy: Then again, that's "good" to me. Some people might go, "Oh my goodness, I don't know this cavewoman, take her out of here!"


I'd be selfish and egg you on for my own twisted purposes of entertainment, muahahaha.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Well to sort things out. I feel people get married out of love. They get divorced out of losing that love. The State looks at the marriage as a contract (when in reality I "feel" it shouldn't), and they break up monetary value based on the arrangement. So something that I "feel" is an emotion, is now being placed with a dollar sign when deciding who gets what. If you don't agree that marriage is the same as being in love, well I guess I apologize for not initially understanding when you simply said "no". Sorry. Just threw me for a loop.

Also to talk about love equating to money. To be truthfully realistic it actually does. Or can you possibly say you could go an entire lifetime without spending one cent towards someone out of love and wanting to show that to them. Realistically? No. Yes, I know that sounds so harshly "materialistic" I don't mean it's the "whole" definition of love but it is honestly part of it. Love is a combination of many things put together. If there is no form of actively "showing" it (that's subjective and doesn't always mean a gift or something tangible) then I would think it would be hard for love to keep building. Again I'm not saying something has to be purchased constantly to keep someone happy, but you also can't deny that monetary value is exchanged through time when two people are in love. Also "money" is something of "value". Isn't love a "value"?


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Also to talk about love equating to money. To be truthfully realistic it actually does. Or can you possibly say you could go an entire lifetime without spending one cent towards someone out of love and wanting to show that to them. Realistically? No. Yes, I know that sounds so harshly "materialistic" I don't mean it's the "whole" definition of love but it is honestly part of it. Love is a combination of many things put together. If there is no form of actively "showing" it (that's subjective and doesn't always mean a gift) then I would think it would be hard for love to keep building. Again I'm not saying something has to be purchased constantly to keep someone happy, but you also can't deny that monetary value is exchanged through time when two people are in love. Also "money" is something of "value". Isn't love a "value"?


So love didn't exist before money? How did people express love for each other before the dawn of hard currency? How about before industrialization provided us with the consumer goods that you contend the purchase of can be equated to love in some way? Do people completely disconnected from the modern world in the Amazon or on Papa New Guinea not love each other, since they have no money to spend on their so-called "loved ones?" You seem completely unable to divorce the idea of "love" from the consumerist tendencies that have come to be associated with it under modern capitalism.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Monte said:


> Hokahey... you sadden me.


Well I try.

I'm sure I'm being looked at right now as this unemotional, illogical type right now.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Shahada said:


> You seem completely unable to divorce the idea of "love" from the consumerist tendencies that have come to be associated with it under modern capitalism.


LOL, yep you caught me. OMG. I know I buy flowers on V-day, I'm such a horrible person. 

Yes, I know that true love is something not even "spoken" but felt. I'm done though, unless we are moving this thread to the debate forum? 

Even still I'm not following, you can pick apart what YOU think I "feel" about love all you want.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> I feel people get married out of love. They get divorced out of losing that love.


Depends on what you mean by love. Sometimes people think they are in love, but its lust and infatuation that makes them decide to marry. Other times they do it out of a sense of obligation when someone gets knocked up, pressure from family.. etc - there are many reasons people get married. So no. You are incorrect.



Hokahey said:


> Also to talk about love equating to money. To be truthfully realistic it actually does. Or can you possibly say you could go an entire lifetime without spending one cent towards someone out of love and wanting to show that to them. Realistically? No. Yes, I know that sounds so harshly "materialistic" I don't mean it's the "whole" definition of love but it is honestly part of it. Love is a combination of many things put together. If there is no form of actively "showing" it (that's subjective and doesn't always mean a gift or something tangible) then I would think it would be hard for love to keep building. Again I'm not saying something has to be purchased constantly to keep someone happy, but you also can't deny that monetary value is exchanged through time when two people are in love. Also "money" is something of "value". Isn't love a "value"?


Just because money can be involved in a relationship doesn't mean that love = money. You could just as easily say that anything in life equates to money in this society (loosely) because its involved in everything in some way on some level. The difference between sex in a mutual loving relationship and as a transaction of money exchanged for services is on a different level involving money DIRECTLY. I had to spend money the other day to have fuel in my vehicle to be able to go to the park and enjoy the sunlight. I guess my enjoying the sunlight involves money therefore that = money as well? Again, logic fail on your part. My parents lived in a house which cost money at the time of my conception, so I guess my life = money. 

You are also forgetting the fact that all of these things can exist in societies that have no money - civilization before that was a part of it, tribes, etc..

For people who are very materialistic, it seems that money would play a more direct part, but no, in most cases its just something that enables life in general - its not a direct part of a romantic relationships. You seem to have trouble realizing the many layers and exceptions to things that seem very simple to you.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Alright then I take back what I said about "love" equaling 100% with "money".


----------



## Monte (Feb 17, 2010)

Illogical, yeah.

Unemotional?

The fact that you think a socially constructed act HAS to mean that two people are in love proves otherwise. There are plenty of people who don't marry for love. As a matter of fact, an old friend I were thinking about getting married because he was joining the military and we would both benefit from it. I love him as a friend, yes, but was I in love with him? Fuck no.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Alright then I take back what I said about "love" equaling 100% with "money".


When you see a debate brewing, run, run as fast as you can and never look back.


----------



## SarcasticBlack (Mar 9, 2011)

I think prostitution should be legal. People are so scared of sex and make it so taboo. Shouldn't it be a woman's decision what she wants to do with her body? I personally respect a woman or man who is willing to do anything, including prostitution, to feed their children or put themselves through college or even just loves sex and wants to do it as a job.


----------

