What DO you think

MaxWig

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Really? So your partner could have had unprotected sex for 20 years yet you would be in a relationship with them and not know.

Without a break?

Kold

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone who had used drugs in the past. Or someone who used to have a drink problem. I wouldn't get involved with someone who had done time in prison for murder etc or who had been violent to an ex. I don't consider that to be irrational, there are just some things I don't want in a potential partner, those and the use of prostitutes are just some of them.

Like any drugs? It's your prerogative and I can't say you're wrong but you're narrowing down your list of potential partners by a huge amount just with that. But you know, you could be very happy with an Anglican minister. I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone as judgmental as you.

vitani

MaxWig wrote: »

Sp you have decided to relegate the 'woman' to a completely passive aspect of the transaction.

Being paid = unwilling????

No, and I specifically used the words 'chose to participate' in my post to show that she doesn't have to be passive.

My point is simply that if a man pays a woman to sleep with him and doesn't care that she's only there, in part, for the money then his attitude to sex is too different to mine for me to want to be in a relationship with him.

Kold

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Really? So your partner could have had unprotected sex for 20 years yet you would be in a relationship with them and not know.

I think I'd figure out from the stretch marks, the gigantic vagina, her being at least 10 years older than me, and the 17 babies. I like to get to know people before doing the deed.

vitani

Kold wrote: »

Why would it be any of your business? Do you check up every partner's history?

Hang on. I haven't claimed it's my business. But if they volunteered the information - like the OP describes - then yes, I would use it to decide whether they're someone I could be in a relationship with.

eviltwin

Kold wrote: »

Like any drugs? It's your prerogative and I can't say you're wrong but you're narrowing down your list of potential partners by a huge amount just with that. But you know, you could be very happy with an Anglican minister. I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone as judgmental as you.

It would depend on the situation. If I met a man who was currently using drugs or who was an ex addict then no. I'm too long in the tooth to settle. I'd rather be alone that be involved with someone like that. I'm not judgemental in the slightest, its one thing to have people with these issues in your life as friends etc, when its someone you are getting involved with, possibly having a family with its totally different.

MaxWig

vitani wrote: »

No, and I specifically used the words 'chose to participate' in my post to show that she doesn't have to be passive.

You then went on to say "his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner."

Bit rapey, no?

Kold

vitani wrote: »

Hang on. I haven't claimed it's my business. But if they volunteered the information - like the OP describes - then yes, I would use it to decide whether they're someone I could be in a relationship with.

I personally think the fact that he volunteered the information shows that this is a very honest man. Daft, but honest.

MaxWig

eviltwin wrote: »

It would depend on the situation. If I met a man who was currently using drugs or who was an ex addict then no. I'm too long in the tooth to settle. I'd rather be alone that be involved with someone like that. I'm not judgemental in the slightest, its one thing to have people with these issues in your life as friends etc, when its someone you are getting involved with, possibly having a family with its totally different.

Currently using drugs?

Any ones in particular?

Illegal ones?

Or is there a specific chemical compound you have it in for?

Or is it that you just don't like those who do not comply?

eviltwin

MaxWig wrote: »

Currently using drugs?

Any ones in particular?

Illegal ones?

Or is there a specific chemical compound you have it in for?

Or is it that you just don't like those who do not comply?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have my deal breakers just like everyone else.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

It would depend on the situation. If I met a man who was currently using drugs or who was an ex addict then no. I'm too long in the tooth to settle. I'd rather be alone that be involved with someone like that. I'm not judgemental in the slightest, its one thing to have people with these issues in your life as friends etc, when its someone you are getting involved with, possibly having a family with its totally different.

But it's an extreme though. I wouldn't go out with someone who is currently using prostitutes or who was addicted to using them in the past.

That's very different to someone who used one a couple of times in the past.

We all draw lines in different places and we are all entitled to do that. But I do think it's unfair to lump anyone who has ever used a prostitute in with all people who use them. There are varying levels. Much the same as there are varying levels of drug use or being in trouble with the guards or relationship history etc.
A blanket ban just seems a bit unnecessary.

jaffacakesyum

eviltwin wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have my deal breakers just like everyone else.

Apparantly you're not allowed. It's almost as if you shouldn't have a choice in the matter of who you get into a relationship with. Very odd.

Fighting Irish

vitani wrote: »

No. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who had so little respect for women that they believed they were a commodity to be bought and sold.

what is the pros wanted to be a pros? Would you be ok with it then?

Kold

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Apparantly you're not allowed. It's almost as if you shouldn't have a choice in the matter of who you get into a relationship with. Very odd.

I'm a fussy eater. I have the right to not eat what I don't want, I can't complain when others see this as irrational though.

By all means you can say yes or no to anything in this world, but don't expect to not have your views challenged when you volunteer them.

eviltwin

ash23 wrote: »

But it's an extreme though. I wouldn't go out with someone who is currently using prostitutes or who was addicted to using them in the past.

That's very different to someone who used one a couple of times in the past.

We all draw lines in different places and we are all entitled to do that. But I do think it's unfair to lump anyone who has ever used a prostitute in with all people who use them. There are varying levels. Much the same as there are varying levels of drug use or being in trouble with the guards or relationship history etc.
A blanket ban just seems a bit unnecessary.

Maybe my opinions are harder because I am older and I'm a parent, I would have to think very carefully about anyone I get involved with because my decisions would affect my children too. I'm entitled to have those limits though, just as I am sure there are things about me that would make rule me out as a potential partner for some men. Its just how it is and there is nothing wrong with it.

MaxWig

eviltwin wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have my deal breakers just like everyone else.

I'm talking about wildly judgemental assumptions.

I'm glad you have 'deal-breakers', it implies a certain self-respect.

It's just that terms like 'drugs', and 'prostitution', when used in a certain context, suggest a pretty rigid and uninformed perception of the phenomena in question.

Alcohol is a drug, and at the risk of diverging from the topic or starting another debate, it is the most damaging and widely used narcotic in town.

Just as an analogy, I think its useful in this case.

I think what's in question for you is not specific acts, but acts that suggest a willingness to be less orthodox than you would like.

eviltwin

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm talking about wildly judgemental assumptions.

I'm glad you have 'deal-breakers', it implies a certain self-respect.

It's just that terms like 'drugs', and 'prostitution', when used in a certain context, suggest a pretty rigid and uninformed perception of the phenomena in question.

Alcohol is a drug, and at the risk of diverging from the topic or starting another debate, it is the most damaging and widely used narcotic in town.

Just as an analogy, I think its useful in this case.

I think what's in question for you is not specific acts, but acts that suggest a willingness to be less orthodox than you would like.

I think when I talk about someone who was a drug addict its clear I'm not talking about drink. I did mention people who had alcohol problems as well in an earlier post. I think fair play to someone who can see past that and give someone a chance, its a big risk, sometimes it pays off, sometimes not. I have seen enough heartache caused to partners of people who have issues with alcohol or drugs and thats not the kind of life I want for myself. Its not a risk I am prepared to take.

meeeeh

Everyone can have their own list of priorities and with addicts there is constant "what if he/she slips" question, so it is risky to get into relationship with someone like that. Prostitutes is a bit different but when somebody puts in more effort visiting hookers than finding even friends with benefits relationship then alarm bells would start to ring on my end. It would be hard for me to believe that somebody like that can be in a committed relationship. It's a risk management exercise and when you are planing a long therm relationship then it is smart to consider what could happen long therm.

vitani

MaxWig wrote: »

You then went on to say "his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner."

Bit rapey, no?

No. Somebody exchanging money for sex is completely different to rape.

I explained my point a bit further in the second half of the post you quoted.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe my opinions are harder because I am older and I'm a parent, I would have to think very carefully about anyone I get involved with because my decisions would affect my children too. I'm entitled to have those limits though, just as I am sure there are things about me that would make rule me out as a potential partner for some men. Its just how it is and there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm also a parent. But I'm open minded enough to appreciate that while I do have limits, I can also take them in context.

I was quite liberal when I was younger and have experimented with drugs, I've had quite a few partners etc. I'm not ashamed of it but it doesn't reflect who I am now, 10 or so years later. I would have reservations about extremes. An ex addict or an ex alcoholic would have me wary. But that doesn't mean I should shy away from anyone who has ever tried drugs or drank alcohol.

MaxWig

vitani wrote: »

No. Somebody exchanging money for sex is completely different to rape.

I explained my point a bit further in the second half of the post you quoted.

"I'm not a prude, but I believe sex should, at the very least, be something that both parties enjoy. If a woman is only doing it because she's being paid, then regardless of why she chose to participate, it bothers me. It may not be a traumatic experience for her but it does indicate that a man who pays for it thinks that his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner"

That is thew context of what you said.

I was simply pointing out that the manner in which you suggested it, it sounded a bit rapey.

I'm quite aware that one has nothing to do with the other.

I would be very concerned about any situation where a prostitute was not "completely willing". It sounds very dodgy. Just pointing out what you said

vitani

MaxWig wrote: »

"I'm not a prude, but I believe sex should, at the very least, be something that both parties enjoy. If a woman is only doing it because she's being paid, then regardless of why she chose to participate, it bothers me. It may not be a traumatic experience for her but it does indicate that a man who pays for it thinks that his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner"

That is thew context of what you said.

I was simply pointing out that the manner in which you suggested it, it sounded a bit rapey.

I'm quite aware that one has nothing to do with the other.

I would be very concerned about any situation where a prostitute was not "completely willing". It sounds very dodgy. Just pointing out what you said

'Completely willing' in that context means whether she'd sleep with him if there was no money involved.

To be honest, I thought that was clear enough.

eviltwin

ash23 wrote: »

I'm also a parent. But I'm open minded enough to appreciate that while I do have limits, I can also take them in context.

I was quite liberal when I was younger and have experimented with drugs, I've had quite a few partners etc. I'm not ashamed of it but it doesn't reflect who I am now, 10 or so years later. I would have reservations about extremes. An ex addict or an ex alcoholic would have me wary. But that doesn't mean I should shy away from anyone who has ever tried drugs or drank alcohol.

I never mentioned not dating someone who had ever taken drugs or ever drank alcohol. Don't misquote me.

I mentioned not being interested in dating an ex addict or someone who was using drugs at the moment.

Those are my limits and if that makes me close minded so be it, I personally think its too risky to take a chance on but thats just my personal choice, it doesn't mean I am right.

Morag

Depends on his attitude to wards the transaction and sexworkers in general.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

I never mentioned not dating someone who had ever taken drugs or ever drank alcohol. Don't misquote me.

I mentioned not being interested in dating an ex addict or someone who was using drugs at the moment.

Those are my limits and if that makes me close minded so be it, I personally think its too risky to take a chance on but thats just my personal choice, it doesn't mean I am right.

I'm not actually misquoting you. You did flat out say you wouldn't date someone who used drugs in the past.

You said

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone who had used drugs in the past. Or someone who used to have a drink problem. I wouldn't get involved with someone who had done time in prison for murder etc or who had been violent to an ex. I don't consider that to be irrational, there are just some things I don't want in a potential partner, those and the use of prostitutes are just some of them.

My point was that people saying they would never date someone who had used a prostitute is akin to saying they'd never date someone who had tried drugs or drank.

I was pointing out that saying you wouldn't date someone who ever used prostitutes is pretty much the same as saying you'd never date someone who used drugs. It's a blanket ban, no wiggle room at all for context or understanding.

You went on to compare it to addicts etc which is a different kettle of fish altogether as you said yourself.

MaxWig

vitani wrote: »

'Completely willing' in that context means whether she'd sleep with him if there was no money involved.

To be honest, I thought that was clear enough.

Maybe it seems pedantic, but the language in these conversations always seems to imply a helplessness on the part of the prostitute (woman).

Or worse, a victim status.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Levinas was discussing the ethics of the encounter with the other, and the responsibility of one to the other.

This does not preclude the business encounter.

There seems to be an assumption that it is gnomes, ogres and monsters that are using the services of prostitutes.

They are, I imagine, often very decent and honourable characters.
They are also, I imagine, often the opposite.

But it is not the act itself that determines these things.

In fact, in making any assumption about the client of a prostitute, one misses Levinas' point completely.

That depends on whether you think paying for sex is simply a business transaction.

The ACT of paying for sex changes the sexual encounter not the actual sex.

People are free to do as they please to accept or reject the possibility of a relationship based on any criteria they have and often the criteria are contradictory or irrational, however they are still free to have them.

Men who use prostitutes are good, bad and in-betweens, like all people.

I don't make any assumption about men who use prostitutes what I am making some assumptions about is how that ACT of paying changes that sexual encounter and other sexual encounters the man has. If all sex is the same who do most men who use prostitutes have difficulty looking them in the eye during the act and apparently will often ask the woman to look away form them.

I do realise that not all are trafficked nor victims and are prostitutes for a variety of reasons.

Not all objections to prostitution are morally religiously based.

starling

There's a clear difference between "judging" someone and having things that you don't want in a partner. It's not automatically hypocritical to say "I don't have a problem if two consenting people have sex and there's payment involved, but I don't want a man who vists prostitues as a partner."

Judging someone implies that you are better than them in some way, that you are qualified to decide what they should and shouldn't be doing. Now it's human nature to do that. We all judge each other, and ourselves, all the time. But that judgement is coloured by our own ideas of how people should act, and sometimes that's not fair.

For example if someone said something horribly racist, I would totally judge them. I would think "I'm better than you because I'm not a racist." And I would tell them that they were a racist and that they shouldn't go around saying racist stuff. I certainly wouldn't want a racist as a partner. 

But at the same time I would be aware that I don't know how this person was brought up and what ideas they absorbed from their parents or from the society they lived in. I would be aware that perhaps they didn't realise what they said was racist. Like if they genuinely believed that the reason more people of colour get custodial prison sentences in the US is because they commit more crimes. In which case I would point out to them that there is a bias in sentencing, that White people and rich people are much more likely to get suspended or non-custodial sentences or even get found not guilty.

In other words I'm aware that people believe common misconceptions about race issues more out of ignorance or a failure to really examine their beliefs than simply being a total d1ck.

In the area of sex a lot of people feel they have the right to judge someone for doing something they wouldn't, something that in and of itself isn't necessarily morally wrong. Despite how much sex seems to saturate our media we actually talk very little about the ethics of sex.

And often this judgement tends to fall most heavily on the shoulders of women. People assume they have the right to judge a woman based on how much sex she has or who she has it with, and it's usually based on their own attitudes towards sex. That's one of the reasons why I think we should always think very hard about whether we really have the right to judge somebody in matters of sex.

That doesn't mean you can't have things that put you off a potential partner. Knowing what you don't want and being able to say so is a sign of self esteem as another poster has pointed out. I don't want a partner who drinks heavily. Doesn't mean I'm judging them, doesn't mean I think I'm better than them. It just means our lifestyles are not going to mesh well and might mean that they have an unhealthy way of dealing with their emotions that I can't accept in a partner. I have friends who are fond of a jar, that's their business. But I'm not sharing my life with them. I'm not thinking about raising kids with them. I'm not going to be the "bad guy" who they get to resent when I ask them to cut down on the drink, and I'm not going to be the one who has to hide money to feed the kids because they spend everything on drink.

Everyone is entitled to have things they don't want in a partner. And everyone is entitled to have their own attitude to sex. Maybe you see sex as a very intimate thing that you only want to engage in with someone you know well and are very close to. Maybe you strongly believe that sex should not be a commodity that one can buy or sell. And that's your right. Maybe you get enjoyment from casual encounters or one night stands with people you don't really know all that well. That's your right too. But if you have the former attitude towards sex, it doesn't mean that you have a right to judge anyone who has the latter. If you hate the idea of commodifying sex, it's okay to want a partner with a similar view of sex. For a relationship to be successful, you don't have to free on everything, but having similar attitudes to important things is often a sign that your relationship will be more successful. 

So if a partner told me he'd been with a prostitute I would wait to learn more about the circumstances before deciding whether it was a deal breaker. It would depend on his attitude toward women and that would be something I'd pay a lot of attention in any case.

There are different reasons why men go to prostitutes and some of them are more worrying than others. Some of them are genuinely lonely and need physical contact. 

(I mean, if you think about it, some men get very little physical contact during their daily life. When I meet a friend or relative I greet them with a hug. We express affection physically without any reservations. But how often do you think a man can say to his mates "I feel down, can I hav a hug?" For a lot of men physical contact is limited to handshakes, pats on the back and sex. I'm not saying men go to prostitutes for hugs, that's stupid. But one of the differences between masturbation and having sex is that there is affectionate physical contact and that is very important for human beings, even if society has conditioned us not to admit it.)

Or they might be going to prostitutes because they want to mistreat someone and they think that payment entitles them to do that. Obviously that's an entirely different kettle of fish and would make me run a mile if I sensed it. 

There's a poster on boards who has posted about how he'd still be a virgin if it weren't for prostitutes. He says, and I think he really believes, that his looks put women off him. But it's pretty obvious that he's a very angry, bitter little man with some horrific views about women and that's probably what puts them off. 

In that case I'd run a mile. But the prostitute issue would be only a small part of a much bigger problem.

 

clairefontaine

I wouldn't like it no, but my understanding would depend on the context and the attitude.

Brevestroke

Brevestroke wrote: »

Those positions don't contradict each other.

I believe people should be free to clean toilets in return for money. That doesn't mean I'd want my family members to do it though.


I.

Okay maybe its just double standards then, it okay for other women to do something I would not like the woman in my family to do.

I would much rather clean toilets to make a living that be a prostitute.