What DO you think

meeeeh wrote: »

It is nice to see how opinions can be discredited and steered of topic with the couple of long posts made by snotty boys who really have a bit too much time on their hands.

Dirty Snotty Boys.

They should given the rod, and no holding back.

Filthy articles.

No it speaks volumes about my attitudes towards people with too much time.

But back on topic... Some seem to think that dating should be done as an equal opportunity act. Well it's not, we try to judge people in a very rudimentary way at the beginning of a selection process. People with certain traits are less desirable no waffle about being illogical, unfair, unjust, discriminating will change that. I mean who chooses their partner rationally anyway. So crying over poor men being unfairly dismissed just because they were with hookers is completely unproductive.

Secondly whatever people think about prostitution, it is illegal at the moment. It is also more dangerous and if people find out about it the persons standing in society could be diminished. So it's hardly illogical to say no thanks or at least ask some questions about it.

And finally that argument about legalizing prostitution is driving me mad. Every time there is the debate people from both sides are certain that everything will be great when we legalize or at least decriminalize the bloody thing. Did anybody actually ask prostitutes how many of them want to put the number of their pimp as a reference on their job application form. Unless it's for a position in a strip club... I have nothing against legalization of prostitution, I even support it but whoever thinks than prostitutes will suddenly start issuing Vat invoices or that customers will start claiming expenses on them is a bit naive. Legalization takes care of legal frame work, it might make some of it safer however it will do nothing for social standing and neither it will stop illegal practices.

Sorry, Strobe, it's late and I've switched off my laptop - too darned tricky to try reply on an iPod. All I can say is I've never felt like I was sullying the brilliance of sex (which involves another person) any time I've indulged in a little light relief of my own (which doesn't involve another person) so I'd apply the same conclusion to a man masturbating. If I paid a man to have sex with me, I'd feel like the brilliance had been sullied. Goodnight, it's time for me to sleep.

Pug160 wrote: »

Lots of guys think that way (a significant amount anyway) but it's just as likely to be a man who doesn't visit prostitutes as it is one who does.

What an utterly depressing world we're living in, if what you're saying is true, Pug - that a significant number of guys think buying a woman dinner or drinks = purchasing the right to have sex with them. I knew you meant men who don't visit prostitutes, so did I when I mentioned my colleague who said it to me.

Makes me a thousand times more grateful (and I was already very grateful) that I live in a time when women have freedom, independence and aren't denied the right to own property, earn money and be in charge of their own purse strings. I always pay my own way - something my grandmother drummed into me (she lived through the old days of women having little or no autonomy) but had no idea I was narrowly escaping being viewed as an unofficial prostitute by doing so. Phew! Three cheers for granny's sound advice.

strobe wrote: »

Ah sure there's no obligation to answer or in any time frame.

Oh so I take from that that and your thanking of Marie's post that it's more the payment issue?

Well if you get the time tomorrow, could I address the above post to Marie to you (or anyone else of the same view) as well so?

Night.

Morning, Strobe. I wanted to reply sooner rather than later because I won't be able to post during work today and I might have lost interest in posting on this subject by time I get home this evening - I wasn't sure whether to post at all in the first place, as I really didn't want to have my words subjected to scrutiny and further questioning - I find it weird that people find it weird that some of us would prefer not to be with a man who if fine with paying for sex.

So, to answer your question, yes, it's the paying that sullies the brilliance of sex. I thought that was a given, considering that's what we're talking about - paying for sex.

I lived in a town near Amsterdam, for a number of years (years ago now), and I knew men who used prostitutes. I heard enough of their conversations on the subject to know I'd rather steer clear of a man who uses prostitutes. Turning their sexual encounters into a transaction really brought out the Madonna/Whore hypocrite in them. I'd rather remain celibate for the rest of my days than be intimate with any of them - one of the attractions for one of them was the fact he didn't have to "waste valuable drinking time on pointless foreplay - just get in, get the job done and get out, without looking back".

I'm not saying he's the poster boy for men who pay for sex, but a lot of men take a hypocritical view of women who enjoy sex outside of long term relationships - the Madonna/Whore hypocrisy is still alarmingly prevalent. I've read/heard shocking comments by men, about women who enjoy sexual freedom, and that's without any money changing hands. Now I'm hearing (from Pug, my colleague, along with others) that being brought out for dinner is, in some men's minds, part of the prostitution family, unless I pay for it myself.

I could ramble on for longer, but have to go to work. I don't know if I'll be able to reply again. My time is limited and I don't want to get heavily involved in defending my preference not to date a man who's comfortable with seeing women and sex as something to be purchased. I've probably said enough at this stage anyway.

Hope you managed to get some sleep - have a lovely day.

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

In the post you quoted I was responding to a woman who was criticising the condemnation of promiscuity while at the same time condemning prostitution. This was a moral judgement and logical fallacy, not simply stating preferences. Of course people are free to have preferences for whoever/whatever they like.

Oh stop with logical fallacies. When deciding who we want to date we can be as illogical as we want. There seems to be impression that people always act rationally, logically and so on. We don't and thank god for that.

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

Really??? You are really criticising men who judge women who have casual sex, while at the exact same time you yourself are judging men who have sex with prostitutes??? How hypocritical can you get. How is having paid casual sex with someone and having non-paid casual sex with someone ANY different? And before you say "because he's paying for it duhh", give me any reason why that's in any way a substantial difference. You can't.

Ah jeez…this is exactly why I was reticent to reply to this thread – having to justify my feelings and restate stuff because it has been misinterpreted.

If a man has no other option but to pay for sex, then he’s not the man for me. I would find the total inability to have a non-paying sexual relationship very unattractive, and I don’t sleep with men I find unattractive – unlike prostitutes, who are paid to do just that.

Regarding calling me a hypocrite and the medley of assorted other negative names - did you miss the bit where I said that man wasn’t the poster boy for men who pay for sex? Did you miss the bit where I said men who judge women who have casual sex wouldn’t want to date me, and I’m fine with that? I hardly criticised men who judge women for having casual sex - I simply said they exist and they wouldn’t date me – just as I wouldn’t date men who use prostitutes. No condemnation, just a statement of preference. They’re allowed their preferences, as am I.

As for not seeing any difference between paid sex and not-paid-for sex, well, if you can’t see that there is a huge difference, there’s little point in us engaging in dialogue.

I bid you good day.