you are absolutely right sweetie pie..
now go put that in the cookie jar..
for a rainy day..

Don't y'all just love women you don't have to try to figure out...a couple hundred bucks, a few puff pastries and voila!

^ this and it is not just having sex it is being paid to have sex whether a man is attractive or not...

dress it up and excuse it away all y'all wanna

a ho is just a ho

lol

And some people view any woman who has sex out of wedlock is a ho.

And some men think each of their exes is a ho

And some people think that promiscuous women are ho's , because they enjoy it.

And some people think that a prositute or porn actress is just doing a job & should get all the money she can, one reason being they don't enjoy it. They are just faking a fantasy.

And some people think Call girls get the real pervs, so they deserve to have their own clients & get the big bucks.

I have to disagree with this statement a bit.. In the fact this isn't the 1950's anymore you are absolutely correct. With the changing of the times, men and women are doing the things that were traditionally one or the other, together... I see to many dad taking kids to soccer practice, changing diapers, fixing meals, cleaning toilets, the roles of men and women are merging and each couple are finding what works for them.
I don't see in my little corner of the world where men are shirking their responsibilities anymore than women are.

The ones that do is becoming a two way street too many dads are doing the single parent thang anymore to say all the burdens fall onto women.

Sorry I just can't buy that.

The fact that modern-day men share the housework and childcare doesn't fit into the misandrist mythology.

This 'reasoning' is strange to me. What is the relevance of '...whether a man is attractive or not..?' Is it somehow dirtier to have sex with someone you don't find attractive? Or is it only dirty if he pays you?

Close mindedness and a holier-than-thou approach don't really illuminate anything except maybe an innate prejudice. If your point is ANYone that gets paid for sex in any way is a ho, ok. But it appears to say that only paid sex with unattractive guys is a bad thing.

Can you clear this up any?

Supply and demand people. Sex sells.....no matter the vehicle. Trust me.....I once thought about becoming a full time pimp.....but pimpin ain't easy. Gotta keep yo ho's in line, medical, dental, 401K.....boob jobs optional. Gotta have dem high priced prostitutes.

I suspect it would be harder to keep your mind on your work with the homely ones

MAN DICKSHUNARY:

*****: A woman who HAS had sex with you.

Whore: A woman who WON'T have sex with you.


The preceding was for humor purposes only. Nobody get all worked up.

Prostitutes don't appeal to me anymore than does "sharing" a woman with whom I am having a physical relationship. Shucks, I wouldn't drink out of a glass a stranger used much less follow him in the "batting order".

I know it is a joke. And too often that is true. * If a woman would of said it., before you... oh ' man hater' & ' bitter' "

getting them a boob is in your best interest anyway, if they are ho's... mo money, mo money, mo money...

in Singapore prostitution is legal, while porn is illegal, and as populated as they are they have some if the lowest sex-crimes in the world. ...I have to wonder if it is because if these two facts

I'm not sure most people realize that is mostly a joke.
Think of the nature of the earliest groups of human beings, cavemen, shared societies, small group/tribe communism and lack of ownership.

It loses it's meaning the more society has simply accepted capitalism and the idea of individual property rights as the norm, of equivalent value exchange, and people then take "the oldest profession!" as some sort of serious historical statement.


No. Although there may be some merit in the idea of negative views based on some type of jealousy over how much hookers are thought to make. Like "OMG! She gets 200, 500, 1000 an hour?! If I did that and screwed like 20 people a day I could retire forever after like 1 or 2 years working the same 5 day work weeks I work now!"


Not in the U.S.
Maybe in some specific cultures throughout history but it was never universal.
There were always jobs in some culture for women.
Midwife, nursemaid, sewing, serving, maid, laundry, nanny, at least. Something seen as "women's work" and people that needed women to do that job, and compensated no matter how poorly.


Not in westernized societies where capitalism has taken a firm hold.
I think it's just seen as natural and taken for granted that people are paid money for their work.


Human fallibility and the constant individual war between self and group is the root of all evil.

Is this thread about scammers or hookers? They are both about money.. But hookers give more than lip service..... Well you know what I mean
...

My own random thoughts on why prostitution is seen as so intensely wrong:

* Look at how much time and effort is spent on other things related to it: on love, which it fakes, on romance, which it makes fun of, on desperation, which it often takes advantage of.

* historically, as the importance of inheritance increased, who people had children by also became a point of contention, especially among upper classes.

* sex is a very personal thing, and turning it into a commodity can make even the person purchasing it, feel unhappy about having done so.

* lots of EGO problems intersect with sexual behavior. A lot of male-female antagonism has been, and is still wrapped up in which gender is said to be dominant. After all, despite hundreds of years of many people working for female equality with males, the dominant motif of male-female relations is STILL based around male -initiation (or the appearance of it) and female acceptance (or the appearance of it). Formal prostitution is a confusion of that dynamic, and people get irritated when they are confused.

* Tribal loyalties are one of the oldest things that societies tried to build a safer lifestyle on. Perhaps prostitution upsets that concept, and thereby endangers the tribes safety, by disregarding loyalties altogether.

* there is a certain amount of resentment built in to ALL financial transactions. Employers resent having to pay employees. People who need things repaired or built, resent having to pay as much as they do, in order to have it done. People who pay others for sex, directly or indirectly, often make it clear that they resent that they HAD to pay, and that the other person didn't just have sex with them because of how attractive they were.

* blaming religions for applying a negative notion to prostitution, is thinking things through the wrong way. Religious ideals are all attempts to solve perceived problems. Hence people were upset about prostitution first, and THEN they wrote rules against it into their religions. Religious belief isn't WHY prostitution is looked down upon, it's just a reflection of the fact that it is.

I hold 'prostitutes' in high esteem, only for the reason that 'they' don't harm the society! They only harm their very own self.

My kind of man

RAINN statistics

www.rain.org/statistics

Im torn on this. On one hand, what an independent, sane person does with their body, as long as it isnt harmful to someone else, should be left up to them.
On the other hand, drug addicted, brainwashed, mentally and physically abused young women under control of others (pimps, sex traffickers, whatever you want to call them).....well, thats a totally different situation.....