h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"So many people think that murder should be outlawed that we have more of a problem if it were allowed. With prostitution some many people want it outlawed and we still have huge problems...this make me think its time we re-thought our approach.

Ignore that bit it even has me confused. readBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEpostingreadBEFORE postingreadBEFROEposting

<>

Well said

>there is a cork for every bottle"<

I love it blicks......

Echo



Novo

The fact that someone wants something makes it a commodity - you say that as there is a universal demand sex is a valid commodity for sale.

Obviously the government wuold tax it.

However my objection is not to the act, as you seem to think, it is upon putting a price upon the act.

Establishing a price means the exotic also has a price. I want anal sex - £25 dearer. I want a 15 year old - £50 dearer. I want a virgin - £100 dearer.

If you like it's a little bit like freedom of speech - once you try to legislate it, then there is no such think as freedom of speech. So it is with sex - once you agree that its a commodity, then whatever you want is for sale - providing you can match the price.

When the pornography laws were first repealed, you could buy Lady Chatterley's Lover, and top shelf magazines featured bare breasted, or even naked women. Nowadays - the norm fails to satisfy, and so magazines have become more specialised, and feature more detailed sex acts.

Once you put a p0rice on it - you legitamise it - then the fringes expand.

I have no intention of stopping you having sex - (I'm prepared to consider arguments to stop West Brom fans breeding though) I just believe it's wrong for you to be able to go to a shop and buy it.

So your point focuses upon "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"?

This post has been removed.

McKay you're wrong I dont think and have never meant to express that I presume you have some puritanical objection to sex. I have tried time and time again to ask why you have an objection to people buying and selling sexual services.

You have finally come up with a reason, not a valid one but atleast a reason.

"...my objection is not to the act, as you seem to think, it is upon putting a price upon the act.

Establishing a price means the exotic also has a price. I want anal sex - £25 dearer. I want a 15 year old - £50 dearer. I want a virgin - £100 dearer.

Well this already happens the laws that people like you advocate are not stopping this they are if you ask the people involved prostitutes, womens refuge workers and the police simply making the whole business more grubby and dangerous. ( I dont think it is grubby to sell sex but I recognise that you do think it is but if it were dont legitimately the grubbiness, violence and involvement of children due to present laws would be diminished greatly.)



"If you like it's a little bit like freedom of speech - once you try to legislate it, then there is no such think as freedom of speech. So it is with sex - once you agree that its a commodity, then whatever you want is for sale - providing you can match the price.

I dont like and its not at all like freedonm of speech except in that you would protest against people being being denied the right sell any thoughts they wanted to (that didnt harm others) in books, newpapers etc...etc...



"When the pornography laws were first repealed, you could buy Lady Chatterley's Lover, and top shelf magazines featured bare breasted, or even naked women. Nowadays - the norm fails to satisfy, and so magazines have become more specialised, and feature more detailed sex acts.

A very telling quote from that trial "Is this the kind of book you would want your wives or servants to read"? Just like you who thinks sex is fine but assume selling sex is wrong there were those who always had access to salacious and saucy material but thought it wrong that they be avaialable on the open market. A lot of the artifacts from antiquity in museums were for a long time censored and some kept off display but if you had the right contacts you could get to see the really "dirty" stuff.

The real reason for the objection to Lady Chatterly's lover was not the sex, but that the sex involved a married Lady giving it up to an underling. Like I have said the objections of the state to prostitution are not around sex but around women, and poor women at that, being able to generate income for themselves the puritanical and protection of women angles pressed into service are mere window dressing.

In case you hadnt noticed we live in a country where we allow topless women to be paraded in *newspapers* and where womens refuges are chronically underfunded (Im using "chronically" correctly here because women do die while waiting for access to the tiny amount of places available (Im using "die" incorrectly there because they are actually murdered)) Dont believe the hype McKay. There were other trials at the time but the big deal was not the subject matter but how accesible the books in question were to the general public. Its well documneted how many of our law makers spend huge amounts of time in the company of paid "hostesses" and "escorts" but when it comes to the workers in the streets its not on.





"(I'm prepared to consider arguments to stop West Brom fans breeding though)

That's ok

Baggies fans reproduce by immaculate conception its all the other fans who are [expletive deleted] and some judging by their dwindling numbers at home games are hopless [expletive deleted].

Boing Boing!

A good company president/manager keeps his hands on his back when meeting female workers and visits a prostitute once and a while.

Isn't the real objection to prostitution the fact that it undercuts traditional marriage? Sex is 'supposed' to be purchased with a gold ring and a lifetime of commitment, not with actual cash.

Well, tell the horny men.
No one tells, almost every man does.

If that is true Alfredo then it is a sad inditement of the vast majority of men.

I hate it when men get it in the neck over things like this.

What is acceptable is set by us and while its OK for teenage girls to decorate folders and books with torso revealing shots o the latest "pop hunk" boys would be suspended if they did the same.

I recently came back from Turkey and saw a lot of "Shirley Valentines". That is Western European women looking for a bit of fun with dusky skinned and readily available local "waiters". Of course they are not strictly speaking waiters.

As this was my second visit I hooked up with some people I knew previously and they told me the ins and outs of hospitality now in Turkish resorts. The staff have to be young and good looking, there job is not just to serve customers but to "entertain". This means to do whateverit takes to hold the attention and by that the spending power of women, because where the women are the men will follow. There as here in the west polite society would feel uncomfortable seeing young women candying up to men twice their age to get money out of them but reverse the roles and people just tend to shrug indifferently about the libidinous women so easily parted from their cash.

Sex is not allowed though...well not until closing time. Afterall a woman isnt going to be drinking much if her mouth is otherwise occupied and if the women and waiters do dissappear then the bar looks empty and less people will be attracted to come in.

So while it is not something we like on the whole the sale of sex is not such a taboo depending on the genders involved. I know why this is but I just dont understand why people have the double standards they do.

~ I hate it when men get it in the neck over things like this.

You'll get over it.


~ So while it is not something we like on the whole the sale of sex is not such a taboo depending on the genders involved. I know why this is but I just dont understand why people have the double standards they do.

I'd guess that standards of any sort cause you problems. What you mean is that you perceive double standards, because that's the way you see it.

Those of us who have standards find both sets of actions equally reprehensible.

Well Mckay, thanks or that I was starting to miss Della and then you post a reply devoid of anything meaningful and full of prejudice to tide me over till she's back.


A little help for you: Just because someone does not have the same standards as you does not mean they have none. Im sorry for you and others like you who can only win arguments (in their own minds) by rubbishing their opponents lack of morals rather than engaging into thought about the issues at the heart of the matter.

I have standards they are just different to yours.



"What you mean is that you perceive double standards, because that's the way you see it.



What does that sentence mean, I have a rough idea its just a little confusing as the second clause is just a repeat of the first one.

I see a double standard because there is one.

Boy has immage of a woman in a state of undress on monitor, teacher sees this and boy is suspended from school.

Girls has a picture of man in similar state of undress on screen teacher tells her to stop waisting time and get on with her work. Same teacher, same class.

Is it *just* me who sees the double standard there?

Women who go abroad and "befreind" waiters and other "hospitality" staf are seen as various things from, sad and lonely to randy and over sexed but men who do the same are seen as sex tourists and dirty old men.

Once again not my calls other peoples, wider societies. Or do you see society doing it differently, Im talking about what *you* personally may think Im talking about the wider world.

OOPS!

Im *NOT* talking about what *you* personally may think Im talking about the wider world.

In all the examples you are saying how you think I should see them.

I see people travelling abroad to find sexual gratification as sad, sick people, regardless of gender.

For some reason you think I should find it acceptable for women but not men

The classrooom example would both be treated in the second way - put it away and stop wasting time, unfortunately, but when pornography is paraded as news in daily papers, what can you expect ?

"The classrooom example would both be treated in the second way - put it away and stop wasting time, unfortunately, but when pornography is paraded as news in daily papers, what can you expect ?

That's the way *you* might treat it and the way I *think* it ought to be treated but in the real world its not how things are done.

Ive reportted boys for exactly that kind of thing, Im not against a certain amount of leeway and a quite word doing a better job than throwing the book at someone but I also believe in sticking to the standards with persistent problems where sticking to the standards is the best way of ensuring fewer problems.

Yes, it bothers me that Im being party to the perpetuation of a double standard but I think that perpetuatiing the double standard is better than brushing the breaking of rules under the carpet. Especially when I work in an environment where others are trying to instill those standards, I stick to what my colleagues are doing or I am just undermining other people's authority and sending out a mixed message.




"I see people travelling abroad to find sexual gratification as sad, sick people, regardless of gender.

For some reason you think I should find it acceptable for women but not men

No my correction in post 76 specifically says Im not trying to tell you what you think, but remarking on what I hear and see around me.

That is a double standard where women doing the same thing as men are not treated or classed as bad but merely sad. I happen to concur with neither you or wider society in the way they speak about such things.

What Im asking you, and been asking you for some time, is what for you justifies those feelings and thoughts you have and have been telling us about?

Why should I have to justify them ?

To my mind they are self evident. Morality exists outside religion.

Oh its morality is it?

It used to be considered morally acceptable to beat children, display people with disabilities as circus attractions, putdogs in a pit to fight to the deathfor sport and to deny factory workers the vote.

People challenged the justifications forsuch things and morality now apparently says such things are self evidently wrong


I am not brining up rel;igion yet you have atleast twice now, why is that? Sure you denying it plays any part in your thinking but Im put in my mind Hamlet each team you protest about it not being your motive.

Still as you refuse to the see the point of justifying your position in a *debate* thread I think I'll leave you to it and let you get to your moo-rality with the rest of the unthinking herd.

Bye for now