When Is Paying for Sex Acceptable?

[+ Charlie]

Where do I send my CV to get one of these jobs as an archivist?

[MrMiniver]

Just for clarity, the strum^H^H^H^H young woman in this news cycle's lawyer released a press release yesterday clarifying that 1) she's veryveryveryvery sorry and 2) she is NOT his mistress, she's his archivist.

 

(The press release would read exactly the same if it ended with "I swear I am not making this up.")

 

Magic Johnson wanted to buy the Clippers but Sterling wouldn't sell.

Magic Johnson is "involved" with the V. whatever her name is.

V. gets involved with Donald Sterling.

V. tapes Donald Sterling telling V. not to flaunt his relationship with Magic Johnson

The tape is release, firestorm ensues.

Magic Johnson says the team should be sold to him.

 

All a coincidence?

[+ FreshFluff]

Trophy (from Urban dictionary)

"His role in the relationship is to be her sugar daddy and provide her with power and material wealth. Hers, beyond providing sex, is to remind others that he is powerful or rich enough to be desirable to such a woman despite his age and thus to serve as a marker of this status -- hence the "trophy" part."

 

The UD definition misses something important. The man doesn't have to give the girl money. Simply having a bit of fame or status (e.g. a university professor) is often enough to attract women for sex. As the philosopher Will Smith wrote in his noted work "Gettin' Jiggy Wit it,"

 

"Women used to tease me

Give it to me now nice and easy

Since I moved up like George and Wheezy

Cream to the maximum I be askin' 'em

Would you like to bounce with the brother that's platinum?"

 

(He's talking about his album, not his Amex card.)

[Newly]

Really interesting post. This is a huge generalization, but most of us are well aware of when paying for sex is "shameful" and the norms and laws that society has on it. You can argue that taking someone out to dinner and a show in the hopes of getting sex is paying for it, and talk about how arbitrary society is with its rules but the same can be said about laws against incest - in some states you can marry a second cousin, in others you can't. Totally arbitrary, but nonetheless a part of society and laws. One question though since there seem to be a lot of posters from Nevada. I thought that the code in some Nevada jurisdictions allowed for prostitution, but specifically mentioned sex between a man and a woman. Are there any brothels for gay sex? I assume that a constitutional argument could be made that you shouldn't discriminate by sex, but I have a hunch that a Nevada court would invalidate the entire code section before allowing there to be a gay brothel.

[BgMstr4u]

It is my understanding that Nevada law does not explicitly say that men cannot be legal prostitutes. What it does say, I believe, is that anyone who is licensed as a prostitute must undergo a cervical examination on a regular basis. That makes it difficult for men to comply. In any case, all prostitutes have to be licensed. In the past some have been.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/shady-lady-ranch-cleared-legal-male-prostitutes/story?id=9493257

[BSR]

As a long-time Las Vegas resident, let me weigh in here. I don't know what laws are on the books, but in terms of brass-tacks practicality, nothing prevents a man from working as a legal prostitute in Nevada. There was a bit of a splash in the local paper a few years ago because one of the ranches (most of the legal brothels in NV are a "ranch": the Chicken Ranch, Sheri's Ranch, the Bunny Ranch) had recently hired a young man. In an interview, the first-ever legal working guy (as far as anyone could remember) said that he identified as straight but welcomed both male and female clients. Unfortunately, the guy wasn't very attractive, and I don't think he lasted long in the job.

[Newly]

Thanks BSR, that's interesting. You would think that there would be some demand for gay prostitutes. I assume that there are married and other closeted guys in Nevada that would make the anonymity of using a gay prostitute even more appealing than straight prostitutes and yet there are none? It's either a business opportunity for someone or there's something else going on.

[robberbaron4u]

Sadly, most folk do not know "how to do" these days. . .

[Steven_Draker]

There was a bit of a splash in the local paper a few years ago because one of the ranches (most of the legal brothels in NV are a "ranch": the Chicken Ranch, Sheri's Ranch, the Bunny Ranch) had recently hired a young man. In an interview, the first-ever legal working guy (as far as anyone could remember) said that he identified as straight but welcomed both male and female clients.

 

I'm not sure about the 'male clients' part.

 

 

"It won't be successful," said Arie Mack Moore, owner of the Angel's Ladies Brothel, about two miles north of Beatty. "You can't have both (male and female prostitutes) in the same building or adjacent to each other, in my opinion."

 

Moore claims his business has picked up since Markus was hired, with customers saying they wanted to avoid the Shady Lady because of Markus.

 

A 22-year-old prostitute at Angel's Ladies named "Cuddles" said Markus' unwillingness to see gay males makes the Shady Lady seem sexist and discriminatory. Her brothel services women.

 

"How can you just turn down services because of what someone's preferences is? It comes with the territory. It comes with the business," she said.

 

Davis said that he and his wife aren't interested in establishing a gay male clientele, but it will be up to Markus to decide whether to accept men as customers. Davis said Markus told him that he wouldn't perform for male customers.

 

"All this gay homophobia in this country is horrible," Davis said. "Everybody's so damn scared two men might have sex — it's happening every day in Las Vegas. Not going to happen here, but that's all the big fear, is gay people."

 

George Flint, a longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association, said allowing a male prostitute creates legitimate health concerns. Male customers are thoroughly cleaned and inspected for signs of disease before sex at Nevada's brothels, and he doesn't believe the same "fanaticism" is possible when checking female customers.

 

He also worries about the ramifications for the six other brothels in Nye County and the 24 total in Nevada.

 

"We got an industry in this state right now that's got an investment of somewhere between $50 million and $75 million," Flint said. "And yet Bobbi's in the catbird seat right now where her antics and her procedures and her demands and her goals could potentially bruise an entire multimillion-dollar-a-year industry."

 

Flint said he believed the Shady Lady Ranch, which is not a part of his association, could see a temporary wave of curious female customers, but the experiment will ultimately fail.

 

"I think she truly believes that it's a viable effort, and I'm wondering after four or five days and there haven't been any takers, if she's beginning to wonder if maybe she was wrong," Flint said. "You and I and the rest of the world can sit and debate this damn thing until hell freezes over, but if nobody shows up at her front door, what's it proved?"

 

source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/01/22/nevada-brothel-hires-legal-male-prostitute/

[Newly]

Thanks Steven, that pretty much confirms my suspicions. There's enough societal shame about using a prostitute without adding rampant homophobia to the mix. There also seems to be an undertone in the article that if a male prostitute were to accept male clients the state would take action against the entire industry. Kind of sad, really. Obviously Nevada is willing to bend the rules to some extent - but they draw the line when it comes to allowing gay prostitution - I guess that's just too shameful for them.

[+ FreshFluff]

Davis said that he and his wife aren't interested in establishing a gay male clientele, but it will be up to Markus to decide whether to accept men as customers. Davis said Markus told him that he wouldn't perform for male customers.

 

Yeah, good luck chasing a tiny female market--that becomes even smaller when you only consider those willing to make a special trip to the desert to hire. I doubt he'll be in business very long unless he already has a source of income.

 

 

""It won't be successful," said Arie Mack Moore, owner of the Angel's Ladies Brothel, about two miles north of Beatty. "You can't have both (male and female prostitutes) in the same building or adjacent to each other, in my opinion."

 

I agree with this. To the gay men on here, do you want to see women in lingerie and tiny shorts walking around when you're looking for sex? I imagine that it would be a turn off for many.

[Newly]

Actually, if you're bisexual that would be kinda hot!

[+ buddy12]

Stepped on it again imrthr? Go figure. And wow...what a shock that you say that Charlie has "emotional bruises"...which seems to be your response whenever anyone questions you. You try to strike at the psyche of someone that questions you. It's you that has the "emotional bruises" or whatever in God's name that might mean in your limited training...if any. Anyone that questions you has to be a psycho right? Instudio and everyone else who viewed your comment (and your subsequent comments) came to one conclusion...you tried to bitch slap Charlie. He asked a simple question but you have to inject that clearly, he doesn't have the intelligence to come up with this question and thought on his own. And then you put out the bullshit that you were only trying to find out who the true author may be so you could read some of his works? Really...please. Please for all our sakes...get a life.

[+ Gar1eth]

I think it' s perfectly rational to be worried about that if the husband is mongering ....

 

I am familiar with words like 'fearmonger' or 'warmonger' as a dealer in/proponent of. But I've never really seen the term 'mongering' possibly used for (paid)'wenching'.

 

Gman

[imrthr]

Stepped on it again imrthr? Go figure. And wow...what a shock that you say that Charlie has "emotional bruises"...which seems to be your response whenever anyone questions you. You try to strike at the psyche of someone that questions you. It's you that has the "emotional bruises" or whatever in God's name that might mean in your limited training...if any. Anyone that questions you has to be a psycho right? Instudio and everyone else who viewed your comment (and your subsequent comments) came to one conclusion...you tried to bitch slap Charlie. He asked a simple question but you have to inject that clearly, he doesn't have the intelligence to come up with this question and thought on his own. And then you put out the bullshit that you were only trying to find out who the true author may be so you could read some of his works? Really...please. Please for all our sakes...get a life.

 

 

Why on earth did you resurrect this issue after the thread returned to its intended purpose?

 

What compelled you to join in the small group that misinterpreted my initial post? This thread had returned to the topic until you decided to show other readers that you are mean spirited and malicious by posting the trash that you posted.

 

Just as your Studio City friend posted all his nonsensical responses and misquoted me, I recommend that you go back to my post and you will see that you are wrong because I did not say that "Charlie has "emotional bruises." I said that about the poster from Studio City who, like you, reads something then misquotes what is written.

 

You must be very unhappy for you to resurrect an issue that had gone away.

 

I am wondering why the moderators allow you to bring this closed issue back to life by your adding additional and inaccurate nonsense that began with your Studio City friend. Your post serves no purpose except to show hostility and to take this thread off topic.

-

[+ FreshFluff]

I am familiar with words like 'fearmonger' or 'warmonger' as a dealer in/proponent of. But I've never really seen the term 'mongering' possibly used for (paid)'wenching'.

 

Straight men who hire female escorts call hiring "mongering."

[Juan Vancouver]

Under what circumstances is it TODAY acceptable, and not acceptable? Is it OK for an older man to keep a willing younger person as a financially supported sex partner? Does it make any difference whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual? Does it make a difference whether it is a stable relationship, or if there are multiple paid sex partners? Does it make a difference whether the payer is married/partnered, or not? Does it make a difference whether the payee is married/partnered, or not? Does it make any difference WHY the seller or the buyer engage in the exchange? Does it make any difference how the participants feel toward one another? Does the social class of the participants matter? Does the amount of money matter? Does the profession of the buyer matter? Does the amount or nature of publicity about the exchange matter? Is there any other consideration that I have overlooked which is important?

 

What really puzzles me -based on my understanding of your post and your patent confusion about this issue- is that you seem to still be looking for an outsider power to tell you what is acceptable and what isn't. I guess one of the cultures in which you live (Because it is an undeniable truth that in your geographical location several different cultures coexist and thrive) is still hellbent in believing their cultural mores are infallible, universal and correct. This shows itself in passionate outcries announcing that certain swimwear is only for a certain kind of person on a specific age, certain colour clothes must only be worn with certain calendar prescribed times, who people must love or marry according to their age, gender, social status etc.

 

I think when we are so passionate enforcing the values of our tribe it can only be because we are forgetting that cultural views, especially those that are grown from religion and morality are constantly changing and greatly differ from one culture to the other. When we so passionately defend what is right is only because we forget that we live insularly, denying other views, and denying the very nature of progress.

 

These are some behaviours that have at different times and in different cultures been perfectly acceptable. Nobody batted an eye at:

 

marrying one's sibling and procreating

 

burying all servants and relatives with the deceased master

 

hanging black people just to keep the rest scared

 

stoning people to death for various reasons

 

selling people the way you sell cattle

 

feasting on the corpse of deceased warriors, especially if one is related to them, and then keeping their skull for good fortune

 

having a teenage girl have sex with all the men in the tribe

 

demand that black people ride in the back of the bus and assert that they have no rights of their own

 

binding women's feet to prevent their full development for strictly aesthetic reasons

 

sending young girls to the temple to perform ritual prostitution for a whole year

 

kill baby girls, you know, because they are girls

 

 

The list goes on and on for as far as you want to take it. You might think all these practices are barbaric and horrific. In the future, I would like to think the near future we will look at this time, at this culture and we will all think it was absolute savagery how we thought it was perfectly okay to have religious nuts pushing for laws preventing anything that doesn't fit with their morality. And sadly I am not only talking about your country.

 

In a big portion of the civilized world nobody loses any sleep because adults decide to embrace the sex service industry. They have equal rights, they get taxed, they get certain degree of regulations and life goes on. Nobody sweats over whether a younger person pays an older person or vice versa, or whether there is love or not or whether sex toys are used. Nobody sweats over a fat older man wearing a speedo. People might have differing personal views about different issues but they understand that they are personal and never try to inflict their views on others.

 

If you are really looking for an answer about when it is correct that someone pays for sex the answer is really simple:

 

 

When it happens between two adults, when there is no coercion, when they are both in condition to give consent and they both understand and agree with the terms of their exchange.

 

 

I think on this board the answer to when is paying for sex acceptable is ANYTIME you feel like it. But, unfortunately, in the broader society paying for sex is still viewed by the overwhelming majority as almost some sort of crime (and is, of course, still illegal). It seems acceptance of gay marriage is coming faster than legalized prostitution. Go figure.

 

I would like to remind you that when you say "broader society" you are being imprecise. I think that what you mean by that is "in the country in which I live, and based on the opinions of people by whom I am surrounded, paying for sex is ......"

 

Again, in many parts of the world, in different "broader societies" being a prostitute or using their services is regarded in wildly different ways.

 

Finally, the number one reason I think prostitution will never be legalized outside of small localities like Pahrump NV is that wives feel very threatened by it... And while I can't imagine a working girl suing one particular client for child support, there's something very worrisome to women about their husbands depositing their sperm into another woman, no matter how irrational this fear/anxiety might be.

 

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how this is even relevant. At different times, wives have been very threatened by miniskirts, air transportation, slutty secretaries, microwave ovens, washing machines, visits from the mother in law and as far as I am aware all those things have found a way to be perfectly legal even without the aid of a lobbyist.

 

Not all clients are married. Not all *****s break homes. Not all women are worried about the paternity certainty and the male monogamy. And in order to make correct laws none of this really matters. I see how in certain sectors of the population this may be a very heated topic but this shouldn't have (and won't have) absolutely any effect on whether things are regarded as ethically correct or not. In the long run, laws will more and more reflect an understanding on what is ethically correct and will veer away from what is morally acceptable.

[+ buddy12]

Quote Originally Posted by Charlie View Post

That was what I found insulting.

Insulting!

 

Inconsistently, the portion you just quoted was posted AFTER my initial response! Therefore, you got insulted in advance.

 

Whether you wrote the post or someone else wrote it is not important. It was the thought provoking message that mattered. Apparently you missed that part of my response.

 

All I can say, at this point, is that you must have a lot of emotional bruises if you take a compliment and twist it into an insult.

-

 

You're killing me. Well let's start off by the exact quotes from your post. You say that you did not say Charlie has emotional bruises...see above what you said. There's the reply of insulting from Charlie and your response. You really need to re-read your posts before you go on a tirade and say, "I never said this". Or was this your misquote? Or were you just "joking" like the last time I took you to task over asking a guy if he really thought he could "get a world class model for $275".

 

My thing on resurrecting this post is to dissect your post. You talk about all the hostility that I and Studio ( and by the way, I've never talked to this guy in a PM or anything else in my life...and I don't agree with all his posts but I don't sit here and slam his ass like you do) have in your posts...perhaps you should look at your own mean spirited posts. Frankly, you act as though YOU are the moderator of this site and YOUR word will be the last and anyone that resurrects the post is wrong. But guess what...you're not the moderator of this forum...you're not the final word of this forum. And as much as you would wish the true moderators would close this post...perhaps they had enough of you and want the debate.

 

Your slamming other people is BS merely because they don't agree with you. What kills me is that everyone that disagrees with you, you always go back to this same BS about their psyche. Believe me...it's your psyche that is the problem. And every time I see you do it, I'll be there to respond. Now I could say you're an unhappy, self centered, arrogant little ass...but I wouldn't want to give you the idea that me and Studio, Charlie or any of the "small group" disagreed with your response feels that way. So now go ahead and call all of us "crazy" as is your usual M.O. But rest assured on one thing...when you start slamming people for their posts...if I'm not banned...I'll be there to educate you on how totally wrong you are. By the way...I thought after our last little thing, you were going to "hit the ignore button". So evidently you may want the confrontation.

[+ Gar1eth]

I am familiar with words like 'fearmonger' or 'warmonger' as a dealer in/proponent of. But I've never really seen the term 'mongering' possibly used for (paid)'wenching'.

 

Gman

 

Straight men who hire female escorts call hiring "mongering."

 

That's really interesting FF. I'd never heard that. Thank you for the info.

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

While I'm Not A Witch

 

When is paying for sex acceptable? I'd say the answer is the Wiccan Rede-

 

An it harm no one, do what you will.

 

Gman

[+ Charlie]

Juan, I am not trying to find an "outside power" to tell me what is acceptable, in the sense of looking for personal guidance on what I should think. I am trying to get a sense of what is now seen by the general American culture--if there is such a thing; more likely by the subcultures represented on this board--as acceptable. I was struck by how easily the media, for instance, accepted Sterling's showing off his "archivist" in public, which would have been unthinkable not so long ago. I am aware of all the behaviors you have mentioned as being at one time socially acceptable, and would note that some of them are still acceptable, even expected, in different cultures, though not in current western culture (except metaphorically, like selling people the way one sells cattle).

[TruHart1]

I am familiar with words like 'fearmonger' or 'warmonger' as a dealer in/proponent of. But I've never really seen the term 'mongering' possibly used for (paid)'wenching'.

 

Gman

 

Hi Gman. I have heard the terms wh*re-monger or wh*re-mongering and seen them both in writings in reference to those men who frequent prostitutes. I do believe they are now considered somewhat archaic words/terms.

 

TruHart1

[+ Gar1eth]

Juan, I am not trying to find an "outside power" to tell me what is acceptable, in the sense of looking for personal guidance on what I should think. I am trying to get a sense of what is now seen by the general American culture--if there is such a thing; more likely by the subcultures represented on this board--as acceptable. I was struck by how easily the media, for instance, accepted Sterling's showing off his "archivist" in public, which would have been unthinkable not so long ago. I am aware of all the behaviors you have mentioned as being at one time socially acceptable, and would note that some of them are still acceptable, even expected, in different cultures, though not in current western culture (except metaphorically, like selling people the way one sells cattle).

 

By (almost) definition, we here on the Forum are going to take a much more pro-active view of hiring than possibly the American public at large. So if you want to know what the average American thinks about it, the Forum here would not be the place to go.

 

That being said- I can remember back in the 70's. There was some miniseries on TV. I think it might have been 79 Park Avenue starring Lesley Ann Warren (loved her in Cinderella) and David Dukes (loved him- he was so handsome)- an immigrant girl becomes high powered madame. In any case my mother and I were watching it. I was in high school. My Mom and I were discussing something, and she said she thought prostitution shouldn't be illegal. I was shocked at her attitude and said so. Now we are from very conservative Texas, so that makes it even more shocking. I don't know if that was a strongly held belief, or whether she had held that belief for a long period of time/ it was just a spur of the moment statement. I also don't know whether she still holds this belief. I especially don't know, even if she still feels prostitution for females should be legal in general, how she would feel about knowing her son has partaken on the male side.

 

Gman

[imrthr]

Quote Originally Posted by Charlie View Post

That was what I found insulting.

Insulting!

 

Inconsistently, the portion you just quoted was posted AFTER my initial response! Therefore, you got insulted in advance.

 

Whether you wrote the post or someone else wrote it is not important. It was the thought provoking message that mattered. Apparently you missed that part of my response.

 

All I can say, at this point, is that you must have a lot of emotional bruises if you take a compliment and twist it into an insult.

-

 

You're killing me. Well let's start off by the exact quotes from your post. You say that you did not say Charlie has emotional bruises...see above what you said. There's the reply of insulting from Charlie and your response. You really need to re-read your posts before you go on a tirade and say, "I never said this". Or was this your misquote? Or were you just "joking" like the last time I took you to task over asking a guy if he really thought he could "get a world class model for $275".

 

My thing on resurrecting this post is to dissect your post. You talk about all the hostility that I and Studio ( and by the way, I've never talked to this guy in a PM or anything else in my life...and I don't agree with all his posts but I don't sit here and slam his ass like you do) have in your posts...perhaps you should look at your own mean spirited posts. Frankly, you act as though YOU are the moderator of this site and YOUR word will be the last and anyone that resurrects the post is wrong. But guess what...you're not the moderator of this forum...you're not the final word of this forum. And as much as you would wish the true moderators would close this post...perhaps they had enough of you and want the debate.

 

Your slamming other people is BS merely because they don't agree with you. What kills me is that everyone that disagrees with you, you always go back to this same BS about their psyche. Believe me...it's your psyche that is the problem. And every time I see you do it, I'll be there to respond. Now I could say you're an unhappy, self centered, arrogant little ass...but I wouldn't want to give you the idea that me and Studio, Charlie or any of the "small group" disagreed with your response feels that way. So now go ahead and call all of us "crazy" as is your usual M.O. But rest assured on one thing...when you start slamming people for their posts...if I'm not banned...I'll be there to educate you on how totally wrong you are. By the way...I thought after our last little thing, you were going to "hit the ignore button". So evidently you may want the confrontation.

 

 

There are worse things in life than people who cannot understand something they read.

 

By way of your numerous misquotes of my posts, you have demonstrated that you have a major issue in understanding simple English.

 

Many people have issues with the English language, however, those people do not repeatedly take this thread off topic or rant over such a trivial matter.

 

One example of your misquote or misunderstanding is shown in the sentence that you copied from a post I made to this thread. You claimed that the sentence confirmed that I said that the person who calls himself “Charlie” has emotional bruises.

 

This is what I wrote and what you quoted:

 

"All I can say, at this point, is that you must have a lot of emotional bruises if you take a compliment and twist it into an insult."

 

The sentence you quoted does not state that the person who started this childish discourse has emotional bruises. You must read the entire sentence and include all the words, not just the words you chose to include.

 

When it says - "you must have a lot of emotional bruises if you take a compliment and twist it into an insult." does not say that the individual HAS emotional bruises. It says, in the context of this thread, it is my opinion that he shows “emotional bruises” - - IF - - he truly believes he was insulted.

 

You apparently cannot see the distinction. Notice the “IF” in the above sentence. The “if” changes the meaning of the first part and makes the sentence conditional, not absolute as you claimed.

 

When a sentence contains two or more thoughts, it is critical to read the entire sentence to understand what is written. To go off on a rant, after you misunderstand the sentence, makes you appear rather silly.

 

Perhaps your problem understanding sentences that contain two or more subjects is the reason you continually take this thread off topic.

 

By continuing to write bizarre responses, all you are doing is causing other readers to wonder why you feel compelled to repeatedly rant and rant over such a trivial and childish issue.

 

I am pleased that we have only three posters in this thread that “went off the deep end” about the alleged “insult.”

 

Now, maybe you will allow this thread to return to its intended purpose.

[Juan Vancouver]

Hey Charlie,

 

Yeah, the media and people all over the place are getting impervious to things that a short while ago would have been scandalous. Now people come out and back into the closet, they confess to having concubines, leaking sex tapes, hiring hookers, being swingers, having extra families on the side, doing crack... I personally see it as a really positive thing. The exploitative scandal media is losing ammunition little by little and society at large is becoming a little more adult, less inclined to living in the adolescent outrage of a recluse teenage nun.

 

Juan, I am not trying to find an "outside power" to tell me what is acceptable, in the sense of looking for personal guidance on what I should think. I am trying to get a sense of what is now seen by the general American culture--if there is such a thing; more likely by the subcultures represented on this board--as acceptable. I was struck by how easily the media, for instance, accepted Sterling's showing off his "archivist" in public, which would have been unthinkable not so long ago.

 

I guess since you didn't actually wonder "What is acceptable in the general American culture?" and instead you open endedly wondered "What is acceptable?" it was very easy for me to make that mistake. I am glad to know that that's what you meant.

 

As for that Sterling guy, I am very happy that it has become unacceptable for the owner of a team to speak like this.

 

Great times we are living in!