In article ,
 Grizzlie Antagonist  wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:47:53 -0500, Mark Sobolewski
>  wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> > "cutiepie"  wrote:
> >
> >> This conversation was supposed to be advice for me... I found out from
> >> my sister that he slept with a prostitute.  It was in some letters from
> >> when he was in the army overseas.  (My sister and her husband were good
> >> friends with my BF) Before I would sleep with him I asked him about his
> >> previous sexual activity and he mentioned nothing of this... I only
> >> found out about when I looked at the letters he wrote my sis and her
> >> hubby.  Aparently he didn't think it was a big deal.  When I confromted
> >> him about it I only ment that we sat down and were already talking
> >> about sex and other stuff.  (Being tested and other things because I
> >> was worried. ) He lied to me and didn't tell me at the beginning when I
> >> asked him about the prostitute.  That's why I was upset... and I have a
> >> strong personal belief against prostitution.
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >It appears as if you shouldn't be surprised that he would lie
> >to you considering your statement you have a strong belief
> >against prostitution.
> >
> >Yet, as we've seen on this forum, a majority (the vast
> >majority, in fact) of women engage in one form of
> >prostution or another whether it's sleeping for men for
> >dinner, financial security through marriage, or
> >even just a little extra personal attention.
> >
> >If you're so fired up against prostitution, wouldn't it
> >make sense for you to maybe use some of your judgemental
> >rightiousness against women who are perpetuating the practice?
> >
> >regards,
> >Mark Sobolewski
>
>
> Here's an interesting thing to consider, Mark.
>
> Consider all other forms of illegal or marginally-legal vice - drugs,
> gambling, alcohol (during Prohibition).
>
> Whom do the talking heads and intellectualoids regard as the "heavy"?
>
> The suppliers, of course.  The users are sick people in need of
> treatment, but it's the suppliers that should be subject to the heavy
> hand of the law.
>
> Now consider prostitution - for the most part, a service that women
> provide to men, in exchange for money.
>
> Whom do the talking heads consider to be the heavies?
>
> Why, the users, of course.  These innocent faultless women, who are
> only looking to feed their families, after all, wouldn't walk the
> streets if there weren't morally-flawed men out there willing to pay
> them money.

To the system's credit, the women who sell sex for mere cash
are largely subject to the harshest sanctions.  Johns typically
get nailed with probation and community service (assuming
they just don't get a fine and let out of court the
same day for a first offense.)

I remember when Heidi Fleiss got nailed and she whined about
how her clients weren't going to jail.  Boo hoo!  Well,
Heidi, your clients weren't making money and engaging
in organized activities to break the law.

It's probably a function of our puritan heritage that there's
a crazy double standard against paid prostitution while
at the same time women are told that there's something
wrong with them if they don't exploit their sexuality
for some type of profit as I mentioned above.

This probably explains, more than anything, the ambivalent
attitude between men and women in the states.  Young
women are told to act like whores but at the same
time condemn the practice and blame the men who pay
for it all.  Sick sick sick.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 8:56:50 PM ---