[Laner]

According to all MSM media, all sex workers are trafficked sex workers. Or young women who were preyed upon by pimps and turned into sex workers through addiction.

This is bullshit.

There is a massive difference between girls on the streets who really are turning tricks for drugs. Then there are the girls who work the Seeking Arrangement pages for meals and trips. Then there is Instagram. Then there are the true escorts, the ones these executives are using. They charge out thousands a night, and might not even fuck. The cocaine is not just for the girls, its also for the guys, and if they do even half a dozen lines they most likely will spend the night in a naked cuddle puddle with these whores.

I understand the talk of the moral decline, and I agree with you all. But we need to at least understand that women are nearly all OK with some form of prostitution until it they advertise or are a part of an agency. For some reason this is where it becomes reality. And I am not just talking about 'normal' girls judging whores. Its whores making up these rules in their own mind, especially after they get used to making $20k a month in the summers partying with Amazon execs and middle east princes.

[EndsExpect]

(12-27-2017 07:12 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

We have laws against parking in certain places without putting money in the meter box. People do it all the time anyway, sometimes just to duck into a store and out again.
That doesn't mean there's no point in having parking laws. The laws exist to provide a framework of what behaviours our society deems are acceptable and what behaviours we deem to be deviant.
And something that has been proved decade over decade since the 60's is that decriminalising degenerate behaviour on the pre-texts of unenforceability or libertarianism simply turns those degenerate behaviours into mainstream practices, forcing a greater wedge in the door for more decriminalisation of ever greater degenerate behaviour.
Decriminalisation of sodomy occurred in California in 1976. They just recently made it legal to knowingly infect someone with AIDS. What were the reasons given? Same old same old.
"The law was unenforceable. It caused more harm than good."
Everyone wants to live in Beverly Hills but nobody wants to live in Lincoln Heights.
Meanwhile you can virtually throw a dart blindfolded at a state map of Utah.

Most societies in history these issues were controlled by the men with the most swords... often that mean appeasing then subverting whatever religious or traditionalist authority existed in the society beforehand.

Eventually the guys with the most swords get fat and lazy, a new group comes along that wants to take their position away. They need more swords so they turn to the people who are unhappy under the current regime and promise them a better life.

In America we have made this system relatively bloodless. In a Republic like this where people have to vote on policies, then you have to frame those policies correctly. If you fight for "Ideas" then you will always lose to those who fight for "people", because the average voter is emotional not rational. Preventing cultural degeneracy is an idea, a gay man is a person... fighting for the gay man will always win the hearts of voters over time. The only way to fight this is to demonize and dehumanize your target. That is why the things Liberals are saying about Trump voters today is so dangerous... once properly dehumanized any abuse is justified (ex. IRS Scandal).

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

Even girls that rent a cheap hotel room and advertise on Backpage for $200 an hour are doing it voluntarily. They could get a job as a waitress or some other regular job, and live with roommates like most single girls do. However, they would rather take the easier route of escorting. They are not that much different than the Seeking Arrangement girls. The SA girls could easily make due with student loans and part time jobs, but they want more cash for less effort, and so they sign up with SA to find a sponsor that will fuck them for money.
I recognize that many of these girls have substance abuse problems, and lack self control and a good upbringing, but this is also true of the large majority of ordinary thots. This is just the nature of the younger generation with the decay in society. The ones who decide to have sex for money and to post ads to find interested guys are not that much different from other girls in similar circumstances.

It's hardly even worth mentioning, but these girls could get married, and have a man help support them. They don't want that. They'd rather be the fucktoy of a high status man than the wife of a devoted beta.

Now I will say that at least some trafficking of unwilling girls takes place. However, it's a very small percentage. Even most of these Asian girls that come to massage parlors in the US are already escorting in their home countries, and have decided to come to America for the adventure. Likewise, many who say they were forced into prostitution are just pushing a sob story to see if they can get something. In most cases, they had a choice, and they chose to spread their legs for money.

I think it's completely natural. A certain segment of women want the validation that comes from successful older men paying them for sex at an hourly rate normally only available to doctors and lawyers. They may not get off on the sex itself every time, but they do enjoy it often enough. They definitely enjoy the validation. They are satisfied when they get the guy off, and they question if there's a problem with them if the man can't cum. There are plenty of anonymous escort blogs where they are frank about their experience, and are not saying it to make their customers feel good.

The girls who agreed to bang movie directors for roles are no different. It's the world's oldest profession. You don't need to force women to do it. There are plenty who are willing. This has always been true, but is especially true in these decadent times. There are millions of hot young women around the world who are anxious to fuck successful older guys for a few hundred dollars.

Are the johns guilty of encouraging these girls? Barely. Any guy who fucks a slut outside of marriage is also damaging her, but I think we agree that sluts can make their own decisions to ride the carousel. I think sluts can make their own decisions to do it for pay too, and that's their choice.

Society used to restrict prostitution more heavily on moral grounds, and it could again. However, I don't see this happening, and if it ever does, society will have to restrict slutty behavior in general, and restrict men from racking up notches as well. As long as we allow promiscuous sex generally, then prostitution is no different, other than the fact that men who are winners don't have to pay for it.

[Atlanta Man]

You are going against male desire when you make laws against prostitution. All that you see around you is a result of men trying to get laid-Skyscrapers, banks, movies and cars , all of it. I personally do not do whores but I am still young and attractive enough to get what I want in terms of women, so I don't judge men who know what they want and pay for it.
I feel the same way about drugs, alcohol, and gambling-make it legal so you can get the violence ,corruption and criminal element out of it.

Quick story, Cannabis is rapidly becoming legal in the United States on a state by state basis. Recently in Florida (medical legal state) a friend of mine was approached by his weed dealer who was distraught. Due to medical marijuana the price bottomed out and he could no longer make a profit selling the stuff and he was forced to look for work. That is the power of legalization.

Lastly I find it comical that so many on this forum are eager for there to be moral policing. I personally value my freedom and the ability to have a lifestyle of my choosing, the idea of some uptight asshole having a say on any aspect of my lifestyle when I am not at work is fucked up. I really do not like Vice cops for this reason,in all seriousness- also if you want to find a corruption case in law enforcement look no further than the Vice division, they are all dishonest pieces of shit.

[TooFineAPoint]

(12-27-2017 02:17 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 01:49 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

gework you are wrong about prostitution and drugs those are lifestyle choices and nobodies business but the people involved. Policing peoples private lives and legislating morality is a recipe for disaster.

I generally agree with you, but in my part of the country you can't just have one attitude on this.

Seattle has some street walkers that are heroine addicts. They look like shit but thirsty dudes pick them up anyway. There are also strippers and lazy bitches that just want fast cash and not interested in doing something for a "career". These whores are expensive, but freelance. They range from 60 year old fat broads to top tier escorts. Legalize this shit and let thirsty betas finally get some relief.

Then there are these spots where trafficked women... mostly Latinas and Asians are drugged and raped, and they don't get any say in the matter. Typically run by organized crime. This shit needs to end. In Europe they are trafficking African women like this... in Turkey and the Middle East it's Ukrainian and FSU women.

Legalizing prostitution and legalizing the kidnapping of women are two different things.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-27-2017 04:57 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

...
Lastly I find it comical that so many on this forum are eager for there to be moral policing. I personally value my freedom and the ability to have a lifestyle of my choosing, the idea of some uptight asshole having a say on any aspect of my lifestyle when I am not at work is fucked up. I really do not like Vice cops for this reason,in all seriousness- also if you want to find a corruption case in law enforcement look no further than the Vice division, they are all dishonest pieces of shit.

We could go around in circles like this forever.

What you are enjoying is the decline. The final stages of Babylon. Your personal responsibility for this is infinitesimal (presumably) but you are one of the many raindrops responsible for the flood. I don't care about your case specifically. What would be the point?

Whether you can quantify your own gratification against the greater downfall of a civilisation is irrelevant. When one man pisses in the river he sees it as an irrelevance. "It is his right". When a million men do it the river dies and everything the river relies on dies too. All because a million men exercised "their right".

A nation that devolves into valuing individual rights as God is doomed. By all means, enjoy it while you can, but please stop pretending that doing things like supporting prostitution and the drug trade are in no way related to the pozzed state your nation is in.

As for being the moral police, there's no point in that any more until the collapse and the ensuing reset, after which time the men that rebuild civilisation out of the ashes will not have much of a choice but to put hedonistic libertarianism back in the bin for another 100 years. Survival will demand nothing less. They're not going to start growing cocaine and letting their daughters become prostitutes because "it's her choice, and free markets are our greatest strength".

The ideal form of freedom in a nation state is to contribute in any way you desire. The current clusterfuck dragging us down is the freedom to do whatever you want, no matter how it degrades the civilisation you live in.

[TooFineAPoint]

(12-27-2017 10:25 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Whether you can quantify your own gratification against the greater downfall of a civilisation is irrelevant. When one man pisses in the river he sees it as an irrelevance. "It is his right". When a million men do it the river dies and everything the river relies on dies too. All because a million men exercised "their right".

That particular scenario could be resolved with something far simpler than whether it is beneficial to civilization (and who gets to decide that). It could be solved by property rights.

Your example presumes the river is publicly owned.

I realize that contributes to the going round in circles nature of the discussion, but figured it was worth pointing out that individual rights become a problem in cases of so-called "public property".

[StrikeBack]

It doesn't surprise me that our favourite swarthy H1Bs are caught up in this. There's a very famous brothel in my suburb, which has a high population of international professionals, and every time I see someone walk out of it, it's always one of those guys. It's "where white women at!" for them, basically.

[Kona]

I'm happy to see this forum maturing to a point where at least a few guys think prostitution is bad. A few years ago I said this on here and the response was "screw you Kona you Hawaiian dickhead!" Or I got some screwball logic thrown at me that John's used to justify their whoremongering. Then there was the faction that said " well I know a girl who is a hooker and goes to college, so screw you Kona you Hawaiian dickhead!" I'm happy to see that some guys are ready to admit that human trafficking does exist and don't believe the myth that it's just girls whoring their way through dentL school.

I don't know if legalization or prosecution or even persecution is the way to go. I just know it's bad, so don't do it.

Another thing, i know from experience with military purchasing that big contractors like Boeing and Oracle do prostitution the right way. They don't get caught, so this surprises me.

Aloha!

[Atlanta Man]

(12-27-2017 10:25 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 04:57 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

...
Lastly I find it comical that so many on this forum are eager for there to be moral policing. I personally value my freedom and the ability to have a lifestyle of my choosing, the idea of some uptight asshole having a say on any aspect of my lifestyle when I am not at work is fucked up. I really do not like Vice cops for this reason,in all seriousness- also if you want to find a corruption case in law enforcement look no further than the Vice division, they are all dishonest pieces of shit.

We could go around in circles like this forever.

What you are enjoying is the decline. The final stages of Babylon. Your personal responsibility for this is infinitesimal (presumably) but you are one of the many raindrops responsible for the flood. I don't care about your case specifically. What would be the point?

Whether you can quantify your own gratification against the greater downfall of a civilisation is irrelevant. When one man pisses in the river he sees it as an irrelevance. "It is his right". When a million men do it the river dies and everything the river relies on dies too. All because a million men exercised "their right".

A nation that devolves into valuing individual rights as God is doomed. By all means, enjoy it while you can, but please stop pretending that doing things like supporting prostitution and the drug trade are in no way related to the pozzed state your nation is in.

As for being the moral police, there's no point in that any more until the collapse and the ensuing reset, after which time the men that rebuild civilisation out of the ashes will not have much of a choice but to put hedonistic libertarianism back in the bin for another 100 years. Survival will demand nothing less. They're not going to start growing cocaine and letting their daughters become prostitutes because "it's her choice, and free markets are our greatest strength".

The ideal form of freedom in a nation state is to contribute in any way you desire. The current clusterfuck dragging us down is the freedom to do whatever you want, no matter how it degrades the civilisation you live in.

Lets hash this shit out right now and get rid of bullshit arguments and instead focus on what I am really saying. I do not want busybody moralists in my business, I have had to deal with that bullshit before and I resented the hell out of it. What you are describing is other men having a say so about how I live my life in my private time when I am not working, that is bullshit.

I am not suggesting men encouraging their daughters to become prostitutes, I am not suggesting everyone do cocaine, and I am not suggesting people be free to put raw sewage into lakes- I am suggesting people be free to do as they wish as long as other are not harmed by their actions directly. In practice some examples 1)Gamble all you want, do not steal to gamble-stealing is a crime 2) drink all you want and do blow, do not drive drunk-DUI is a crime 3) Have sex all you want, do not fuck kids-fucking kids is a crime.

You will say "But Atlanta Man some people will become addicted to drugs, or gamble too much, or become whore-mongers!" to which I say "with freedom and rights come responsibilities, and I don't want my rights limited because some people are irresponsible". There will always be people that overdo it just as there will always be winners and losers-do not make policy based on the losers and weak willed.

[Kona]

I'm right there with you Atlanta man with the live and let live, but somewhere you gotta draw a line. How do you eliminate all the bad shit that goes along with prostitution? Is just overall legalization the answer? Someone mentioned Amsterdam. A lot of those butches are slaves.

I say the best way is to just not do it, which is my decision, but not all people can make their own wise decisions.

One more thing, drinking and driving should be legal way before prostitution.

Aloha!

[MANic]

^^^ Except that the demonstrable thesis of the policy-argument is the exact opposite. It's not really as binary as "there will always be winners and losers-do not make policy based on the losers and weak willed."

We do not exist in a vacuum. The very liberty of promiscuity which many on this forum enjoy is the cause of the dearth of eligible LTR prospects which many bemoan on this very forum. You could say "my neighbour's kid is on drugs, fuck him! what a loser!". Except that he attends the same school as your kid and eventually influences him to trod down the same path. All action has meaningful tangible ramifications for all of society. Further, society (you included) will inevitably bear the burden of any anti-social conduct.
Eventually the vice of your neighbour will filter into your own home and it is for this reason that moral policy is more important than many give it credit for. We may argue over what such policy should be but the need for it is manifest.

[astro]

^^

"My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.”

Where does the nose begin?

[MANic]

It is a circle-jerk I admit, as is all policy determination.

[puckerman]

(12-27-2017 10:25 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

What you are enjoying is the decline. The final stages of Babylon. Your personal responsibility for this is infinitesimal (presumably) but you are one of the many raindrops responsible for the flood. I don't care about your case specifically. What would be the point?

Whether you can quantify your own gratification against the greater downfall of a civilisation is irrelevant. When one man pisses in the river he sees it as an irrelevance. "It is his right". When a million men do it the river dies and everything the river relies on dies too. All because a million men exercised "their right".

A nation that devolves into valuing individual rights as God is doomed. By all means, enjoy it while you can, but please stop pretending that doing things like supporting prostitution and the drug trade are in no way related to the pozzed state your nation is in.

As for being the moral police, there's no point in that any more until the collapse and the ensuing reset, after which time the men that rebuild civilisation out of the ashes will not have much of a choice but to put hedonistic libertarianism back in the bin for another 100 years. Survival will demand nothing less. They're not going to start growing cocaine and letting their daughters become prostitutes because "it's her choice, and free markets are our greatest strength".

The ideal form of freedom in a nation state is to contribute in any way you desire. The current clusterfuck dragging us down is the freedom to do whatever you want, no matter how it degrades the civilisation you live in.

I'm curious to know if you think America should go back to its failed "holy experiment" of the 1920's. I am talking about the time that the USA outlawed alcoholic beverages, which drove it all underground and allowed organized crime to flourish. In some areas, the gangs were on the verge of taking over and becoming the de facto police force.

Would you say the same thing about cigarettes? Tobacco? Coke and Pepsi? Potato chips and pretzels?

Free societies enforce morality better than slave societies. In free societies, a person who lives a responsible life is rewarded with more money and a better career, along with lower health care costs and a longer life span.

The main problem is that we still have people who think that initiating force against others is justified by some higher good or simply want to initiate force against people they disagree with. The morality police of the right are no different from the morality police of the left. They just differ on the people they want to police.

[puckerman]

(12-27-2017 11:49 PM)MANic Wrote:  

We do not exist in a vacuum. The very liberty of promiscuity which many on this forum enjoy is the cause of the dearth of eligible LTR prospects which many bemoan on this very forum. You could say "my neighbour's kid is on drugs, fuck him! what a loser!". Except that he attends the same school as your kid and eventually influences him to trod down the same path. All action has meaningful tangible ramifications for all of society. Further, society (you included) will inevitably bear the burden of any anti-social conduct.

That's mainly a problem because of a failed socialistic school system. In a private-school system, the kid on drugs would either never get into a school or the school would figure out a way to clean him up.

[Atlanta Man]

Simply put make private behavior legal, but incentivise positive behavior- let it be know irresponsible behavior has consequences and you will be judged accordingly. Example- want to eat like a pig and sit on your ads and become obese? Ok but understand this affects your health and overall well being. Want to drink until you black out at every social function? Ok , you are no longer invited to social functions. Want to "you go girl YOLO" and fuck a lot of men as a professional ? Ok , you will not marry a high status man.

The point I am making is involve society, but for the love of god keep the courts, police, prisons and criminal element out of it. We can deal with this all in a legally non punitive manner. Making vices illegal promotes dishonesty ,corruption, hypocrisy , wasteful policy , resentment, unrealistic expectations , criminal organizations and shitty outcomes with no tax revenue to offset the resulting social repercussions.

[EndsExpect]

(12-28-2017 01:33 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

Simply put make private behavior legal, but incentivise positive behavior- let it be know irresponsible behavior has consequences and you will be judged accordingly. Example- want to eat like a pig and sit on your ads and become obese? Ok but understand this affects your health and overall well being. Want to drink until you black out at every social function? Ok , you are no longer invited to social functions. Want to "you go girl YOLO" and fuck a lot of men as a professional ? Ok , you will not marry a high status man.
The point I am making is involve society, but for the love of god keep the courts, police, prisons and criminal element out of it. We can deal with this all in a legally non punitive manner. Making vices illegal promotes dishonesty ,corruption, hypocrisy , wasteful policy , resentment, unrealistic expectations , criminal organizations and shitty outcomes with no tax revenue to offset the resulting social repercussions.

I realized long ago that I would rather live in a Libertarian nation than a nation that legislates morality... like Iran for example. Your view on this is entirely Libertarian and I could not agree more.

Now the USA has always been a country of moral enforcement... and most of it was stupid shit like prohibition. Today we are marching towards criminalizing all sex. Yeah you can cum in her mouth, or on her feet, or maybe even in her potted plant. If she decides you need to go to jail for rape a year later... then your ass goes to jail. If you are in college... then you are expelled and your future trashed... then you go to jail.

Here is the dividing line in my opinion. People are always inclined to do stupid self destructive things. You and I believe we should make them responsible for their own actions and suffer consequences. That is NOT how most other Americans see things both historically or today. People like Leonard D Neubache take an older approach and want to prohibit people from hurting themselves. Liberals want people to be able to hurt themselves, but then they want YOU, ME, and EVERYONE ELSE to pay the bill. If she wants to be fat... you pay for her healthcare. If she wants to shoot heroine... you pay for her rehab. If she doesn't want to work... you pay for her welfare. The list of this thinking goes on forever.

My overall point is that both you and Leonard D Neubache are outgunned and outvoted. Very soon Liberals will be up in your bedroom telling you how you can and cannot fuck a woman.

[Leonard D Neubache]

We used to have something of a workable situation, which is to say the laws existed but as long as you made enough money and didn't flaunt your law-breaking you were left alone. You could call this the "private yacht" clause. It still exists today but the price of entry is just a lot lot higher.

The trouble is that in a Democracy your libertarian paradise exists for only as long as you hold the majority.

When the feckless morons (x% plus 51% being women) want to legislate against personal responsibility and repercussions for bad decisions then it's game over from the beginning.

But there's the catch-22. How can you have a libertarian system without a universal franchise? You can't. What are your options then? Cut out voting all together and operate under some kind of anarcho-capitalism otherwise known as MadMaxism? Not most people's cup of tea.

This is why I personally advocate for a two class society consisting of citizens and non-citizens. The Starship Troopers model where you have to make a sacrifice to become eligible to vote. A thousand Atlantamen and Puckermen could form a civil society absent grinding morality laws but the feckless mobs will never be able see to their own lives and we will inevitably be left with the choice to police them or eugenicide them out of existence. Currently they are outbreeding the Puckermen and the Atlantamen, which is it's own problem when between them, women and (((our truest friends))) it's all but impossible to legislate smaller, less intrusive government.

I get what you're saying, really, but you're demanding a camel fit through the eye of a needle. It's just not possible. The reality of the situation defies your wishes. The sheer numbers defy your wishes. It's a beautiful dream but that's all it will ever be.

The strong and (hopefully) responsible can only ever at best hope to run a two-tier system where the worthy live life as they choose inside of reasonable bounds while they simultaneously police the feckless like cattle. Arguably this is precisely what happens today but we're only griping because the cutoff for "cattle" is way higher than we think it should be and there's virtually zero class mobility in that regard. It doesn't help that the folks running the show for us higher cattle use the lower cattle to reduce that minimal class mobility to zero.

(12-28-2017 02:01 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

...
My overall point is that both you and Leonard D Neubache are outgunned and outvoted. Very soon Liberals will be up in your bedroom telling you how you can and cannot fuck a woman.

Our civilisation's stupidity will not last forever, or even very long for that matter. Even if we keep the lights on and avoid civil or international war, Islam will still march over Christendom. Hell, if my choices are reduced to "liberal communist hell" or "Islam" I will choose Islam. At least it's red-pilled on gender relations, homosexuality, (((happy merchants))) and a range of other topics.

Isn't that just the ridiculous stupidity of our situation, having to scuttle to this corner of the internet here to say the obvious, like "men and women are not equal" or "jews control a wildly disproportionate amount of the media."

If I got a spray tan and converted to Islam I could walk down main street and shout that shit all day long.

[HornyRamone]

The best possible solution is to allow communities to balkanize, decide their collective goals and what they will or will not tolerate on the following issues:

Ethnic demography
Vices
Education
Individual responsibility (natural selection or lack thereof)
Religion
Caste

That way, a virtuous family man can't be forced to tolerate or support the livelihood of a coked up gambling addict. Conversely, a man who wants to partake in vice can be either exiled from the community or move to urban America to do as he pleases.

[puckerman]

(12-28-2017 06:59 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The trouble is that in a Democracy your libertarian paradise exists for only as long as you hold the majority.

When the feckless morons (x% plus 51% being women) want to legislate against personal responsibility and repercussions for bad decisions then it's game over from the beginning.

But there's the catch-22. How can you have a libertarian system without a universal franchise? You can't. What are your options then? Cut out voting all together and operate under some kind of anarcho-capitalism otherwise known as MadMaxism? Not most people's cup of tea.

This issue is actually debated a lot among the more academic libertarian circles. One of the best books on the subject is Democracy: The God That Failed, authored by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I have said it elsewhere on this board: libertarians are NOT democrats.

Some libertarians will argue that the direct election of US Senators was one huge mistake. They were elected by state legislatures. It was a check on the federal government held by the states.

I would not be opposed at all to bringing back poll taxes, which were legal until the 1960's. I might simply require that a voter show proof of taxes paid, whether it be income tax or property tax.

One thing that does need to be universal is the right to serve on a jury. As long as juries have the right to vote not-guilty, a free society is safe. Many of the worst encroachments now involve things that have been removed from the jury system and placed into the hands of judges and "experts."

[roid]

(12-26-2017 11:25 AM)Luvianka Wrote:  

Scooped-up electronic communications between pimps and tech-sector employees at reputable Seattle-based companies such as Microsoft and Amazon is another hit for the tech industry, already reeling from sexism charges.
A cache of tech-sector emails sent to brothels and pimps, obtained by Newsweek via a public records request to the King County Prosecutor’s Office, reveal that “67 emails were sent from Microsoft employee email accounts, 63 from Amazon accounts and dozens more from companies like Boeing, T-Mobile, Oracle and local Seattle tech firms.”
What's next? To pay prostitution with bitcoins? To have a block chained escort service?

seriously i dont see what's the big deal about this. US is really a fucked up country. if a girl is willing to sell her body without force, why would they come up with a law to humiliate men? also there's a stigma in the western society that if a man uses escort, he cannot get women, he is a loser, he is ugly, etc... lol rich and good looking men also use escorts to save time and problems.

[mpr]

(12-27-2017 11:20 PM)Kona Wrote:  

I'm happy to see that some guys are ready to admit that human trafficking does exist and don't believe the myth that it's just girls whoring their way through dentL school.

No one here advocates legalizing slavery. If human trafficking is a concern you should be pro-legalization. It drives the criminal element out of the business, the girls get checked for STD's, and actually have to pay taxes on their earnings. Not to mention scarce law enforcement resources can be used to go after slavers instead of persecuting consenting adults. Not to mention leverage that women have in the dating market plummets when anyone can get laid by a 9 or 10 for a few dollars.

(12-27-2017 11:20 PM)Kona Wrote:  

I don't know if legalization or prosecution or even persecution is the way to go. I just know it's bad, so don't do it.

Plenty of things that are legal are also bad. I simply choose not to do them. Smoking cigarettes is bad, but I don't think outlawing tobacco is a wise solution. Perhaps by "bad" you mean immoral? If that's the case I don't see how a man paying a woman for sex is more immoral than a man promising to pay for sex, then conning a sugar baby (whore) out of the money he agreed to pay after the bang. Yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

[Putin Closes]

Trust me, even if you can bang a model for $100 in Thailand, the 7+ all have high attitude. Then again, common knowledge a lot of the local guys just bang hookers if bored of the wife / she won't put out due to a fight. So a blessing for married men in that regard.

[puckerman]

Some men seek out prostitutes only for oral sex. Their wives won't do it. I won't be surprised at all if there will always be some prostitutes who specialize only in blow jobs.