Glory

Already you have defined these terms very differently than I. However, I believe that this is immaterial. What you bring to the table bears a striking resemblance to a madonna/whore complex.



I think this may be part of the attraction, but what about the prostitute's attainability? A prostitute is a sure thing, where as dates, wives, and girlfriends are not. Don't you think that is part of the attraction? What about the simplicity of the transaction, money for sex, versus the complexities of attaining and maintaining a relationship? I think this is a big part of the appeal of prostitutes.



Gee, my husband and I speak like that all the time. The notion that a man can't ask his wife for what he wants is sad. I think a lot of men do feel like this but I think a huge number feel very different. I am confident that the willingness of men to ask for what they want and the willingness of their wives to give them what they want conrtibutes greatly to successful marraiges; as does the women's willingness to ask for what they want combined with their husbands' willingness to give it. Honest and frank communication is I think far preferable to sneaking around with hookers.



Maybe for you. I think it's a mistake to assume that this applies to the general populace.

[quote][b]I see prostitutes as nymphs, as goddesses. They’ve been around since molding time began. I think prostitution is a formidable business because it caters to men’s imagination. If there were no imagination in men, prostitution would probably lose its allurement. Prostitutes might serve some utilitarian purpose, but the conventional thinking that they exist for those with sexual frustration annoys me. Prostitutes are noble creatures. You see them in important paintings, in Greek and Roman mythologies, in Shakespeare’s sonnets.[quote][b]

Here, I basically agree with you although I would not be quite so reverantial. I think some prstitutes are noble. I think some of them are skanks.

I am also annoyed by the notions most people seem to have about the average john. Postitutes often say in interviews that most men spend most of their time with the lady talking. What they really seem to be purchasing is attention and caring eeven when they know these things are illusory.



If this is how you imagine marraige, you will never have a successful one. We are women not goddesses, not possessions and certainly not sacred beings. Neither are we put off by the notion of fun sex. This does not change with marrital status. Yes, a prostitute will not be likely to get pissed at you for fucking another woman, but that speaks to the simplicity of a business transaction versus the complexities of interpersonal relations. It seems to me that if you had a more realistic perspective on women entirely that prostitutes would lose some of their unearthly divinity and wives would gain some sexiness and creativity.

Glory

Gallimore

"Already you have defined these terms very differently than I. However, I believe that this is immaterial. What you bring to the table bears a striking resemblance to a Madonna/whore complex."

You haven’t really addressed the tension of your argument. What’s your rebuttal to my definition? Madonna/whore complex? So what? What’s your point?

"I think this may be part of the attraction, but what about the prostitute's attainability? A prostitute is a sure thing, where as dates, wives, and girlfriends are not. Don't you think that is part of the attraction? What about the simplicity of the transaction, money for sex, versus the complexities of attaining and maintaining a relationship? I think this is a big part of the appeal of prostitutes."

By “attainability” I mean – a wife “belongs” to her husband. A prostitute doesn’t belong to a man, but men. I refuse to waste time with the conventional attitude: prostitution is a business transaction, money for sex. Prostitutes they mean much more than that, both psychologically and physiologically. Judging from your statements, it’s obvious you don’t have healthy understanding of eroticism.

"Gee, my husband and I speak like that all the time. The notion that a man can't ask his wife for what he wants is sad. I think a lot of men do feel like this but I think a huge number feel very different. I am confident that the willingness of men to ask for what they want and the willingness of their wives to give them what they want."

Whether a man can or can’t ask his wife what he wants isn’t my argument. My argument is that there will always be a thrill element in not telling the wife. Your personal experience – well, well, a pretentious use of small statistical data as a representation of the whole population doesn’t convince me. Adultery is immoral, yes, if you prefer religious terms, but also it’s exciting. Need I generate support to this claim? I think everyone knows it’s exciting, especially when it’s kept at seal.

"If this is how you imagine marriage, you will never have a successful one. We are women not goddesses, not possessions and certainly not sacred beings. Neither are we put off by the notion of fun sex. This does not change with marital status. Yes, a prostitute will not be likely to get pissed at you for fucking another woman, but that speaks to the simplicity of a business transaction versus the complexities of interpersonal relations. It seems to me that if you had a more realistic perspective on women entirely that prostitutes would lose some of their unearthly divinity and wives would gain some sexiness and creativity."

As for a successful marriage, I suspect your viewpoint has some religious bias. Honesty, faithfulness, trust, open-mindedness and communication. Blah, blah. Today, 75% of marriages fail. These axioms generally do not address the internal dynamics of real relationships.

I’ve been with my girlfriend for 6 years (no infidelities). 5 years with my ex-girlfriend (infidelities). Though I don’t profess to be an expert on human relationship, I do know how to be a good husband. I will never have a successful marriage? Come on.

I find your captious statements somewhat illustrative of emotional insecurity. Do you feel threatened by prostitutes? Does your husband show any interest in them? I’m not interested in the comparison of sex as fun and sex as interpersonal relation. I recognize the distinction between these two; I do appreciate both of them. What I’m trying to say is if you detach yourself from the religious blindness, you’ll burnish prostitution in a more truthful light.

I don’t think you’re representive of womankind. I know countless women who appreciate being called “goddess,” I know those who appreciate the notion of possession (no doubt associated with a sense of faithfulness and loyalty), and I don’t need to refer you to countless examples that there are women who think they’re sacred beings.

I challenge everyone on this board. Can you disagree with prostitution without any religious or emotional bias? I know the answer.

Glory

That the madonna/whore complex is a false dichotomy that does a disservice to us all.



Is that an example of how healthy your understanding of eroticism is?

Newsflash for you pal! Marraige is not ownership and I expect that most prostitutes do not consider themselves as belonging to men.




You, like so many others, assume that anyone who differs from you does not have a healthy understanding of what you are pontificating on. What is obvious from your statements is that you either haven't read or haven't understood this thread. My attitude towards prostitution is far from conventional.





Care to explain this in relation to your denial of making this argument?



When did I say that adultery is immoral? When did I deny that secrecy and danger can be erotic? I simply suggested that this is not prostitution's only or even main attraction.



You suspect wrongly. I am not religious at all. Care to try another assumption or would you like to get some facts about me.

Currently, the rate of divorce in the US is closer to fifty percent. As for those axioms, those of us in real relationships are the ones touting them.




Since when does a relationship's length define it as healthy or unhealthy, successful or unsuccessful? I will grant you that not everyone uses the same criteria to determine the success or failure of a relationship. As far as I am concerned you stopped talking about marraige and went to a whole other place once you mentioned a woman belonging to a man.



No.



You will have to ask him.



Congratulations! I have never seen anyone get so much wrong about a person in so little time. You know only what you manufacture in your little head. If you wish to continue this discussion, read what I have written, ask me questions instead of making assumptions and stop being insulting,obnoxious and arrogant. I have no desire to waste time on someone who cannot even bother to find out a person's beliefs before attacking them.



I don't think any one person is representative of womankind. That is the point you have manged to avoid and ignore for some time now. You made nothing but very gross generalisations about women. We are not all the same and a very good number of us find men like you disgusting. Not because you like prostitutes but because you think of women as possessions.

Whoopdedoo! That's a gutsy stance in thread in which several people including me have already come out in favour of prostitution. Try reading before posting. It helps one to avoid looking really stupid.

Glory

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

ELECTROGOD

Glory wrote:
You might find yourself debating that view with many people around the world as well as religions and lawyers...not to mention most of human history. An equal marriage and one for "love" is a much newer trend. It's good that yours is.

I hear that a lot from all areas of society as being a determining factor. Especially from married folks. 100% for sure by the religious (even those who won't send you to hell for a divorce).
Think about how people, maybe including yourself, think about guys or gals who's lives are a string of short dating-type relationships. What do we say about them? Does anyone say anything good about people who run their relationship life that way?
We treat those 50year wedding anniversary couples like kings and queens regardless of whether or not they had a "happy" marriage (my grandparents come to mind).

Glory

Oh don't I know it. Just as most people do, I tend to assume it is known that I am talking about my own culture. On the other hand, I am very tired of women being subjugated by their husbands while the rest of the world looks on and says, "that's their culture." Saudi comes to mind. Half of the population is terrorised by the other half and the US governement says, "More power to you just keep being nice to us." It is wearing really thin.



Yes, I shudder to think what would have happened if my grandmother had not had the strength to go against her church, her society, and her family by divorcing her first husband. People have the nerve to call it a "failed marraige" as if it was somehow her fault that her husband was an abusive, alcoholic, cheating bastard.

I also am weary of theists citing a low divorce rate as proof that their way is better. How many of those people are afraid to divorce? How many of those people are unable to divorce, no matter how desperately they may want to?

Glory

Jagged

I also think that longevity is a very poor indicator for marital happiness/health. There are many reasons people will stay in *abusive* relationships: religion, low self-esteem, depression, fear. In my (religious) town that kind of thing was rampant--while the divorce rate practically nil.

Jagged

Okay but how much of this was really about "skill" and how much was about their willingness to blow you and pleasure you without any expectation of you returning the favors?

Glory

Sounds like we could mount a strong agrument that a low divorce rate indicates a repressive and oppresive society.

Glory

Amen-Moses

Skill and what makes you think it was one sided?

Amen-Moses

Gallimore

“That the Madonna/whore complex is a false dichotomy that does a disservice to us all.”

Ugh?

“Is that an example of how healthy your understanding of eroticism is?
Newsflash for you pal! Marriage is not ownership and I expect that most prostitutes do not consider themselves as belonging to men.”

“Belong” is probably an incorrect word to use when we talk about human relationships. However, that’s how people think. Very probably because it’s synonymous to “marriage,” “loyalty,” etc. The wife refuses to let her husband sleep with a prostitute. What then? Does she think that he “belongs” to her? Try and give me a better word.


“You, like so many others, assume that anyone who differs from you does not have a healthy understanding of what you are pontificating on. What is obvious from your statements is that you either haven't read or haven't understood this thread. My attitude towards prostitution is far from conventional.”

As for reading your posts – I’ve read them. I’m not buying your alleged philosophical position. Your detraction has done nothing but subvert the notion of prostitution. I don’t think prostitutes are “skanks.”

“Care to explain this in relation to your denial of making this argument?”

Improbable isn’t can’t.

“When did I say that adultery is immoral? When did I deny that secrecy and danger could be erotic? I simply suggested that this is not prostitution's only or even main attraction.”

The main attraction of prostitution isn’t my argument.

“You suspect wrongly. I am not religious at all. Care to try another assumption or would you like to get some facts about me.
Currently, the rate of divorce in the US is closer to fifty percent. As for those axioms, those of us in real relationships are the ones touting them. “

My source says it's 75%.

Your conventional statements about prostitution relates directly to the deep layer of religion embedded in America. Just because we aren’t religious, doesn’t mean we never exercise religious principle. For example, atheists use the word “moral” or “immoral,” without comprehension that these words are an example of religious indoctrination.

“Congratulations! I have never seen anyone get so much wrong about a person in so little time. You know only what you manufacture in your little head. If you wish to continue this discussion, read what I have written, ask me questions instead of making assumptions and stop being insulting, obnoxious and arrogant. I have no desire to waste time on someone who cannot even bother to find out a person's beliefs before attacking them.”

Please read your posts. It will be observed that you said I have no idea about marriage. You claimed that women aren’t “goddesses, sacred beings” as if you were speaking for them. You use derogatory words like “skanks.” Read above, Madam. You said I have a little head, didn’t you? What can I say?

“I don't think any one person is representative of womankind. That is the point you have managed to avoid and ignore for some time now. You made nothing but very gross generalizations about women. We are not all the same and a very good number of us find men like you disgusting. Not because you like prostitutes but because you think of women as possessions.”

Read your posts. Practice what you preach. Furthermore, I’ve used the 3rd POV in my analysis on women. It’s called observation, not opinion. What do I think of women? I don’t think they are possessions. But my opinion isn’t an issue at hand.

“Whoopdedoo! That's a gutsy stance in thread in which several people including me have already come out in favor of prostitution. Try reading before posting. It helps one to avoid looking really stupid.”

If I had the time I would show that the word “stupid” you used is exactly in line with your observation of prostitution. Inconsistent, perhaps. But I’m not what you so aptly call “insulting, obnoxious and arrogant.” Can you tell honestly me that your argument against prostitution (don’t say you didn’t) is devoid of bias?

Perhaps I should rephrase my question: if you were against prostitution, would you be able to argue without a religious or emotional bias?