scammed in Cambodia by a hooker

The most expensive way to pay for poor quality sex is to get married

Agudbuk



I've never paid for sex either, but IMHO prostitution is just another
service like many (of course only if the person providing the service
freely chooses to do so and is old enough). There is nothing "immoral"
in paying for sex.
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

You just lost all of your credibility.

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Bryan says...

All I have to say is, that's what you get when you pay for sex.

I'm not a religious person - but I do have moral standards, and paying
for
sex is immoral.

The "victimless crime" is never victimless, and is a crime (whether it's
illegal there or not)...

I've never paid for sex either, but IMHO prostitution is just another
service like many (of course only if the person providing the service
freely chooses to do so and is old enough). There is nothing "immoral"
in paying for sex.
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

In article , Heathcote says...
You just lost all of your credibility.

Why are you so upset?
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

Heathcote, writing in a hallucinatory state following a dinner of improperly
prepared neurotoxinal fugu fish sushi wrote :

"You just lost all of your credibility."

I have never heard of a hooker demanding or accepting credibility as
payment, even in Cambodia.

~o:37;

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 1, 11:46 am, "Bryan" wrote:


All I have to say is, that's what you get when you pay for sex.

I'm not a religious person - but I do have moral standards, and paying
for
sex is immoral.

The "victimless crime" is never victimless, and is a crime (whether it's
illegal there or not)...

Bryan

No that is not what you get when you pay for sex.

You could say the same thing about government corruption which is also
theft.

Was the corruption willingly paid for? Your logic is flawed


You could say the same thing about people selling you shoddy goods on
ebay or from a walk-in store.

Again, different story... If you equate a faulty iPod cover (or any of a
million products) to a human life, you're the part of the equation that's
flawed, not the product.


You could say anytime you get ripped off, it's because your activity
was immoral.

I'm give $100 bucks to a supposed college student on the streets of Phnom
Penh - and he's not really a student, he's just taken me for my money...
Immoral? Not on my part. Again, your logic is flawed.


Exchanging money for sex is a free will arrangement between two
individuals. there is nothing wrong with it.

It is predatory (preying on girls who don't know any better) and dominating
(by imposing your will on another because of your superior financial
wealth).



It should not be illegal at all.

It's people like you who should be forced into prostitution for a month - to
see what it's really like.


Paying for sex is not immoral at all, and it hurts no one.

It hurts no one? You're out of your mind... Psychological damage.
Physical damage. Economic damage (why get a higher education when there's
easy money out there). Societal damage (tearing a family - traditional or
not - structure apart).


sarp

You say "sarp", I say "freak"...


Bryan

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Bryan says...

All I have to say is, that's what you get when you pay for sex.

I'm not a religious person - but I do have moral standards, and paying
for
sex is immoral.

The "victimless crime" is never victimless, and is a crime (whether it's
illegal there or not)...

I've never paid for sex either, but IMHO prostitution is just another
service like many (of course only if the person providing the service
freely chooses to do so and is old enough). There is nothing "immoral"
in paying for sex.

Read my reply to "sarp"...

In article , Bryan says...

Exchanging money for sex is a free will arrangement between two
individuals. there is nothing wrong with it.

It is predatory (preying on girls who don't know any better) and dominating
(by imposing your will on another because of your superior financial
wealth).

There is nothing wrong if a woman *freely* chooses to offer sex for
money.

snip

Paying for sex is not immoral at all, and it hurts no one.

It hurts no one? You're out of your mind... Psychological damage.
Physical damage. Economic damage (why get a higher education when there's
easy money out there). Societal damage (tearing a family - traditional or
not - structure apart).

You are assuming that women who are in the trade will get physically or
psychologically damaged. This can happen, but does not have to.

Regarding education, a girl might finance her studies with prostitution
(and she might not be able to study otherwise).

It all depends on the specific circumstances. There are situations where
prostitution is just fine, for all involved, others when this is not the
case. You can't make a blanket statement.
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

On Feb 5, 8:35 am, "Bryan" wrote:


It is predatory (preying on girls who don't know any better) and dominating
(by imposing your will on another because of your superior financial
wealth).


how do you know they "don't know any better"?

"Bryan" wrote...
"Alfred Molon" wrote ...
, Bryan says...
All I have to say is, that's what you get when you pay for sex.
I'm not a religious person - but I do have moral standards, and paying
for sex is immoral.
The "victimless crime" is never victimless, and is a crime (whether
it's
illegal there or not)...

I've never paid for sex either, but IMHO prostitution is just another
service like many (of course only if the person providing the service freely
chooses to do so and is old enough).

NOTE the stipulation, Bryan: only if the person providing the service freely
chooses to do so and is old enough.
Do women ('old enough') have the rights of their OWN bodies?

There is nothing "immoral" in paying for sex.

Read my reply to "sarp"...

Was that something fundamentally different than what you wrote above?
1. "that's what you get ((i.e., robbed)) when you pay for sex."
Either you claim that the act of paying for sex is inherently a robbery of
the client (this seems unlikely--but please do tell) OR that getting robbed
is an inherent consequence of contracting for sex.
How might THAT be?

2. "I do have moral standards, and paying for sex is immoral"
That's your opinion: for one person to contract with another, for the one to
do something with their body that benefits the other, in exchange for
payment (the quid pro quo), is not to YOUR liking--AND you call this
'immoral.'
SURELY there needs to be some rationale for this opinion ('immoral' acts
must have some harmful component(s), no?), but you don't provide that, or do
you?

Is the rationale to be found in:
3. "The "victimless crime" is never victimless, and is a crime (whether it's
illegal there or not)..." ??

You say there's a victimization.
So, either a woman (or man) is victimized if she (or he) sells her body for
sex (as contrasted with, say, doing the washing up or running the office?),
OR, the client is victimized by paying money to enjoy what he (or she) would
not otherwise enjoy of the other--or BOTH?
Now how might THAT be?

Oh, and whether or not there's a prosecutable crime on the books wherever
the prostitution occurs, there is nevertheless a crime taking place, you
say?
OTHER than your oh-so-declarative opinion, WHERE is the 'crime'?
Is a crime to pay for something that one wishes to buy that is freely
offered for sale, or is it 'inherently' a crime for women to contract out
their OWN bodies for sex?

While it's apparent you figure your opinion to be significant enough to
declare what the contractors and contractees of sexual services 'should' do,
and are in fact engaged in perpetrating (i.e., victimization, criminality,
immorality), in FACT the only things we know with some certainty about a
transaction of prostitution is that one person is selling and one person is
buying, and both are engaged in some contact of their bodies intended to
pleasure the one, and earn payment for the other.

OTHER than THAT free market transaction, ALL the rest needs some explaining,
else it has no more weight than to declare that it is 'wrong' to do labor on
the ceremonial day of the week, or 'wrong' not to wear a certain hat on
one's head--just arbitrary dogma.

YOU say there are victims INHERENT to the act of contracting for sex, yet
make no showing.
Very well.
Is it 'okay' in your moral world if a woman freely gives her body to another
person?
If so, then for her to receive payment-- is THAT 'immoral' ?

-maxwell