For the ladies in the message below about prostitutes

[Luke Skywalker]

Ok, this is really getting retarded.

 

So, when writing a resume to a prospective employer, or having a job interview and discussing work experience, you can brag to your potential employer that you were a former escort. This will lead to two possible outcomes. Either the employer will throw your resume in the garbage and kick you out, or they will hire you and expect sexual favours.

 

Or, go to the bank and apply for a mortage for a home, and tell the bank you are an escort and that's how you intend to pay the mortgage. If it's a real legit career, then you should be able to declare it to the bank right? Please. Where does this OP get off saying that this is a career.

 

I bet this OP wont be able to go anywhere with her 'job experience' in any relevant field other than if she sleeped her way up the ladder - but then she's not going up the ladder as a women that guys would look up to, respect and take seriously in the business world, but as one guys would expect sexual favours from and thereforeeee not take seriously any further than how she has objectified herself.

 

I mean seriously - any legitimate job can be put on a resume, you can brag about it to your peers, your family, and of course, it is good for a woman to be taken seriously in this world and not be looked at as a recreational sex object or just a pretty face with not much to offer the world other than a good-time is a real accomplishment.

 

For ladies who want to make a difference in this world, pursue normal career paths and excell in a field and show your academical excellence and why you should be taken seriously and have real clout. Think of great business women out there, or women who are making a difference in this world rather than corrupting it - and find the right role models, of which the OP is clearly not one.

[Dako]

Luke,

I suspect the OP is a smart woman.

I'd enjoy meeting her.

[JadedStar]

Well even if everything you said is true, it is the OP's cross to bear, no one else's. Everyone has a different moral compass.

[metrogirl]

I'm wondering if this is yet another thread that the Moderators are going to pull the plug on.....

 

everyone seems so testy.

[annie24]

I think the OP said she has a more mainstream day job and this is more of a side job......

[Superfreak]

In defence of the OP, right. Let's take that argument of single people, what respectability is involved when you advertise that your body is for sale (even if it's in euphemistic jargon saying 'only conversations' or 'I'm an escort not a prostitute' which you can read through the lines of both)? Is that something that's tied to a reputation of a respectable lady? If your mom or sister did that, would you say your mom or sister is a mature and grown woman who has the right to choose who she wishes to conduct her life and just shrug your shoulders --- it's easy to say things like that when there is no connection personally.

 

Skywalker, who cares about the jobs respectability? You might not ever want to get a prostitute but doesn't the fact that in every single society in history theirs been women that have accepted money for sex mean anything? To me it means that prostitution, whether people like you like it or not, its here to stay. So the best thing to do is to go about making it as safe as possible for both parties. I'd go even further and say that theirs nothing morally wrong with two consenting adults exchanging money for sex (although like anything, their can be exceptions such as one party misleading their spouse as to what they're doing).

 

Would I mind if my mom or sister was in this line of work? Yes I would. And before anyone calls me a hypocrite I'll say that the reason I mind is that its dangerous work. It exposes you to STD's, and potentially violence from your clients since its part of the 'underground economy'. The reason I wouldn't want a family member to be a prostitute is the same reason I wouldn't want a family member serving in Iraq; it's dangerous work, much more dangerous then the majority of other jobs.

[Luke Skywalker]

I think the OP said she has a more mainstream day job and this is more of a side job......

 

It still doesn't change the fact that if you are applying for a mortgage, or applying for a normal job, that this job experience is useless. Real jobs can be put into resumes and brought up as an asset of work experience.

 

As someone else has also said, if she declares this type of job when she is applying as a lawyer, she may not get very far.

[Dako]

I think she has a handle on things and won't go hungry.

[Luke Skywalker]

Skywalker, who cares about the jobs respectability?

 

I dont know, I guess potential employers would be impressed with the credentials of an escort. I suppose ultimately the person doing something like this has to lose self-respect for lowering themselves to the lowest common deminator.

 

You might not ever want to get a prostitute but doesn't the fact that in every single society in history theirs been women that have accepted money for sex mean anything?

 

It doesn't mean anything to me. Just like people in every society in history has stolen money, does that means robbing a bank should be legalised too?

 

To me it means that prostitution, whether people like you like it or not, its here to stay. So the best thing to do is to go about making it as safe as possible for both parties. I'd go even further and say that theirs nothing morally wrong with two consenting adults exchanging money for sex (although like anything, their can be exceptions such as one party misleading their spouse as to what they're doing).

 

It's a victimless crime because there are two consenting adults. Other examples of victimless crimes is suicide, not wearing a seat-belt, selling drugs to an addict, are also examples of victimless crimes and vices that will not not go away - so should we make it safter?

 

Maybe have a center where for a price people who just want to commit suicide can just die quickly and painlessly. Or, legalising all forms of drugs, trafficking, since, hey, it's victimless as well. I guess there is no line where such a slippery slope argument can be drawn. Just because something is a victimless crime doesn't mean it is right. Furthermore, just because crime exists now, and has existed in history, does change the fact that it's criminal behaviour.

 

Would I mind if my mom or sister was in this line of work? Yes I would.

 

Yeah, of course, the idea know any family member involved in this?. I mean, your mom involved in that?? How would you be able to handle that?

 

And before anyone calls me a hypocrite I'll say that the reason I mind is that its dangerous work. It exposes you to STD's, and potentially violence from your clients since its part of the 'underground economy'. The reason I wouldn't want a family member to be a prostitute is the same reason I wouldn't want a family member serving in Iraq; it's dangerous work, much more dangerous then the majority of other jobs.

 

yeah- it's called an occupational hazard that goes with that career - you are dealing with strangers and the public - and just because you have money to spend doesn't mean you may not be a potential sociopath. After all, the people in the movie 'Hostel' had money to pay to torture people - so any person with money could have sadistical side, making such jobs dangerous.

[Luke Skywalker]

I think she has a handle on things and won't go hungry.

 

Are you going to give her your money too?

[annie24]

It still doesn't change the fact that if you are applying for a mortgage, or applying for a normal job, that this job experience is useless. Real jobs can be put into resumes and brought up as an asset of work experience.

 

As someone else has also said, if she declares this type of job when she is applying as a lawyer, she may not get very far.

 

it sounds to me like the kind of money she makes, she can pay for a house with cash. and she has her "normal" job to list on her applications.

[Luke Skywalker]

it sounds to me like the kind of money she makes, she can pay for a house with cash. and she has her "normal" job to list on her applications.

 

Hummm...that's not exactly the point I'm driving at. If something is right it doens't have to be hidden.

 

At the end of the day you still have to live with yourself and if you sell that, well, you cant buy it back.

[Cassie]

I'd like to hear from people whose mom's or sister's are prostitues and how they feel about that.

 

Hi Luke, I understand you feel very passionately about this. On one hand it's refreshing because if more men felt the way you did, the need for this type of 'work' would be eliminated. On the other hand, you can't force change onto someone who simply doesn't wish to.

 

But to answer your question, ironically enough, an Aunt whom I love very much was once involved with this type of thing. I am grateful she eventually climbed out of it. But I never once loved her less.

 

I do see the validity of your many points about resume, past experience and such, because they are indeed circumstances the OP may have to deal with eventually as a result of her present choices.

[Fisch]

The reason why I could see a man paying for it would be it would be attachment free. Let's face it ladies, if a nice guys asks us to go somewhere really nice and has us on his arm all night we are more than likely hooked. A lot of these guys probably do not want the attachment or the headache that us women cause.

You really think that this is a good enough excuse to PAY someone to pretend to romantically engage you... so they wont get attached? Sex I can understand. But we are making the argument here (and very dubiously so) that clients are not to expect sex upon hiring. Are these men so honorable that they dont want to take a girl on their arm until they are 100% sure that they want attachement. I can tell you from a man's point of view that I dont find this very realistic. I really have to doubt that these guys would rather pay these women to spend time with them then A. be able to find a woman to casually date for a while or B. sacrifice the possibility of attachement INSTEAD of having to pay someone to have a potentially (and most likely) artificial relationship.

[Fisch]

Clearly there is a lot of friction between people's different viewpoints in this thread, but people remember that we are here to listen to eachother and help eachother. While this post is simply discussion, I see that there are some disrespectul posts getting deleted. Just because we dont agree doesnt mean we cant respect eachother.

Frankly in the end I am curious as to why Working Girl really wanted to make this post. I know she wanted to just inform people, but maybe she wanted to see what people thought to. As much as I consider myself an open minded person, liberal, and understanding of other people's viewpoints. I think that what really cuts the issue for me is that I just think that most people would want to be able to make a living off of something besides an escort type job. I think that because it is a pretty common ethological occurrence that people do not like to be forced into behavoir. Most people dont like to have to be non-genuine. For example selling something: I am sure a salesman who reallly believes in his product will have a lot easier time then one who is feels he needs to lie to sell. This type of job just seems like it would sort of cheapen "social interaction" in this way, and I guess I think that is something many people find very sacred. But I guess that is not how everyone feels.

[Superfreak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

I dont know, I guess potential employers would be impressed with the credentials of an escort. I suppose ultimately the person doing something like this has to lose self-respect for lowering themselves to the lowest common deminator.

 

Why don't you stop worrying about this posters future. She originally posted this in the divorce section of the website as a way of educating people curious about sex-workers due to a thread dealing with it their. It was moved to "careers" for god knows what reason, but this woman isn't looking for career advice as I'm sure she would tell you.

 

 

 

It doesn't mean anything to me. Just like people in every society in history has stolen money, does that means robbing a bank should be legalised too?

 

Robbing a bank creates an objective harm to society: People lose their savings and get nothing in return. Prostitution causes no objective harm whatsoever when its carried out under ideal circumstances. Both parties get what they want out of it and theirs no objective harm. Because prostitution doesn't cause any objective harm, society isn't harmed by legalizing it and indeed it BENEFITS from legalizing it seeing as its a new tax resource and it ensures that the job becomes less hazardous. Show me how their is any net-benefit to society for legalizing bank robbery? Here's a clue; their isn't.

 

 

 

 

It's a victimless crime because there are two consenting adults. Other examples of victimless crimes is suicide, not wearing a seat-belt, selling drugs to an addict, are also examples of victimless crimes and vices that will not not go away - so should we make it safter?

 

Nope, wrong on this again. Suicide does have victims as every single victim leaves some sort of family, friends etc. behind. Too bad according to you their suffering doesn't deserve respect. As does not wearing a seat belt (your friends and family when you crash and die, or even the taxpayer for having to pay your hospital bills), as does being a drug addict, (or pretty much an anything addict).

 

 

I'd address your examples in more detail but its clear that the point of this is just to distract from your weak position. Prostitution does No objective harm to society (i.e, when a lonely single man pays a woman for sex it harms no-one)

 

 

 

Maybe have a center where for a price people who just want to commit suicide can just die quickly and painlessly. Or, legalising all forms of drugs, trafficking, since, hey, it's victimless as well. I guess there is no line where such a slippery slope argument can be drawn. Just because something is a victimless crime doesn't mean it is right. Furthermore, just because crime exists now, and has existed in history, does change the fact that it's criminal behaviour.

 

 

You confusing the current law with morality. I'm not an anarchist and I do believe that the majority of laws we have are correct. But theirs definitely hold-overs in the law that are either no longer applicable or should be repealed to reflect changes in society or realize that making it illegal doesn't work.

 

I do support Euthanasia (or centres where people who are in a lot of pain or facing certain death can go and die painlessly) although of course I'd want some sort of mandatory counselling before someone made that decision and a family member to sign off on it.

 

As for drugs, many of these too should be legalized and heavily regulated. All the War on Drugs has done has locked up hundreds of thousands of Americans and then force them to turn to more, larger crimes once they get out after having spent all that time in jail learning to be a better criminal from their cell-mates. If drugs were regulated, it would take profits out of the hands of illegal drug dealers, put it in to government, and regulations would give the government more control over who can have it and it could hopefully set up more detox programs with the windfall of cash it would receive from legalizing and taxing drugs. That being said I want to keep this thread on topic so if anyone wanted to debate legalizing drugs with me I'd rather it be done in another thread.

 

Laws should be constructed so that they provide a good net-benefit to society and current laws on prostitution significantly harm society and just force prostitution to become more dangerous as it gets pushed underground.

 

You used an interesting word by the way "slipper slope". And that's exactly the problem with your argument; it's a slippery slope. Just because prostitution is legalized it doesn't mean everything that was once illegal now must be legalized, any more then repealing prohibition laws meant that every other vice that was illegal at the time must now be made legal.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, of course, the idea know any family member involved in this?. I mean, your mom involved in that?? How would you be able to handle that

 

 

yeah- it's called an occupational hazard that goes with that career - you are dealing with strangers and the public - and just because you have money to spend doesn't mean you may not be a potential sociopath. After all, the people in the movie 'Hostel' had money to pay to torture people - so any person with money could have sadistical side, making such jobs dangerous.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you taking ques on reality from that dumb teen horror movie or did I misread you lol?

[kmartin85]

Not really. Casual girls dont like being attached to guys either. If you hook-up with a girl that has a reputation of sleeping with everyone and anyone, then you can expect that such would be attachment free.

 

Not really, the reason why most of those girls are like is because of self esteem issues, but the OP is doing it as a profession. I see nothing wrong with it. Men and women tip dancers at strip clubs and buy table dances and I find that a lot more degrading than what the OP is doing. Props to ya girl!

[Luke Skywalker]

Not really, the reason why most of those girls are like is because of self esteem issues, but the OP is doing it as a profession. I see nothing wrong with it. Men and women tip dancers at strip clubs and buy table dances and I find that a lot more degrading than what the OP is doing. Props to ya girl!

 

And exactly what point are you trying to make?

 

A statement was made that people pay for stuff so they can get rid of them afterwards, and I just disproved it by saying some girls like casual hook-ups and dont get attached at all. You replied saying this which has nothing to do with what I said.

[annie24]

And exactly what point are you trying to make?

 

A statement was made that people pay for stuff so they can get rid of them afterwards, and I just disproved it by saying some girls like casual hook-ups and dont get attached at all. You replied saying this which has nothing to do with what I said.

 

yeah, it seems more cost effective to meet someone who is into casual meetings. however, you never know what you are going to get! some girls go on one date or have one drunken hookup and expect him to be her future husband. I guess with an escort, you know what you are going to get.

[Dako]

If it's stricly business, a guy can feel safe, and it eliminates the whole dating charade. Some fellows have the money to do this.

[JadedStar]

I think that it is crazy to get this upset over someone else's decisions. I may not think being an escort is all that cool but hey, she is an adult and it is her life not ours. And to the person who keeps asking "what if it were your sister or mother" .. I am the same way in that case. I am not their keeper. If that is really what they wanted to do it is none of my business. It is bad business to judge and get wrapped up in the affairs of others even if family.

 

I would be way more upset if my mother or sister were a drug addict vs an escort. I may not be thrilled by this choice but it is theirs not mine and it is not illegal.

[annie24]

this all reminds me of the joke, it's attributed to Winston Churchill:

 

Winston Churchill approaches an attractive young woman and asks her, "would you have sexual relations with me for 100,000 pounds?" she says, "of course!" he says, "what about for 10,000 pounds?" she says, "yes." Then he says, "What about for 10 pounds?" She says, "Mr. Churchhill, what do you think I am!?!?" He says, "We have already established that, now we are just negotiating a price."

I hate to say it, but for $100,000 (maybe less...), I might consider it too.... however, I doubt anyone will approach me with that kind of a proposition (a la Robert Redford in "indecent proposal") so I guess I won't have to worry about it.

[JadedStar]

this all reminds me of the joke, it's attributed to Winston Churchill:

 

 

I hate to say it, but for $100,000 (maybe less...), I might consider it too.... however, I doubt anyone will approach me with that kind of a proposition (a la Robert Redford in "indecent proposal") so I guess I won't have to worry about it.

 

 

Annie we never know do we? LOL

 

If i could get paid that well for jsut a date...well....???

 

LOL

[annie24]

i guess we are all escorts here, just no one has offered us the right price.

[JadedStar]

Everytime I have ever seen a young gorgeous woman with an old rich man the word escort pops into mind because isn't it the same premise? She is only seeing one client for awhile vs many.