What will the Swiss think of next!!

[eddie]

Doesn't look like their ideas on how to deal with Prostitutes and their customers is working out real well,lol

http://news.msn.com/world/first-drive-in-sex-boxes-not-yet-a-swiss-hit

[Feuer Frei!]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/media/2013/08/20130826-141425-g.jpg


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02645/sex-boxes_2645711b.jpg

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69484000/jpg/_69484020_beforedrivingintooneofthe%27sexboxes%27. jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

Where is my passport?

[BossMark]

If there's a bar and a bookies then its my dream come true. Oh and I'll be there very shortly :D

[Ducimus]

Where is my passport?

:haha: Going to go meet ya a little Swiss Miss? :O:

[Herr-Berbunch]

:haha: Going to go meet ya a little Swiss Miss? :O:

Nah, too far, I can just get the ferry across to the Netherlands where (apparently) they have similar boxes. :woot:

Or I could just stay and home with the wife and give her all my money, just like now.

[Wolferz]

Poker Park?

I like the rides.:D

[Jimbuna]

ZURICH — Greeted by a press pack rather than prostitutes, the first customer to roll up to Switzerland's sex drive-in on opening night took one lap of the facility before making a hasty exit.
The second car, a family vehicle driven by a man in sunglasses under cloudy evening skies, broke down and needed jump starting in front of a host of photographers, s******ing into their cameras.


Priceless!! :har:

[Wolferz]

New definition for Boxing Day?
Now it's every day of the year.:up:

I'm good with it as long as they supply ear plugs and clothes pins.

I can't concentrate with the smell of burning latex and the sound of a squealing wench.:hmmm:

[Spiced_Rum]

A new definition for Park and Ride. :arrgh!:

The tax revenue could help raise money for civic amenities as well; be a good citizen and support your local community project tonight. :D

[Madox58]

I'm good with it as long as they supply ear plugs and clothes pins.

I can't concentrate with the smell of burning latex and the sound of a squealing wench.:hmmm:

Time to put the boots on cause it's getting REAL deep now!
:har:

[Jimbuna]

Time to put the boots on cause it's getting REAL deep now!
:har:

OMG....the mental images :o

:)

[mapuc]

Well for me it's not a new thing

Here's why

in the beginning of the 90'ies I took a course on how to start my own company and how to run it.

As terminating exam you had to, on paper start a fictitious company and show that you knew how to run the economy in this company.

All the others had, in theory, started a pizza or a kiosk, etc.

I however went against the tide and had created a real drive-in whorehouse

Explained class and our teachers how how I thought that it should be built, etc.

The others were a little huff over my actions.

The teacher was a little upset with my classmates and told them that I was certainly good enough that I had come up with a Originel idea although it was a little less wise idea and that they had just copied every one else. He expected them to be more originel when thinking of starting a company.

Markus

[Tchocky]

You're a visionary markus :Kaleun_Applaud:

[Platapus]

Perhaps one of these days prostitution will be legal in the US. Keeping it a crime does not seem to help much. :nope:

What did the sign on the locked door of the brothel say?

Beat it, we're closed. :D

[WernherVonTrapp]

:hmmm: Well, at least making it illegal will let our children know it's not approved or appropriate behavior. Would anyone want their children aspiring to be prostitutes when they grow up?

[Tchocky]

Making it illegal makes things more dangerous for the men and women involved. Properly licensed and regulated is the way to do it in my opinion.

It's called the oldest profession for a reason. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away, only more dangerous.

If we were legalising professions based on what you want your children doing I'd outlaw chugging.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Making it illegal makes things more dangerous for the men and women involved. Properly licensed and regulated is the way to do it in my opinion.

It's called the oldest profession for a reason. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away, only more dangerous.

If we were legalising professions based on what you want your children doing I'd outlaw chugging.
How does illegality make it any more dangerous than it is? If they legalize and regulate it; you really believe no one will side-step the laws and/or stay hidden to avoid regulation and taxes?
Also, murder has been around since the dawn of time, but that's not a basis to call it "OK".
Finally; what the heck is "chugging"? All my dictionaries refer to noises or collecting for charity.:06:

[Tchocky]

With chugging I was being hyperbolic. Those charity workers that stop you in the street. I find it grating but acceptable.

Counter - People will always evade the law no matter what it is. In this case I believe keeping that number as low as possible is beneficial - especially where a majority of demand can be satisfied in a safe and fair-minded (regulated!) manner. One could make the same case for legalising low-severity drugs, thereby freeing up police time for more serious offences.

Apropos of none of that - making something illegal in order to discourage children is not the way to approach public policy.

[Platapus]

How does illegality make it any more dangerous than it is? If they legalize and regulate it; you really believe no one will side-step the laws and/or stay hidden to avoid regulation and taxes?


The price will drop, that's for sure. What is desired is that the customer will prefer using a "supplier" that is tested, regulated, and inspected over using one that ain't.

Legalizing prostitution won't eliminate the illegal prostitution industry, but it will cut it down significantly. If the unions get involved they will take care of the "independents".

The less talk about prostitute scabs the better. :haha:

Prostitution is the capitalist's dream

Ya have it
Ya sell it
Ya still have it to sell again... probably to the same person multiple times. :yeah:

[WernherVonTrapp]

... probably to the same person multiple times. :yeah:
Now that's scarier than recycled toilet paper.:o

[Sailor Steve]

:hmmm: Well, at least making it illegal will let our children know it's not approved or appropriate behavior.
Not approved by whom? Not appropriate how?

Would anyone want their children aspiring to be prostitutes when they grow up?
No, but then I wouldn't want my children aspiring to be politicians either. If they choose that route then I would certainly want them to know they were protected and regulated. :sunny:

[WernherVonTrapp]

Not approved by whom? Not appropriate how?


No, but then I wouldn't want my children aspiring to be politicians either. If they choose that route then I would certainly want them to know they were protected and regulated. :sunny:
I would let my children know that it is not approved by me, and that selling their body for personal gain is beneath their true capabilities and illegal. Yeah, I think that sums it up nicely. Why, you would approve of your children aspiring to be prostitutes when they grow up?:hmm2: We're not talking about politicians.


Apropos of none of that - making something illegal in order to discourage children is not the way to approach public policy.So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?
Sometimes laws are made for this very reason.

[Stealhead]

I am fairly sure that Tchocky comes from a nation where the drinking age is lower than 21.

The thing is humans desire sex and many are willing to pay for sex when they desire it.Simply because it is a sin under some religious beliefs does not really matter very much.Especially when you take into consideration that illegal prostitution has zero regulation and exploits many people,spreads disease and spreads drug abuse(because many illegal prostitutes are drug addicts).To aking it illeagl only serves to endanger many people needlessly.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind only to say what I think.

[Sailor Steve]

I would let my children know that it is not approved by me, and that selling their body for personal gain is beneath their true capabilities and illegal.
Teaching your children your own morals is laudable. Making laws according to your personal morals is not. Beneath their true capabilities? Excellent. Illegal? That's not a judgement call. Many things are illegal that should not be.

Why, you would approve of your children aspiring to be prostitutes when they grow up?:hmm2:
No, but if one of them did I would voice my disapproval once, and make sure she knew that I loved her and she was welcome in my home regardless. If she did make that choice I would be happier knowing that she was in a situation where she was reasonably safe and had access to medical benefits and protection, rather than being under the control of bad people. Better it's a profession than a slave-market.

We're not talking about politicians.
You are talking about what you approve of for your children. I see the one as no worse than the other.

So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?
Not directed at me, but my wife was drinking wine at 19 that I know of. That said, weren't you just chastising me for changing the subject? We weren't talking about underage drinking either.

Sometimes laws are made for this very reason.
And the legal drinking age varies from country to country. Sometimes laws are made for the wrong reason.

[mapuc]

Take a look at Sweden, In the 90'ies(can't remember exact year) they made it illegal to buy sex. It was not forbidden to sell. just buying

Had this step any consequences on the society?

Indeed it had. Rape and attempted rape, showed a strong increase in the statistics

These whore however found a way out of this.

They hired a little local room in a basement or what ever. On the sign it could say

"massage services" Every one knew what it was. If someone who didn't know he would be very much surprised after he have been there.

Markus

[Wolferz]

All of us are prostitutes. We sell ourselves to companies and corporations for a weekly paycheck. There's no difference other than the work activities performed. Every job carries inherent dangers with it and you must take care to remain safe in your duties.
Making anything and everything illegal only opens the door for black market scum to take it over and profit in a clandestine way. Negating the payment of lawful taxes to central authority and assisting in draining vital resources with no return on investment.
Legal, let's call them companions, would be beneficial to society in ways not considered by the upright prudes. It could very well eliminate rape and/or prevent divorce by offering an outlet for sexual tensions to those who would otherwise have none.
Even Jesus had a whore in his company. He may have even married the girl for all we know. Talk about handing out a shining example of forgiveness.:up:

[Betonov]

Imagine how many marriages could be saved by both spouses making a visit to the local hooker/jigolo together. Get all that tension out out of the marriage.

[Herr-Berbunch]

And the legal drinking age varies from country to country. Sometimes laws are made for the wrong reason.

I think a little drink here and there in your teens isn't too much to ask, I'd rather give a 16 year old a pint of beer or two than the keys to a V8 pick up.

[mapuc]

If an adult woman choose to earn money by selling sex to adult males then I'm OK with that

It's not OK when some African or some Philippines or other woman from a third country are lured to USA, Europe or some other country in the west and being forced to prostitution

Markus

[WernherVonTrapp]

Teaching your children your own morals is laudable. Making laws according to your personal morals is not. Beneath their true capabilities? Excellent. Illegal? That's not a judgement call. Many things are illegal that should not be.



Aren't laws made according to someone's morals?

The thread (OP) is about prostitution, not politicians. I directed my responses accordingly.

A moral is a "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong".

These are not my personal morals, but rather, I believe, reasonable assumptions. I don't know of any parent who would want their child to aspire to become a prostitute, hence my question. Does that mean they're not out there? I'm not impying that, only that I don't know of any. I think it's reasonable to think that parents have their childrens' best interest in mind and I also believe that this includes not wanting their children to grow up and become prostitutes.

The issue regarding "drinking age" should have been clearly seen as strictly addressing "making something illegal in order to discourage children" to which I even included Tchocky's specific comment.
What's up wit dat?:o

[mapuc]

That was kind of new to me. Have always learned that the laws in USA was build on the bible. Not literally of course

The bible is for many a book of morale in how to live your life etc

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Aren't laws made according to someone's morals?
Only to a point. Most laws are based on the concept of protecting ourselves from each other. We make a law against murder not on the general assumption that it's wrong, but to try to protect our own lives. Laws against theft are based on the concept of protecting our own property. Laws against prostitution are based on the idea that someone thinks it's wrong, or "immoral". That is a bad reason to create laws.

The thread (OP) is about prostitution, not politicians. I directed my responses accordingly.
You asked me if I wanted my children to be prostitutes. I replied with a specific case, but my point (which you apparently missed entirely) was that there are a lot of things I wouldn't want my children to be, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make laws against them.

A moral is a "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong".
Exactly. It's something you try to teach your children. It's proper behavior. It's respect for the other person. It's how you try to live your life. It's not something you dictate that others must do through law.

These are not my personal morals, but rather, I believe, reasonable assumptions.
Good, but again, reasonable assumptions are not the basis of lawmaking.

I don't know of any parent who would want their child to aspire to become a prostitute, hence my question.
I've already agreed with that. A part of my reaction, though, is that you said making it illegal would let your children know that you thought it was wrong. That's a bad reason to make laws.

Does that mean they're not out there? I'm not impying that, only that I don't know of any. I think it's reasonable to think that parents have their childrens' best interest in mind and I also believe that this includes not wanting their children to grow up and become prostitutes.
You keep coming back to that. I think we're agreed on that point. That is still not a reason to make something illegal.

The issue regarding "drinking age" should have been clearly seen as strictly addressing "making something illegal in order to discourage children" to which I even included Tchocky's specific comment.
What's up wit dat?:o
You asked a question in a public forum. That means anyone is free to answer it. You asked specifically "So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?", which attempts to put him on a moral hot seat, because if he says "yes" then he's agreeing with you after he said he disagreed, and if he says "no" then he's admitting to a moral basis that's inferior to yours. it was a loaded question from the start.

So do you believe that 21 should be the legal drinking age, because anything younger is "encouraging children"? Are countries (or states) with lower legal drinking ages morally inferior? I understand the point of "discouraging children", but you named a specific age and I question the point of that.

To your actual point: Do we set a legal minimum drinking age because we believe it's morally wrong for children to drink, or because there are serious physical dangers to still-developing bodies and brains that need to be avoided if possible?

Oh, you also didn't answer my question. In the very same post you told me we weren't talking about politicians you brought up this whole drinking thing out of the blue. Why keep telling me that I've changed the subject and then do it yourself in the very same breath?

[Platapus]

Everyone pays for sex in one way or another. :yep: :D

But when it involves legal tender, all of a sudden it's a problem?

Just look at jewelry ads :D

I always think to myself, what they are really saying, in these ads, is

Give her a diamond
For she would be upset if you just gave her cash
and called her a whore. :haha:

[Wolferz]

I want a companion...
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/morena-baccarinhot.jpg

:yeah::yeah::yeah:

[WernherVonTrapp]

Only to a point. Most laws are based on the concept of protecting ourselves from each other. We make a law against murder not on the general assumption that it's wrong, but to try to protect our own lives. Laws against theft are based on the concept of protecting our own property. Laws against prostitution are based on the idea that someone thinks it's wrong, or "immoral". That is a bad reason to create laws.
Ohhh, I see. Murder and theft aren't wrong, they're just illegal.
Prostitution stands alone in that the laws against it are based solely on someone's perspective of right .vs wrong. The laws against it are not enacted to protect anyone from being viewed as a slave, object or other commodity instead of a human being. They're not enacted because a female (or male) might be underaged or get beaten, harmed by her supervisor if he/she doesn't perform to any standard. They're not enacted to protect prostitutes/johns from theft, being drugged, getting involved with illegal drugs or contracting HIV, AIDS or any other STD. Regulation of the "profession" would certainly eliminate these concerns, well, at least to an "acceptable" degree. If one or two fall through the cracks, no biggie?:hmm2:


You asked me if I wanted my children to be prostitutes. I replied with a specific case, but my point (which you apparently missed entirely) was that there are a lot of things I wouldn't want my children to be, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make laws against them.
No, I don't think I missed your point. I just think I didn't see any comparative relevance between a child that says:
"When I grow up, I want to be the president of the United States."
AND
"When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute."



Exactly. It's something you try to teach your children. It's proper behavior. It's respect for the other person. It's how you try to live your life. It's not something you dictate that others must do through law.

I agree to a point. Laws do exactly that. They dictate to others what they can and cannot do, and in this capacity they can aid in serving as a catalyst to the "proper behavior" you mention.


Good, but again, reasonable assumptions are not the basis of lawmaking.

I never said laws should be enacted via reasonable assumptions. It should've been clear that I was referring strictly to the parent-child relationship regarding a child's aspirations.


I've already agreed with that. A part of my reaction, though, is that you said making it illegal would let your children know that you thought it was wrong. That's a bad reason to make laws.

I also said that I would tell my child that I did not approve and that it would be beneath their true capabilities to sell their body for personal gain. The law (as I stated above) can be an aid in pointing a child in the right direction.


You keep coming back to that. I think we're agreed on that point. That is still not a reason to make something illegal.

I reiterate, I never said that this was/is the reason to make something illegal. It should've been clear that I was speaking about the parent/child relationship regarding a child's aspirations. Nevertheless, it remains a reasonable assumption in the context in which I intended it.


You asked a question in a public forum. That means anyone is free to answer it. You asked specifically "So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?", which attempts to put him on a moral hot seat, because if he says "yes" then he's agreeing with you after he said he disagreed, and if he says "no" then he's admitting to a moral basis that's inferior to yours. it was a loaded question from the start.

There you go again, bringing the word "moral" into the fray. You're the one that first injected this word into our discussion. Do you have a predisposition about me? I was clearly illustrating that laws can help aid in keeping children from becoming involved with dangerous activities. I wasn't attempting to put anyone on a perceived "moral hot-seat". Maybe I should've used laws preventing children from buying cigarettes as an example. Would that have been more politically correct?


So do you believe that 21 should be the legal drinking age, because anything younger is "encouraging children"? Are countries (or states) with lower legal drinking ages morally inferior? I understand the point of "discouraging children", but you named a specific age and I question the point of that.

Lets face it, I don't know of anyone who is a child at 20 years old. Did you really miss my meaning? I don't believe you did; you even said "I understand the point of discouraging children." It was an example of laws helping to curb dangerous or unhealthy activities and behavior.


To your actual point: Do we set a legal minimum drinking age because we believe it's morally wrong for children to drink, or because there are serious physical dangers to still-developing bodies and brains that need to be avoided if possible?

There you go again with the "M" word. Why do you keep injecting that? You do have a predisposition about me, don't you? The only time I mentioned it was to show the dictionary's definition, after you threw it into the works.


Oh, you also didn't answer my question. In the very same post you told me we weren't talking about politicians you brought up this whole drinking thing out of the blue. Why keep telling me that I've changed the subject and then do it yourself in the very same breath?
I think my explanation lies in my second entry in this post. Unless, of course, the president is excluded from politics now.

[Wolferz]

Laws aren't created to prevent anything. They are created as a means to punish those who commit an act that is regulated by codes and statutes or a moral high ground. In other words, to judge wrongdoers. I'd have to say that laws prohibiting prostitution were created with influence from a biblical source. We all know the consequences of the profession and the damage that can be done to you via STDs. This is where the major mistake comes to light and opens the door for the black market scum to profit from it. Nothing is taboo in the black market.

[Sailor Steve]

Ohhh, I see. Murder and theft aren't wrong, they're just illegal.
No, they're wrong. But they're not illegal because they're wrong, they're illegal because they take things from me. We make them illegal because they affect us directly, not because of someones moral judgement. Prostitution takes nothing from either party. It's a simple business contract.

Prostitution stands alone in that the laws against it are based solely on someone's perspective of right .vs wrong.
Exactly, though you're trying to show the opposite. Sarcasm is rarely the best way to make an argument.

The laws against it are not enacted to protect anyone from being viewed as a slave, object or other commodity instead of a human being.
No. The whole current "pimp" system works precisely because prostitution is illegal. If it were legalized and regulated most of that would disappear. Sorry to change the subject again, but prostitution does not stand alone in this. The illegal drug situation is much the same.

They're not enacted because a female (or male) might be underaged or get beaten, harmed by her supervisor if he/she doesn't perform to any standard. They're not enacted to protect prostitutes/johns from theft, being drugged, getting involved with illegal drugs or contracting HIV, AIDS or any other STD. Regulation of the "profession" would certainly eliminate these concerns, well, at least to an "acceptable" degree. If one or two fall through the cracks, no biggie?:hmm2:
No, that is not the reason laws against prostitution are enacted. Again, the prostitute faces your "supervisor" problems because when something like this is illegal it is controlled by the best criminals. If it were legal it would be possible to regulate the trade and protect the workers. Currently a prostitute can't take her concerns to any authority, because the authority sees her as a criminal and will just lock her up.

No, prostitution is not illegal because of drugs or STDs. It has been illegal for a very long time because a certain segment of society is offended by it. "Fall through the cracks"? That can be redressed through legal means, but only if the trade itself is legal. Currently the whole legal attitude is to sweep them all through the cracks. After all, they're only whores, right?

No, I don't think I missed your point. I just think I didn't see any comparative relevance between a child that says:
"When I grow up, I want to be the president of the United States."
AND
"When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute."
As I said (and you continue to ignore), I agree with you. "You shouldn't, because it's demeaning and it's wrong" is a valid answer. Of course that kind of answer can make the child want to do it, or at least find out more about it, and much discussion is required. However, "You shouldn't, because it's illegal" puts the cart before the horse. You made it illegal because "You shouldn't" in the first place. You didn't make it illegal because it can harm you or yours, you made it illegal because it offends your sense of what's right and wrong. That's why people like to say "You can't legislate morality."

I agree to a point. Laws do exactly that. They dictate to others what they can and cannot do, and in this capacity they can aid in serving as a catalyst to the "proper behavior" you mention.
Again you missed my point. Laws are not made to promote proper behavior. Laws are made to protect us from each other. You want to legislate your personal morals, and then say it's wrong because it's illegal.

I never said laws should be enacted via reasonable assumptions. It should've been clear that I was referring strictly to the parent-child relationship regarding a child's aspirations.
That's not a reason for trying to justify its illegality, which you did.

I also said that I would tell my child that I did not approve and that it would be beneath their true capabilities to sell their body for personal gain. The law (as I stated above) can be an aid in pointing a child in the right direction.
So you do believe that you personal moral opinion is a good reason for making law.

I reiterate, I never said that this was/is the reason to make something illegal. It should've been clear that I was speaking about the parent/child relationship regarding a child's aspirations. Nevertheless, it remains a reasonable assumption in the context in which I intended it.
But you just said it again in your previous sentence.

There you go again, bringing the word "moral" into the fray. You're the one that first injected this word into our discussion.
Okay, you want to make laws according to your personal value judgement, then; according to your personal opinion of what's right and wrong. How is that different?

Do you have a predisposition about me?
No, I'm only taking exception to your insistence that a law is good because it agrees with your personal values.

I was clearly illustrating that laws can help aid in keeping children from becoming involved with dangerous activities. I wasn't attempting to put anyone on a perceived "moral hot-seat".
You claimed that laws can aid in keeping children from becoming involved in dangerous activities. I don't believe you've actually illustrated anything. Can you show how those laws actually work? Child prostitution laws are aimed at protecting children from being kidnapped and forced into something they likely would never have chosen for themselves. Adult prostitution laws are aimed at forcing people into someone else's personal mold.

Maybe I should've used laws preventing children from buying cigarettes as an example. Would that have been more politically correct?
And I would have pointed out, as I did when you brought up underage drinking, that the cigarette laws are there because smoking is directly dangerous to one's health, but even more so to an undeveloped body. But, according to your own claim against me, we weren't talking about smoking. That's the third time you've done exactly what you accused me of doing earlier.

And "politically correct"? While it's true that there are many attempts today to force us to use what someone else thinks is "proper" terminology, can you show a justification for using that term on me? What have I said that could possibly lead to that? Actually it seems that you're the one intent on regulating our lives based on your sense of right and wrong. Which, buy the way, is the very definition of "morals". Maybe we should use the term "morally correct".

Lets face it, I don't know of anyone who is a child at 20 years old. Did you really miss my meaning? I don't believe you did; you even said "I understand the point of discouraging children." It was an example of laws helping to curb dangerous or unhealthy activities and behavior.
Discouraging children, yes. That is a parent's responsibility. But laws controlling adults have nothing to do with discouraging children. You also need to show how prostitution is "unhealthy activities and behavior". Unhealthy? Possibly, but so is smoking and drinking. Why aren't you advocating laws banning both of those? They are far more unhealthy than getting laid. Unhealthy behavior? Laws controlling behavior are indeed laws based on moral judgement.

Also, how well have laws against underage smoking and drinking actually worked? How many here went out and snuck a smoke at age ten? I didn't, but among my circle were quite a few who did. No, I'm not advocating getting rid of underage laws, but by your reasoning perhaps we should be making adult smoking and drinking illegal.

There you go again with the "M" word. Why do you keep injecting that? You do have a predisposition about me, don't you? The only time I mentioned it was to show the dictionary's definition, after you threw it into the works.
Do you equate "morality" with "religious belief"? The two are only indirectly related. The word is apt for this discussion. You are arguing that laws should be made based on your own personal opinion. Saying that you want laws based on morality is exactly the same thing. I have no disposition about you at all. I haven't actually called you a "moralist". I don't know what you believe. I don't know anything about you, and I haven't addressed you personally at all, only your arguments.

I think my explanation lies in my second entry in this post. Unless, of course, the president is excluded from politics now.
I addressed that earlier, but since you bring it up again I'll try to summarize: You think it's okay to pass laws making certain adult activities illegal, because if those activities are legal children might grow up wanting to engage in said activities. Do you really believe that some little girl might decide she wants to be a whore when she grows up, just because prostitution is legal?

Yes, you are advocating what they call "legislating morality".

[Wolferz]

One could consider marriage an act of prostitution because, according to law, one gives up half of their assets to their partner for the privilege of engaging in morally recognized sexual acts.
$100.00 over at the Swiss fun park would be much cheaper. Even if you add in round trip airfare and taxi.:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

One could consider marriage an act of prostitution because, according to law, one gives up half of their assets to their partner for the privilege of engaging in morally recognized sexual acts.
$100.00 over at the Swiss fun park would be much cheaper. Even if you add in round trip airfare and taxi.:yep:
On the one hand marriage is justified by the love and companionship that springs from it. Would it work to get a dog and still go to Switzerland?

On the other hand the prostitute will never tell you she has a headache. :O:

[edit] I just looked at your picture of Inara again. I could never afford her services, so...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/inmybunk_zps0bb9a8bc.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/inmybunk_zps0bb9a8bc.jpg.html)

[mapuc]

Now and then the discussion about prostitution in Denmark comes up to the surface. It's those who's against and those who's for

Then they take a look at their brother-country Sweden and see what happened there after they made it illegal.

Then the discussion somehow dies out. until it again hit the surface

Here the Danes see it as something naturally thing.

Markus

[Platapus]

We should consider the objective of legislating prostitution.


There was a time, in the United States, where the acts involved in prostitution, when performed outside marriage, were illegal. We had fornication laws which prohibited sexual acts outside marriage. Under those circumstances, it makes sense for prostitution to be illegal -- there were already existing fornication laws. It could be safely assumed that the prostitute and customer were not married.

Currently, any fornication laws have either been repealed or are not prosecuted. The acts involved in prostitution are legal when done for free. I don't understand the logic in making it illegal when it is not done for free.

That is a difference between a prostitute and a sexually liberated lady. Both choose who they wish to have sex with and how often. But only one charges money. We may morally disagree with a sexually liberated lady choosing to have many sexual partners, but there is no talk about arresting her and throwing her in prison. Her choice, her consequences.

I think that everyone can agree that a person being forced into prostitution against their will is a bad thing. So we would be on firm ground if we had laws written to protect people who are forced into it and to prosecute those who force people into prostitution.

Unfortunately, the way the US laws are written, there is no difference between someone forced into prostitution and someone willingly choosing to be a prostitute. It may be difficult for some people to understand how a person may choose that profession, but it does happen.

I do not understand how the government can make something that is legal when done for free, to be illegal when money is involved. I don't think the bribery laws apply. :haha:

However, I do expect the government to protect people who may be forced (how ever that may be defined) into prostitution against their will and to prosecute those who do force people into prostitution.

But to me, these are very different issues.

[Wolferz]

Well, Steve, if you'd prefer Jayne Cobb it's alright. I won't judge.:D
Whatever it takes to provide serenity, right?
Can we call you a Browncoat now?:03:

[WernherVonTrapp]

Yes, you are advocating what they call "legislating morality".
No, I don't think that anything I said proves that, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I think we're misunderstanding one another on many points and yes, I was being sarcastic, though not with malicious intent. Pointing a finger at me proves nothing. At least your predisposition toward me is more clear now.

[Sailor Steve]

At least your predisposition toward me is more clear now.
Please explain it to me then. I was arguing with what you said, nothing more.

[Wolferz]

On the one hand marriage is justified by the love and companionship that springs from it. Would it work to get a dog and still go to Switzerland?

Yeah I suppose it would... with one caveat. The dog will require a lot of peanut butter.


On the other hand the prostitute will never tell you she has a headache. :O:


Sure she could but she'd have to give you your money back.

I think we'd all be better off with Rosie Palm and her five sisters.:rock:

[Platapus]

I think we'd all be better off with Rosie Palm and her five sisters.:rock:

If we were not supposed to masturbate, why are our arms just the right length? :D

[Betonov]

I think we'd all be better off with Rosie Palm and her five sisters.:rock:

Yep, but often she needs help from her opposite twin sister :D

BADOOM TISH !!!!!!

[Platapus]

Yep, but often she needs help from her opposite twin sister :D

BADOOM TISH !!!!!!


quit braggin

:D

[Jimbuna]

Yep, but often she needs help from her opposite twin sister :D

BADOOM TISH !!!!!!

Save this :)

http://jeffpicard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/rim-shot-johnny-utah.thumbnail.jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

quit braggin

It wasn't for bragging rights, it was a search party. :up:

[Wolferz]

If you brag of a two hander, you're really saying tweezers and a magnifier.:hmmm:

Remember....
Objects in magnifying glass are smaller than they appear.

[Stealhead]

If you brag of a two hander, you're really saying tweezers and a magnifier.:hmmm:

Remember....
Objects in magnifying glass are smaller than they appear.


It could also mean that you have very very small hands.

[Aktungbby]

I'm cutting to the chase already... opening an 'In and Out Burger' joint next door to revive all your flagging libidos. Where's the thread moderator any how??? THIS IS "OUT OF HAND!" :arrgh!:

[Wolferz]

No, off hand I'd say it's well in hand.:smug:

I think I'm going Japanese.

[Aktungbby]

They don't call you "cool hand wolfertz" fer nuthin' in the frigid wasteland of frostbite falls do they!:arrgh!:

[Betonov]

The level of prostitution supporters on this forum is...

comforting :)

[Sailor Steve]

I don't support prostitution!

I just don't think it should be illegal. :D

[Aktungbby]

Herr Grossadmiral Doenitz disagrees; he needs happi ubootwaffen and must have studied the American Civil War. Besides the Hunley, they had...HOOKERS ...Ach du liebe!:Kaleun_Party:

[Betonov]

I don't support prostituition either, my wage is too low :wah:

[Wolferz]

They don't call you "cool hand wolfertz" fer nuthin' in the frigid wasteland of frostbite falls do they!:arrgh!:

Cold hands cause shrinkage. :timeout:

Always build a warm fire when you're snowed into your cabin.:salute:

Caution: Do not place cold hands in fire. Severe injury may result.:yep:

[Jimbuna]

I don't support prostituition either, my wage is too low :wah:

Work harder or find a cheaper outlet :03:

[Platapus]

Work harder or find a cheaper outlet :03:


Usually when some one is considering a prostitute, they are more concerned with the inlet than the outlet.

But, to each his own. Your kink is your kink. :up:

:D

[Aktungbby]

Platapussy galore?!!:arrgh!:

[Aktungbby]

Cold hands cause shrinkage. :timeout:

Always build a warm fire when you're snowed into your cabin.:salute:

Caution: Do not place cold hands in fire. Severe injury may result.:yep:
Actually have sauna' d then jumped into a snowbank whilst starkers...YOWWWWW! Kind of a 'Wegie thing mit Lutefisk. Along the greasy green Cannon R. not the frigid Otter R. Wisdom has set in in my dotage; Now I SCUBA in a wetsuit with 5 cups o'java inbibed for instant warmth and 10 minutes extra time to get to shore and warmth in 32 degree Pacific waters, hopefully with an abalone or a lingcod. The Valkyrie have relented and a speargun counts as sword-in-hand for the great meadhall in Asgard! :arrgh!:

[Aktungbby]

I don't support prostituition either, my wage is too low :wah:
Nonsense mein leipshen, iff U gots der shekel, they've got...30 seconds to LOS der EEL...NEXT!:k_rofl:

[Wolferz]

To say that this topic has descended into the weird and the strange would be gross understatement. But, it is entertaining none the less.:haha::up:

Which one of you gals is Stroker Ace?

[Tchocky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmX7-N5nKzw

STROKER ACE

[Wolferz]

I don't support prostituition either, my wage is too low :wah:

Just wait on the porch under the red light and snap a picture of your boss leaving the place. Et 'joila! Instant raise. maybe even two.:03:

[Betonov]

Just wait on the porch under the red light and snap a picture of your boss leaving the place. Et 'joila! Instant raise. maybe even two.:03:

Reminds me of this :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBcLvJdrbro


Had a conversation yesterday with the boss about my study and for some reason the debate somehow got to the lack of sex I'm experiencing for the last few.... years. So he starts telling me why I can't risk a €100 every month for a hooker :haha:
Not in this country I say, they're illegal and that means the cheaper ones didn't had their shots

[Wolferz]

Get yourself one of these Betonov...

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/FullBodycondomcostume.jpg

Then you can hit the Tuesday specials night down by the docks.:up:
They're sold in the six pack, the sex pack and the ever so handy shack pack for you weekenders.

[mapuc]

That's what I call safety...

[Platapus]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/FullBodycondomcostume.jpg

Protip: Don't fart. :yep:

[Herr-Berbunch]

If anyone is, erm, interested in this subject then please heed the following tale.

I know of two guys who were on detachment to Ancona in Italy, every day they used to pass a few prostitutes at the same bend and one day agreed they'd both 'have a go'.

So they pulled up, one guy got out and a girl got in and a few minutes of fumbling ensued - at which point the guy realised that this girl was actually L, O, L, A, Lola!

He swiftly got out and said to his mate it was now his turn, who didn't quite fumble in the same way. He didn't find out until much later. :D

And no, neither was me.

[Aktungbby]

To say that this topic has descended into the weird and the strange would be gross understatement. But, it is entertaining none the less.:haha::up:

Which one of you gals is Stroker Ace?
Entertaining you is what this particular thread is all about; Ve know ther's no TV in Frostbite...:arrgh!:

[Spiced_Rum]

When I was a school I bought a single condom from the chemist in case I got lucky. :woot:
At college I bought them in 3 packs, one for Friday, Saturday and Sunday night. :up:
As a married man I now buy them in 12 packs, one for January, one for February... :hmph:

[Aktungbby]

Just wait on the porch under the red light and snap a picture of your boss leaving the place. Et 'joila! Instant raise. maybe even two.:03:
Maybe three ...with Viagra!:k_rofl: