Prostitution : Is It Wrong To Pay For Sex ?

[mark45y]

Rich men and my three daughters.

Everybody thought my daughter who married the pharmacist from the wealthy family who worked out daily and had a body like Atlas did great.

Everybody thought my daughter who married the guy who worked at the paper mill drank too much and played semi pro hockey did poorly.

The pharmacist is now in jail and my daughter divorced him. The paper mill worker turned out to be a great carpenter and home builder and she has a beautiful home, paid for, and three great kids and a faithful if a little tipsy husband.

My great looking brilliant daughter with the scholarships and natural talent to be whatever she wanted is engaged to a short, tattooed cook.

I don’t have a clue why any of them married or are dating who they are dating.

I told the girls to marry an ugly plumber. You can’t go wrong marrying an ugly plumber. Always lots of work in good or bad times and he will appreciate a good looking woman because he is so ugly. But my kids never listened to me anyway.

[GuestHouse]

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin,..

Thank you for your kind concern UG - Please keep Andrea Dwarkin to your self...

Are you sure? Her photo would make a dandy new avatar to remind us of the anti male chauvinist views you have expressed on this thread.

Sisterhood is Powerful!!!"

Anti male - by that do you mean my views threaten you as a male?

If so, do try to respond to my views rather than continuing petty attempts to bracket them under a heading you feel might rally the troops to your aid.

Edit..

It seems you also have a fear of feminism and, how is it you put it 'sisterhood'.

The jigsaw is coming together nicely.

Edited July 17, 2010 by GuestHouse

[elkangorito]

Go get 'em GH.

[GreenSnapper]

I was at her place and yes, at the end of the month it did seem plausible that she had rent to pay. Did I hire a private investigator to find out ? no.

Yes, plausible situation, but not for the zealots here...

Reminds me of a Japanese girlfriend I once had. She stayed with me and we travelled together for several months. She did not have a job or income then, and I payed not only all our expenses, but also some of her bills and insurance back home.

Very naive, as I was, I thought it was love and sympathy.

But listening to the zealots here, she must have been a hardcore prostitute. Silly me.......

[Ulysses G.]

 

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin,..

Thank you for your kind concern UG - Please keep Andrea Dwarkin to your self...

Are you sure? Her photo would make a dandy new avatar to remind us of the anti male chauvinist views you have expressed on this thread.Sisterhood is Powerful!!!"

Anti male - by that do you mean my views threaten you as a male?

If you are not going to be honest about what I have said, you might remember that anti male chauvinist is right on the screen in black and white. It seems like you would be happy to embrace that concept, rather than to run away from it. 

Who is the one that actually feels "threatened"?     

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[thepanicandthevomit]

So it's clear - There's a bunch of guys here who firmly hold (and are keen to express) the view that the only thing they have to offer a women is the money in their wallet.

Now I take on board the envy of rich kids in the neighbourhood, and getting shafted in the divorce courts - but surely these things have not completely 'castrated' men to the point they believe they cannot offer a woman anything but money.

I mean that is the message here isn't it? Guys who can't deal with a woman unless she's under a financial contract to deal with the guy.

And this is precisely the harm that using prostitutes causes the men who do so. It creates, or at the very least promotes this emasculated mindset.

I think this puts the derogatory comments we often read here on TV about Western women into context.

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

There you go, I make a point and you respond by confirming it....... And then go off on a rant.

I do not legitimize the view, far from it. I simply point out that many of the men here, yourself included, express the view that they only value they have for a woman is the money in their wallet - I certainly do not condemn marriage for love nor do I state that marriage for money is a virtue - Marriage for love and marriage that lasts, even grows stronger. through financial problems, health problems and all the trials and tribulations life can throw at us is the solid proof that male/female relationships are far more than just a monetary transaction.

I understand you have a point to make, but please rant about in relevance to the topic - or at least read a thread before you repost it and respond.

I think wealthier guys have a different preception on this then the guys that are average or below average wealth wise.

Quite. Perhaps he would be better off having a look at the source of his own wealth. Should he come to his senses, and pledge to give it all away in disgust, let's see how his relationship develops. Rather poorly, one suspects...

I have no real objection to anyone doing anything for marriage. What I can't stand is dishonestly. Those that bash on about "all" or "some" are merely fiddling about at the margins. It is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. It's also a device, used by the strong to bully the weak.

The truth is; women* use sex as a weapon - and who can blame them?

* western, younger rather than older, attractive rather than plainer, thinner rather than fatter, richer rather than poorer, yadda yadda.

[thepanicandthevomit]

I have hesitated to post as this thread is not really Thai-related and has been on the verge of being closed (but the interest has remained high). However, Ian, I really have to disagree with you. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of women who want no commitments nor entanglements but merely an enjoyable roll in the hay.

No one size fits all is correct. And while some women certainly do use sex as the carrot for some other need of their own, and some women enjoy sex as part of bonding and a relationship, many women are just like many men. They like sex because it feels good and makes them happy.

That is just not true. There is not plenty of women who want just sex.

Of course it's not true. It's just yet more propaganda.

Ah yet one more who has never experienced normal sexual MUTUAL satisfaction.

I always thought that most men are hesitant to describe their sexual shortcomings. But some men insist on coming here on TV and letting the entire posting world know that their experiences with women have totally revolved around money. Pity, that.

Of course I've experienced it - just not enough! If I was born rich, I would have experienced much, much more.

And, in the spirit of the truth-silencers out there, find me evidence that woman want as much no-strings-attached sex as men. Real evidence. Cos all i see is wealthy men with partners (quelle surprise) banging on about how easy it is get some. Let me tell you, as someone without a pot to piss in, it ain't. And I'll go head to head with any of you in the 'handsome stakes' whilst I'm at it.

Edited July 17, 2010 by bonobo
comment on moderation removed.

[thepanicandthevomit]

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

Your logic does not hold water. Your "real world" is just that, yours. Not anyone else's. If you have only met women who want men for money, then no one here can naysay you. Pity you maybe, but not naysay. If that is your experience, then that is your experience.

But just as others cannot naysy you, you can't naysay them for their experiences. You not being there to see it does not invalidate it.

You say a man "CANNOT" get a western woman without money. But even one "well I once know a woman who ...zzzzzzz" invalidates your argument. That means at least one man can. Maybe not the majority, maybe the majority. Who knows? But that proves your assertion incorrect.

No it doesn't. You're being ridiculous. If this is the standard of your debating skills, good luck to you. Employing "lottery logic" is disingenuous in the extreme.

Perhaps the question needs to be simplified: which sex is most likely to have sex for monetary gain?

A very simple question, with a very simple answer. Why you continue to bathe in semantics is baffling. Let the truth out and then address the reasons why.

[thepanicandthevomit]

As some of your views are very similar to Andrea Dwarkin,..

Thank you for your kind concern UG - Please keep Andrea Dwarkin to your self...

Are you sure? Her photo would make a dandy new avatar to remind us of the anti male chauvinist views you have expressed on this thread.

Sisterhood is Powerful!!!"

Anti male - by that do you mean my views threaten you as a male?

If so, do try to respond to my views rather than continuing petty attempts to bracket them under a heading you feel might rally the troops to your aid.

Edit..

It seems you also have a fear of feminism and, how is it you put it 'sisterhood'.

The jigsaw is coming together nicely.

Everyone should fear feminism. Everyone. The 'mad mullahs' of Finsbury Park are rounded up on incitement charges - why aren't the 'mad munters'? They propagate hate on an equal basis.

The only people who's lives are improved by feminists are 1. the feminists themselves and 2. er, that's it. I would have a single shred of respect for them if they went after women genuinely needing help - in some hardline religious societies, for example - but their hatred of all things western and male prevent them doing so. That and cowardice, obviously.

[GreenSnapper]

Everyone should fear feminism. Everyone. The 'mad mullahs' of Finsbury Park are rounded up on incitement charges - why aren't the 'mad munters'? They propagate hate on an equal basis.

The only people who's lives are improved by feminists are 1. the feminists themselves and 2. er, that's it. I would have a single shred of respect for them if they went after women genuinely needing help - in some hardline religious societies, for example - but their hatred of all things western and male prevent them doing so. That and cowardice, obviously.

Real men don't have fear. They fight feminism.

Feminism is the most destructive hate-ideology in the Western world. Divorce rates well above 50%, broken families, stupid fatherless children, the daily misandry in all mass media, and the greed, the greed....

But the worst feminists are not the small number of radical, mentally disturbed women behind it. It is the men who support it and who are finally responsible for its success in the West. When men stop supporting feminism, it will disappear as fast as it came.

[GuestHouse]

Cos all i see is wealthy men with partners (quelle surprise) .....

You seem somewhat fixated by men with more money than you having partners - it seems to bring on a bout of French in you.

But again reasserting your view that the only thing a man has to offer a woman is money. As has been pointed out, the world's full of poor guys getting the girl.

------

UG, forgive me - "Anti Male Chauvinist" - I'm not one of those either.

But I do notice this habit you have of slapping a label on other people's point of view so that you can discard it without giving a reasoned counter view.

[bonobo]

The fact that many women are attracted to the trappings of wealth makes no difference to the argument that marriage is prostitution, that a man is "paying for sex" by getting married.  This would only be true where both the man and the woman are together only for sex and the exchange of money.

I disagree. The man is not going to get the sex without some wealth in both cases.

So no poor man is ever going to have sex?  How the heck do we get poor families, then?  How many families have working wives and unemployed husbands?  Yet many of the women stick with the men for reasons obviously different than money.

I have personally witnessed this in both the West and in Thailand. The woman works in menial jobs while the man does nothing to earn a living.  But he must bring something to the table.  

We are talking about the initial reasons why a man seeks a woman and why a woman seeks a man.

Ah, so now you are changing the rules of engagement after the first shots have been fired.  OK, as far as initial attraction, women don't perk up when a handsome guy walks into the club?  THey don't lust after life guards on the beach? (and lifeguards don't make much money)

[bonobo]

I think  wealthier guys have a different preception on this then the guys that are average or below average wealth wise.

But that does not make them wrong and you right.

I did not grow up in a wealthy neighborhood because I was poor. I was implying that the wealthier guys would agree with me.

Well, unless you really know very many wealthy men, then I would tell you that you are probably incorrect.  In fact, most wealthy men I know are just as convinced that it is their sparkling personality and inherent sexiness which attracts a woman as is many men of less substantial means.

[Ulysses G.]

But I do notice this habit you have of slapping a label on other people's point of view so that you can discard it without giving a reasoned counter view.

Actually, I just agreed with another poster who "slapped a label" on your posts. By the way, despite the defensiveness and dishonest denials, you are doing a great job of proving us both right.

Is there any discredited, embarrassingly naive, 60's feminist claptrap you've not swallowed? You outta be on commission. I don't know why you don't just call for the castration of all men and have done with it.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[bonobo]

No, no, no! You (and t'other one) just don't get this at all!

Women use men for money. It is a fact. It is a game. It is not that men think they can only offer women money, but, rather, women only want men for money. Despite the "well I once know a woman who...zzzzzzz" brigade, in the REAL world, on planet EARTH, this is the REALITY men face on a daily basis. A man CANNOT get a (western) woman without money. (BTW, you skint? No? Quelle surprise...Try being in my shoes for a bit before lecturing in future).

The big puzzle is why you seek to legitimise it? I always thought love was pure, and money vulgar. You seem to condemn marriage for love and hold up marriage for money as a virtue!

Your logic does not hold water.  Your "real world" is just that, yours.  Not anyone else's.  If you have only met women who want men for money, then no one here can naysay you.  Pity you maybe, but not naysay.  If that is your experience, then that is your experience.

But just as others cannot naysy you, you can't naysay them for their experiences.  You not being there to see it does not invalidate it.

You say a man "CANNOT" get a western woman without money.  But even one "well I once know a woman who ...zzzzzzz" invalidates your argument.  That means at least one man can. Maybe not the majority, maybe the majority.  Who knows?  But that proves your assertion incorrect.

No it doesn't. You're being ridiculous. If this is the standard of your debating skills, good luck to you.  Employing "lottery logic" is disingenuous in the extreme.

Perhaps the question needs to be simplified: which sex is most likely to have sex for monetary gain?

A very simple question, with a very simple answer. Why you continue to bathe in semantics is baffling. Let the truth out and then address the reasons why.

Hmm, "women only want money from men."  And when anyone shows that women want other things from men, or that some women care nothing about money, you decry their logic and call them ridiculous?  

Women are more likely to have sex for financial gain because more men are willing to pay than women.  Simple economics.  If a woman wants a not strings attached roll in the hay some evening, then all she has to do is to go to any singles bar.  Why should she pay?

If more men could charge for it, I am sure they would.  So as you phased  it, yes women are more likely to have sex for financial gain then men, in my opinion.

[GuestHouse]

But I do notice this habit you have of slapping a label on other people's point of view so that you can discard it without giving a reasoned counter view.

Actually, I just agreed with another poster who "slapped a label" on your posts. By the way, despite the defensiveness and dishonest denials, you are doing a great job of proving us both right.

Is there any discredited, embarrassingly naive, 60's feminist claptrap you've not swallowed? You outta be on commission. I don't know why you don't just call for the castration of all men and have done with it.

Well since you agree with the other poster then you are as guilty of misunderstanding the difference between attributing a call for the castration of all men to feminism and my own point that paying a prostitute for sex is an act of self emasculation.

The difference is profound.

My point has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the actions of men who pay prostitutes for sex. I don't need to call on feminism to support my point of view nor have I.

It''s very very simple - Paying for sex is admitting you have nothing to offer a woman but your money - Add that to the pile of other 'women issues' being blurted out in this thread (and I do admire the honesty) and a very definite mind set emerges.

Guys who see they have no personal value to women and who really cannot deal with a woman under any other circumstance than that where she's financially obligated to do their bidding.

I've never subscribed to the view that Thailand attracts men who cannot get a women back home, but I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Thailand attracts men who have deep rooted problems in dealing with women.

The evidence is thick on the ground in this thread - Guys who really can't deal with women.

[473geo]

I did not grow up in a wealthy neighborhood because I was poor. I was implying that the wealthier guys would agree with me.

Well, unless you really know very many wealthy men, then I would tell you that you are probably incorrect. In fact, most wealthy men I know are just as convinced that it is their sparkling personality and inherent sexiness which attracts a woman as is many men of less substantial means.

"sparkling personality and inherent sexiness" money does not have to enter the equation

[Ulysses G.]

The evidence is thick on the ground in this thread - Guys who really can't deal with women.

"Take Back the Night" sister!

Edited July 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Johnniey]

Kinda silly question on a forum such as this. 99% of all single males I've known in this country have paid for sex.

[Valdezugar]

Wonder what the pros (and wives) themselves would say about the views here . . . .

Why do married and single men visit a dominatrix's dungeon? Now there's an interesting question

[Valdezugar]

Kinda silly question on a forum such as this. 99% of all single males I've known in this country have paid for sex.

Lost of single men in lots of countries pay for sex. Married ones too

[Valdezugar]

According to some of the views here: when I used to do some impressive chores around the house or came home with a present , my ex would reward me handsomely with some nookie. Glad I got rid of her; turns out she was a prostitute!

She drove me to that BG!

Edited July 17, 2010 by Valdezugar

[473geo]

According to some of the views here: when I used to do some impressive chores around the house or came home with a present , my ex would reward me handsomely with some nookie. Glad I got rid of her; turns out she was a prostitute!

She drove me to that BG!

And you came to that conclusion by finding presents in the cupboard from 10 other guys right?....................lucky escape indeed......

[Valdezugar]

According to some of the views here: when I used to do some impressive chores around the house or came home with a present , my ex would reward me handsomely with some nookie. Glad I got rid of her; turns out she was a prostitute!

She drove me to that BG!

And you came to that conclusion by finding presents in the cupboard from 10 other guys right?....................lucky escape indeed......

So you were one of them? Dirty dog! Thanks for helping me escape; I'll buy ya a beer

[473geo]

According to some of the views here: when I used to do some impressive chores around the house or came home with a present , my ex would reward me handsomely with some nookie. Glad I got rid of her; turns out she was a prostitute!

She drove me to that BG!

And you came to that conclusion by finding presents in the cupboard from 10 other guys right?....................lucky escape indeed......

So you were one of them? Dirty dog! Thanks for helping me escape; I'll buy ya a beer

didn't ever leave a present........my "sparkling personality and inherent sexiness" did the trick............and....you don't owe me a beer........ I think I already enjoyed enough of your cold beers.....thanks.....

[bonobo]

But I do notice this habit you have of slapping a label on other people's point of view so that you can discard it without giving a reasoned counter view.

Actually, I just agreed with another poster who "slapped a label" on your posts. By the way, despite the defensiveness and dishonest denials, you are doing a great job of proving us both right.

Is there any discredited, embarrassingly naive, 60's feminist claptrap you've not swallowed? You outta be on commission. I don't know why you don't just call for the castration of all men and have done with it.

Well since you agree with the other poster then you are as guilty of misunderstanding the difference between attributing a call for the castration of all men to feminism and my own point that paying a prostitute for sex is an act of self emasculation.

The difference is profound.

My point has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the actions of men who pay prostitutes for sex. I don't need to call on feminism to support my point of view nor have I.

It''s very very simple - Paying for sex is admitting you have nothing to offer a woman but your money - Add that to the pile of other 'women issues' being blurted out in this thread (and I do admire the honesty) and a very definite mind set emerges.

Guys who see they have no personal value to women and who really cannot deal with a woman under any other circumstance than that where she's financially obligated to do their bidding.

I've never subscribed to the view that Thailand attracts men who cannot get a women back home, but I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Thailand attracts men who have deep rooted problems in dealing with women.

The evidence is thick on the ground in this thread - Guys who really can't deal with women.

While I agree that GH's is correct in that his point about male emasculation has nothing to do with feminism, I don't necessarily agree that any man who patronizes a prostitute thinks he has nothing else to offer a woman.  Take Hugh Grant and Eddie Murphy, for example, men whose reported egos would not let either one of them think that.

But at least GH is offering some basic logic to back up his opinions, and he also acknowledges them as his OPINIONS, not as undisputed fact.

[mark45y]

Wonder what the pros (and wives) themselves would say about the views here . . . .

Why do married and single men visit a dominatrix's dungeon? Now there's an interesting question

I walked into the wrong room. There stood a nun with a whip and black stockings. Someone here has an avatar like what I saw. She asked me if I wanted a vegetable enema. I said NO! She told me vegetables were good for my health. As I ran out the door she chased me with her whip. This was not in Thailand.

[mark45y]

While I agree that GH's is correct in that his point about male emasculation has nothing to do with feminism, I don't necessarily agree that any man who patronizes a prostitute thinks he has nothing else to offer a woman.  Take Hugh Grant and Eddie Murphy, for example, men whose reported egos would not let either one of them think that.

But at least GH is offering some basic logic to back up his opinions, and he also acknowledges them as his OPINIONS, not as undisputed fact.

I agree. I have quite a large ego. I still think I have something to offer women. But I have not bought the argument that the king is wearing clothes.

This is Thailand. I am not a Thai. I know what is for sale in Thailand and what is free. I don’t go around asking people for free food. I don’t ask the doctor for free medical care. I don’t ask Thai women for free sex.

Because I am not delusional does not mean I am emasculated.

I think we all need to analyze why Guesthouse would think that men who give money to Thai women for sexual services are emasculated.

Guesthouse seems like a rational person. I have read his posts for quite some time. What is there in his makeup that would make him propose such a bizarre idea that does not occur in the psychological texts of people who know about such things. I tried searching the internet for others who have compared emasculation to the purchase of Thai women’s services and I came up empty handed. This must be Guesthouses own theory. One could suppose he knows a number of emasculated men.

What does an emasculated man look or act like? Emasculation seems like a serious problem that would reach to other areas of a man’s life. Certainly they would be noticeable.

I am at a loss to explain it.

[Valdezugar]

According to some of the views here: when I used to do some impressive chores around the house or came home with a present , my ex would reward me handsomely with some nookie. Glad I got rid of her; turns out she was a prostitute!

She drove me to that BG!

And you came to that conclusion by finding presents in the cupboard from 10 other guys right?....................lucky escape indeed......

So you were one of them? Dirty dog! Thanks for helping me escape; I'll buy ya a beer

didn't ever leave a present........my "sparkling personality and inherent sexiness" did the trick............and....you don't owe me a beer........ I think I already enjoyed enough of your cold beers.....thanks.....

Then you've disproved some of the theories here cause I'm a millionaire and she didn't stay with the money. You're an ingrate for not leaving a present for the lass!

Right you owe me some beers. I'll PM you my soi/bar location. Look for the cutie standing next to the ugly farang. She's NOT a prostitute!

[Valdezugar]

I walked into the wrong room. There stood a nun with a whip and black stockings. Someone here has an avatar like what I saw. She asked me if I wanted a vegetable enema. I said NO! She told me vegetables were good for my health. As I ran out the door she chased me with her whip. This was not in Thailand.

Oh man that got me LMAO!