If you are offended by graphic sexual content, then do not click this link. If you want to know what women in the sex trade REALLY think about you, then you are in for an enlightening read:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/den/415707529.html

Ha. I honestly don't know how escorts do it. Talk about giving zero value to your body. But it is hard for me to have any sympathy for her, because if she's as pretty as she says she is, and she seems to be intelligent, I'm sure she could find a better job than trading her self respect for the dollar.

I've always wondered how hookers can have sex with guys that they find utterly repulsive. Most women are so particular about who they have sex with, they'll say "no" a thousand times more often than they say "yes." But when money enters the equation, everything changes. Suddenly hot, beautiful women come out of the woodwork. Even in the porn industry, there's never any shortage of fresh, gorgeous, young 18 and 19 year olds lining up to become a "hooker on film." Strip clubs seem to be the stepping stone into the sex industry, and there's always women ready to get naked for money. I find it fascinating.

There is no shortage of attractive, uneducated and economically disadvantaged women with histories of sexual abuse. Given a choice between a minimum wage job or the promise of hundreds of dolllars a day to do what less enterprising women do for free, (and often with equally unsatisfying results) it's not hard to figure out why they would choose the latter.

Are women really so "particular", saying 'no' a thousand times before finally (by your definition) "agreeing" to sex with men who don't wave hundred dollar bills in their faces? How unfair is that? What could drive them to withhold their pussies for the fickle pleasure of not putting out? Or could it be that they are (brace yourself for a shock here) autonomous human beings with the capacity to make well-reasoned and informed decisions about potential sex partners.

There is no shortage of attractive, uneducated and economically disadvantaged women with histories of sexual abuse. Given a choice between a minimum wage job or the promise of hundreds of dolllars a day to do what less enterprising women do for free, (and often with equally unsatisfying results) it's not hard to figure out why they would choose the latter.

And there is no shortage of attractive, uneducated and economically disadvantaged women with histories of abuse who don't become hookers.


Are women really so "particular", saying 'no' a thousand times before finally (by your definition) "agreeing" to sex with men who don't wave hundred dollar bills in their faces? How unfair is that? What could drive them to withhold their pussies for the fickle pleasure of not putting out? Or could it be that they are (brace yourself for a shock here) autonomous human beings with the capacity to make well-reasoned and informed decisions about potential sex partners.Your first question - it's not unfair, it's just the way it works. And humans aren't the only ones who display that behavior. It's actually probably more fair than unfair, from a biological perspective. I don't blame women for being picky when it comes to their partners. They should be. I don't even blame them for exchanging their pussy for money. (I blame men for paying them.)

You have to admit that their decision making process for partners as a hooker is practically non-existent. It isn't the same as "in real life." The only thing that matters is whether or not they have the money. That's the part that I find interesting, because it bypasses all the millions of years of evolution that tell a woman to sort for specific things in a partner. As a hooker, she'll bang guys that she normally wouldn't even say "hi" to if it weren't for the fact that they're willing to give her $500.00.

Why do whores get pissed if you treat them like whores? Then get pissed if you don't treat them like whores? Women...:nonono:

Why do whores get pissed if you treat them like whores? Then get pissed if you don't treat them like whores? Women...:nonono:

Why should "whores" be treated with contempt, anyway? I'm interested in knowing why you consider this particular segment of humanity deserving of abuse and mistreatment? Does treating a "whore like a whore" mean you are justified using violence against her?

I didn't find that very interesting.

It felt more like venting than anything else. I'm not saying they aren't allowed to vent: just that I don't find their venting enlightening.

I saw a very interesting documentary about New Zealand sex workers. The interviewees were composed and spoke with compassion and honesty about themselves and their experiences with clients. It was far more balanced, and far less laced with spite and contempt.

The one that really stopped me from reading the rest was the one who laughs at men who ask the question: "I'm married, I hope that's OK". It doesn't dawn upon her that she might be faced with someone who is feeling guilt at transgressing the accord of wedlock, and is simply looking for someone to tell him its alright?
Or even that he might actually have the decency to consider that some prostitutes might have a problem with taking on married men? Not that I think there are too many escorts who have that sort of concern, but its kind of cute that some men might give them the benefit of the doubt and prefer to ask?

Anyway, bitterness is mostly not attractive: I'm just reacting to the bile.

M.

Actually, for kicks I read a little further... and immediately found something even more stupid. This one, I hope, really takes the cake because if it gets worse...

"To the guys who have escorts girlfriends: Quit f*cking acting like you have me all figured out. Do not lump me into the category of your trashy escort girlfriend who charges $200/hr. for full service. And goes by the handle “_________(insert name here) of Denver”. I charge $500 minimum now, because after the year of being at the bottom I now understand my self worth. She has been in the business 10 years and you think she is a top provider…..quit making me laugh. My chosen name also has a bit more thought process to it….then debbie does denver. Do not think you ‘know’ the escort community. If you and her have f*cked up underlying problems because you know she ****s SOO MANY guys (gotta make those dollars) to support your loser ass…well don’t take it out on me. You’re a f*ckin idiot."

What on earth is that supposed to mean?
All she is pulling off here is coming across like a completely psychotic b*tch, and she doesn't miss that tacky opportunity to feel superior because she charges more money than the other woman that she does not even know.
Lunacy.

I need to go and rinse my mind... Not from the graphicness, but from the sheer idiocy of it.

M.

I've heard similar rants from servers over the years. The only difference is that the vitriol is not reserved for just men.

An a$$hole is an a$$hole and no matter what particular service a person provides them the a$$hole will behave poorly.

I doubt hookers and "escort" women even account for 1% of the female population, so they are definitely in the minority(and I will go as far as to say they aren't 'normal'). I don't care how many fancy names people come up with in place of hookers, they are still hookers, and aren't respected by the majority. I'm not saying that hookers need to be abused, but they shouldn't expect or demand that people take them seriously or think highly of them, because thay just aint gonna happen.

Does being "in the minority" automatically make one deserving of contempt? What is the relevance of "being respected by the majority" in terms of evaluating someone's intrinsic worth? By not taking sex workers "seriously", do you mean they should be denied their basic rights? If a prostitute is murdered on the job, should we show her killer more leniency than if he had, say, killed a 'good' woman?

Does being "in the minority" automatically make one deserving of contempt? What is the relevance of "being respected by the majority" in terms of evaluating someone's intrinsic worth? By not taking sex workers "seriously", do you mean they should be denied their basic rights? If a prostitute is murdered on the job, should we show her killer more leniency than if he had, say, killed a 'good' woman?

All good questions which I personally don't need any soul-searching to answer.
No, to all of them.

I will say though that a sort of natural order establishes itself: these women are valued by society as much as they value themselves.

If an escort believes in herself enough to be very selective in her choice of clients, to charge a decent amount for herself, and not to work in conditions and with clients who end up making her come across like the woman from your link - even to set up her own operation so as to bein complete control of her work - then she only suffers from contempt from those in society who suffer from issues with the flesh. That's not so bad. Everyone has something about them that will cause contempt in SOMEONE.
On the other hand, people tend to follow your cue: if your own actions denote you don't respect yourself, they're being given an indication that maybe you aren't deserving of any. I'm not saying that's a great thing, but in the scheme of things its a fairly natural one.

Frankly, the woman from your link sounds like she would tell people to shove their respect up their asses, so I don't see why anyone should go out of their way to express any to her. She gives some insight into her version of respect at the end (yes I did finish by reading it all), when she explains that the only clients she respects are the good-looking, normal ones (not handicapped, not fat, etc).
Even if it only took one thing to earn my respect, she hasn't shown enough for it in all her diatribe. :(

M.

Why do whores get pissed if you treat them like whores? Then get pissed if you don't treat them like whores? Women...:nonono:

Again, how exactly does one treat a "whore" like a whore? Is a whore exempt from the rest of humanity? By getting "pissed if you don't treat them like whores"? mean that a sex worker should gratefully submit to the client who asks them on a "real date"? Meaning of course, 'John' does the math and figures that it's cheaper to buy the 'ho a steak dinner than pay her for her services. And why do you take umbrage at 'Denver Escort' complaining about this? Or is it the fact that she cringes everytime a client tells her he loves her? Does it surprise you that she would consider this demeaning and insulting? As if she needs verification of her worth by some John with a hairy back and ingrown toenails who has shelled out a few buck to ejaculate into her.

All good questions which I personally don't need any soul-searching to answer.
No, to all of them.

I will say though that a sort of natural order establishes itself: these women are valued by society as much as they value themselves.

If an escort believes in herself enough to be very selective in her choice of clients, to charge a decent amount for herself, and not to work in conditions and with clients who end up making her come across like the woman from your link - even to set up her own operation so as to bein complete control of her work - then she only suffers from contempt from those in society who suffer from issues with the flesh. That's not so bad. Everyone has something about them that will cause contempt in SOMEONE.
On the other hand, people tend to follow your cue: if your own actions denote you don't respect yourself, they're being given an indication that maybe you aren't deserving of any. I'm not saying that's a great thing, but in the scheme of things its a fairly natural one.

Frankly, the woman from your link sounds like she would tell people to shove their respect up their asses, so I don't see why anyone should go out of their way to express any to her. She gives some insight into her version of respect at the end (yes I did finish by reading it all), when she explains that the only clients she respects are the good-looking, normal ones (not handicapped, not fat, etc).
Even if it only took one thing to earn my respect, she hasn't shown enough for it in all her diatribe. :(

M.

Read that end part again. She exempts the elderly, morbidly obese and otherwise handicapped people from her diatribe because among her clients, these ones at least show gratitude.

Read that end part again. She exempts the elderly, morbidly obese and otherwise handicapped people from her diatribe because among her clients, these ones at least show gratitude.

Mmmm, I'll read it again. I could well have misread her because I was so unimpressed by everything that came before. My interpretation was more in line with what I perceived of her character.

M

"On a happy end note…I DO have to give some credit to the normal guys. The married ones who are stuck in a marriage and are very attractive and could literally get any younger female they wanted, but stay for the kids. Also the non- freaks, losers, ass-face, deformed, hanicapped, overly obese …etc..guys. who have a charming way about them, but decided not to pursue relationships they are not ready to commit to. I salute and respect you. Because you and I both know you can get an attractive girl, who is unsuspecting and sweet and thinks the best of people, to go home with you after you feed her lies just to get into her pants, and then act as if you care for awhile until the sex gets old then throw her out on her relationship wanting ass."

Well I'm not sure what to make of this. Two things cause confusion: the NON-freaks part, which, because she writes in a way that makes you want to compensate for potential shortcomings in clarity of expression, could extend its negation to the adjectives that follow (making them non-losers, non-obese, etc). Which would mean she respects the 'normal guys', as she says.

The second thing that begs this interpretation is that she follows up by saying its a given that they could get sexual attention from an attractive woman easily: not something that handicapped, overly obese losers are renowned for, unfortunately for them.

I'll grant you that the paragraph is ambiguous, but I feel I have reason to stick with my interpretation.

M.

Read that end part again. She exempts the elderly, morbidly obese and otherwise handicapped people from her diatribe because among her clients, these ones at least show gratitude.

Shouldn't she be showing gratitude to them for giving up their hard earned money to screw a manipulative, disgusting, souless whore? As far as I'm concerned she should be showering her customers with gratitude. Hats off to anyone who could even get it up around that ghoulish creature.

Does being "in the minority" automatically make one deserving of contempt? What is the relevance of "being respected by the majority" in terms of evaluating someone's intrinsic worth? By not taking sex workers "seriously", do you mean they should be denied their basic rights? If a prostitute is murdered on the job, should we show her killer more leniency than if he had, say, killed a 'good' woman?

As I said I am not saying they SHOULD be abused or mistreated, but if it happens they won't garner much sympathy from the general public. Even in a time where sex sells, and people are more free about sexuality, there will still always be taboo's. Most self respecting women don't sell their bodies, and the ones that do are viewed as being on the bottom of the totem poll. I've seen interviews of hookers/gold diggers etc who will brag that married men pay to have sex with them, and they act as if these guys actually give two snits about them when they are just paying for a service with no emotion(except horniness) involved.

Whether it sounds unsympathetic or not, the hard truth is people will always have thoughts such as these when they hear of a hooker being murdered or abused.

They had it coming

Play with fire=get burned

Put yourself in dangerous positions, expect to get hurt

ecetera

Read that end part again. She exempts the elderly, morbidly obese and otherwise handicapped people from her diatribe because among her clients, these ones at least show gratitude.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't see where you are getting the 'because at least among her clients, these ones at least show gratitude'. She doesn't say anything about that.

M.

Why should "whores" be treated with contempt, anyway? I'm interested in knowing why you consider this particular segment of humanity deserving of abuse and mistreatment? Does treating a "whore like a whore" mean you are justified using violence against her?
Who the **** said anything about violence? One minute she's pining about being a person with feelings and the next she's bitching because guys are too attached to her personally. You can't have it both ways. You seem exceptionally emotionally attached to this issue. Any particular reason why?
I've heard similar rants from servers over the years. The only difference is that the vitriol is not reserved for just men.

An a$$hole is an a$$hole and no matter what particular service a person provides them the a$$hole will behave poorly.Very true.

I doubt hookers and "escort" women even account for 1% of the female population, so they are definitely in the minority(and I will go as far as to say they aren't 'normal'). I don't care how many fancy names people come up with in place of hookers, they are still hookers, and aren't respected by the majority. I'm not saying that hookers need to be abused, but they shouldn't expect or demand that people take them seriously or think highly of them, because thay just aint gonna happen.Also very true. I have more respect for the garbage man.

Shouldn't she be showing gratitude to them for giving up their hard earned money to screw a manipulative, disgusting, souless whore? As far as I'm concerned she should be showering her customers with gratitude. Hats off to anyone who could even get it up around that ghoulish creature.Amen brother. Not to mention for giving her money for something they could get for free, then listening to her condescending attitude towards her clients. Nothing quite as ironic as a self-richteous whore. :hmm:

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to my earlier question: How exactly do you "treat a whore". But based on the comments above, you all seem to consider sex workers a sub-sect of humanity, and as such, project your own feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy on to this particular woman. And for what? Expressing her distaste for certain clients who violate the terms of such a transaction by their unwillingness to practice safe sex, their utter disregard for the pain and discomfort they inflict upon her body, their appalling lack of hygiene and basic courtesy, and their clumsly, clueless attempts to engage her romantically.

Why should a sex worker be exempt from speaking out on an anonymous forum about her profession, particularly a forum like Craig's List, where the majority of readers are men looking for sex? Does freedom of speech only apply to those who conform to heteronormative standards of sexual behavior, as defined by TV commercials for frozen dinners and floor wax? Unless you fall into the category of the kind of man she describes here, you would not consider her rant anything but a rather enlightening (and entertaining) insight into a profession that is seldom discussed from the point of view of the person who actually engages in it -- as opposed to the pornulated, misogynistic fantasy version that dominates most discourse on this topic.

As for jwreck's comments above about having "more respect for the garbage man", I have to wonder what he has against sanitation engineers. Is he implying that respect should only be given to those who engage in white collar professions?

As for Optimus' previous comment that she should be showing "gratitude" (ROTFL) for taking her John's "hard earned money to screw a manipulative, disgusting, souless whore?" is he really so naive as to think that the relationship between a sex worker and a John is anything but a financial transaction based on a man's pursuit of a temporary delusion provided for him by a paid performer?

"Not to mention for giving her money for something they could get for free, then listening to her condescending attitude towards her clients. Nothing quite as ironic as a self-richteous whore".

So sex to you is a commodity that women are either willing to provide or withhold to men, depending on how easily they can be manipulated? "Get IT for free"? Get "what" for free? I feel for you, dude. It's such a shame that pussies are so often attached to women unwilling to relinquish them for your personal benefit that some of you have to resort to another kind of "soulless" encounter with a sperm receptacle. And worse, one who is not going to show the same level of gratitude a "good" woman (LikeFairlyConserv) displays when wined and dined at The Olive Garden.

Good post, very informative (I took plenty of notes) but...

isnt this better suited for the everything forum?

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to my earlier question: How exactly do you "treat a whore". But based on the comments above, you all seem to consider sex workers a sub-sect of humanity, and as such, project your own feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy on to this particular woman. And for what? Expressing her distaste for certain clients who violate the terms of such a transaction by their unwillingness to practice safe sex, their utter disregard for the pain and discomfort they inflict upon her body, their appalling lack of hygiene and basic courtesy, and their clumsly, clueless attempts to engage her romantically.

Why should a sex worker be exempt from speaking out on an anonymous forum about her profession, particularly a forum like Craig's List, where the majority of readers are men looking for sex? Does freedom of speech only apply to those who conform to heteronormative standards of sexual behavior, as defined by TV commercials for frozen dinners and floor wax? Unless you fall into the category of the kind of man she describes here, you would not consider her rant anything but a rather enlightening (and entertaining) insight into a profession that is seldom discussed from the point of view of the person who actually engages in it -- as opposed to the pornulated, misogynistic fantasy version that dominates most discourse on this topic.

As for jwreck's comments above about having "more respect for the garbage man", I have to wonder what he has against sanitation engineers. Is he implying that respect should only be given to those who engage in white collar professions?

As for Optimus' previous comment that she should be showing "gratitude" (ROTFL) for taking her John's "hard earned money to screw a manipulative, disgusting, souless whore?" is he really so naive as to think that the relationship between a sex worker and a John is anything but a financial transaction based on a man's pursuit of a temporary delusion provided for him by a paid performer?

"Not to mention for giving her money for something they could get for free, then listening to her condescending attitude towards her clients. Nothing quite as ironic as a self-richteous whore".

So sex to you is a commodity that women are either willing to provide or withhold to men, depending on how easily they can be manipulated? "Get IT for free"? Get "what" for free? I feel for you, dude. It's such a shame that pussies are so often attached to women unwilling to relinquish them for your personal benefit that some of you have to resort to another kind of "soulless" encounter with a sperm receptacle. And worse, one who is not going to show the same level of gratitude a "good" woman (LikeFairlyConserv) displays when wined and dined at The Olive Garden.

Good comments. I have for very long held the belief that sex workers deserve more respect for what they do. They are not only commodities for sex but they are often psychologist, surrogate mothers and hired companions for men who would not otherwise have someone to fill that need. In Rennesaince Italy, courtasans were actually held in high esteem and became hired companions for some very powerful men. Some, such as Lucrezia Borgia mother of a famous Pope, were believed to be courtisans.

In Europe today many sex workers are members of unions and get full benifits. I think its only fair really.

Thank you, Criminal. But if you don't mind, I would rather keep this thread here since the 'Everything' forum tends to be be less serious, and I'm afraid the conversation would just get lost in a sea of banter. Nothing wrong with banter, mind you, but I would like this topic to remain on the V&M page where it has more visibility, and can elicit more serious discussion among those genuinely interested in debate. Of course, it's not my call, but since you asked . . .

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to my earlier question: How exactly do you "treat a whore". But based on the comments above, you all seem to consider sex workers a sub-sect of humanity, and as such, project your own feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy on to this particular woman.


No, and it is becoming apparent this is the point you want to make, regardless of what is actually said.

I have specifically said (and I'm not the only one), that sex workers should not be treated differently to anyone else with regards to the specific questions you asked, about whether they were more worthy of abuse, and whether a killer who kills a whore should be treated les harshly, etc.

So why are you insisting 'we all seem to consider sex workers a sub-sect of humanity'? That's nonsense.


And for what? Expressing her distaste for certain clients who violate the terms of such a transaction by their unwillingness to practice safe sex, their utter disregard for the pain and discomfort they inflict upon her body, their appalling lack of hygiene and basic courtesy, and their clumsly, clueless attempts to engage her romantically.


Its more than distaste, Suz. She has an utter contempt for her clients.
I'm not saying that's not understandable: getting f*cked by strangers all day long isn't the best way to gain a flattering perspective on humanity. I AM saying I don't have much respect for her because of this contempt.

We all have a basic responsibility to hold on to our humanity as best we can: if your occupation causes you to see others contemptuously, and to treat them that way, either change occupations or accept that people are not going to like you.

So that there is NO room for confusion, I have little respect for her not because she is a sex-worker, but because of her own words.
I thought I made very clear that the documentary I saw on sex-workers in New Zealand made a very good impression on me. The woman you are championing here is not the end all and be all of sex-workers. She is not their voice, and disliking her does not equate to disliking sex workers in general.

Thank you for acknowledging this important point.


Why should a sex worker be exempt from speaking out on an anonymous forum about her profession, particularly a forum like Craig's List, where the majority of readers are men looking for sex? Does freedom of speech only apply to those who conform to heteronormative standards of sexual behavior, as defined by TV commercials for frozen dinners and floor wax? Unless you fall into the category of the kind of man she describes here, you would not consider her rant anything but a rather enlightening (and entertaining) insight into a profession that is seldom discussed from the point of view of the person who actually engages in it -- as opposed to the pornulated, misogynistic fantasy version that dominates most discourse on this topic.


Suddenly this becomes about freedom of speech?
Who here has questioned her right to rant? Noone. That's right. So I don't have a clue what you're on about.

As for suggesting that only one of the types of men she attacks would find her rant unpleasant, that's bollocks and being the manifestly intelligent individual that you are, you very well know it.

First of all, the only kind of man she does not attack is 'normal guys who could easily get attractive women by lying, but choose a more honest approach and see a hooker until they are ready to commit to a relationship'. She SPECIFICALLY excludes from these normal types: freaks, losers, fat people, ass-face, deformed, handicapped.
Should I respect someone who doesn't respect her handicapped clients because of they are deformed and actually need her? She sees nobility in the guys who don't need to come to her but do so out of some sort of honesty (which she may well be imagining in many cases) - but disses handicapped people who have less of a choice.

Do I have to be obese, handicapped or a loser to find that despicable? Come on, Suz. Stay true to the first impression you made on this forum and show some perspective here.


As for Optimus' previous comment that she should be showing "gratitude" (ROTFL) for taking her John's "hard earned money to screw a manipulative, disgusting, souless whore?" is he really so naive as to think that the relationship between a sex worker and a John is anything but a financial transaction based on a man's pursuit of a temporary delusion provided for him by a paid performer?


I can't speak for him, but I'll give you my take.
The relationship between a sex worker and a John is whatever the two parties make it. There are hookers who have regulars they consider as friends. Why wouldn't they? They've been having sex with them for years: even with someone as flippant about sex as a sex-worker, that's enough to create some sort of bond.

Imagine that! Actually feeling well-disposed to some of your clients? This is something the woman you quote reserves for good-looking, 'normal' guys. She is obviously a shallow, bitchy person, period. I am scratching my head, wondering why you have chosen her to champion the cause of sex-workers in general? Can't you just admit she's a nasty piece of work and make your points about the respect sex workers deserve a separate matter? I think you'd find it easier.


So sex to you is a commodity that women are either willing to provide or withhold to men, depending on how easily they can be manipulated?


That, Suz, would be what I call turning the tables.
First and foremost, the sex-worker should be considered to see sex as a commodity: not someone from this thread who hasn't even shown any signs of buying sex. We all know she sells it.


"Get IT for free"? Get "what" for free? I feel for you, dude. It's such a shame that pussies are so often attached to women unwilling to relinquish them for your personal benefit that some of you have to resort to another kind of "soulless" encounter with a sperm receptacle. And worse, one who is not going to show the same level of gratitude a "good" woman (LikeFairlyConserv) displays when wined and dined at The Olive Garden.

I think you are reading far too much into his words.
He reacted to the ugliness of this woman's attitude, not so much towards her profession. Why didn't you find the testimony of a prostitute who expresses herself with compassion, yet still stands firm on her right to be treated as a dignified human being?

You'll forgive me if I begin to suspect, until you correct me, that you actually agree with her attitude.
The first sign of this is that you read into her words something flattering which simply was not there: that she exempted from her rage the handicapped, obese, and ass-faced (hardly a way to exempt someone from insult, BTW) because they showed some appreciation for her. There is simply nothing of the sort in her text: you read that in between the lines. Methinks you are making her out to be a better person than she is in your head, as well as in posting.

M.

This woman apparently hates her "job", but either feels trapped into it by the money she makes, or by the lack of self-worth she is obviously experiencing. Her anger is palpable and very saddening. She's in serious denial concerning her own internal conflict over her choice of "career".

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to my earlier question: How exactly do you "treat a whore". But based on the comments above, you all seem to consider sex workers a sub-sect of humanity, and as such, project your own feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy on to this particular woman.

I do not consider sex workers a sub sect of humanity. They are still humans. I don't judge people by their occupations, I judge them by their character. Her rantings reveal her as a self-loathing, black hearted money grubbing cunt. If she hates her customers so much but derives a special glee in extracting their money from them, she deserves the misery she's currently experiencing.

As for Optimus' previous comment that she should be showing "gratitude" (ROTFL) for taking her John's "hard earned money to screw a manipulative, disgusting, souless whore?" is he really so naive as to think that the relationship between a sex worker and a John is anything but a financial transaction based on a man's pursuit of a temporary delusion provided for him by a paid performer?Of course not. And she should be thankful that these men are naive enough to go to her for that service. I think every one of her "Johns" should read her little essay before paying her a visit. If it weren't for the stupidity of men, she'd be stuck flipping burgers instead of making her living as a money sucking vampire.

If she had a different attitude, I would fully respect her. If her attitude was, "Hey, there are men out there who are willing to pay for sex for whatever reasons and I'm here to fulfill their needs in exchange for money, and it's my job to give them a great experience and make it a positive interaction as best I can, etc..." the she'd be worthy of respect. But instead we get a page of vitriol towards her customers who have something lacking in their lives and in themselves, and she's attacking the very reason why they are going to her in the first place.

This woman apparently hates her "job", but either feels trapped into it by the money she makes, or by the lack of self-worth she is obviously experiencing. Her anger is palpable and very saddening. She's in serious denial concerning her own internal conflict over her choice of "career".

I agree, and its very understandable. :(

I have a suspicion, but it may be completely wrong. Just piecing together things she said, I get the impression that she actually does do the job partly for intercourse. Before anyone jumps on me: follow my reasoning.

One of the points of her rant is she vehemently refuses to do domination acts. Then she seems to change her mind and says well, for three times my normal rate I will.
Now here we have someone obviously seething with disdain for her customers, but she does not particularly want to dominate them. One might naturally think it would be a release for all the pent up anger against the men she puts up with on a daily basis (smelly, fat, dumbass losers, she says) - indeed her rant reads like a sleazy domination scenario of verbal abuse.
Which makes me wonder if she just prefers the sex, even though she has a naturally available stream of abuse begging to find a target.

I may well be wrong. I don't know her. But if she does enjoy the sex on some level, it would add to her ambivalence about the job, and add a dimension to the self-loathing she may be experiencing about not changing her line of work: realizing part of the reason is that she likes it.

Its at least possible. Who knows?

M

I do not consider sex workers a sub sect of humanity. They are still humans. I don't judge people by their occupations, I judge them by their character. Her rantings reveal her as a self-loathing, black hearted money grubbing cunt. If she hates her customers so much but derives a special glee in extracting their money from them, she deserves the misery she's currently experiencing.

Of course not. And she should be thankful that these men are naive enough to go to her for that service. I think every one of her "Johns" should read her little essay before paying her a visit. If it weren't for the stupidity of men, she'd be stuck flipping burgers instead of making her living as a money sucking vampire.

If she had a different attitude, I would fully respect her. If her attitude was, "Hey, there are men out there who are willing to pay for sex for whatever reasons and I'm here to fulfill their needs in exchange for money, and it's my job to give them a great experience and make it a positive interaction as best I can, etc..." the she'd be worthy of respect. But instead we get a page of vitriol towards her customers who have something lacking in their lives and in themselves, and she's attacking the very reason why they are going to her in the first place.

I'm glad I didn't misread you. That's exactly what I thought you meant.

M

I'm glad I didn't misread you. That's exactly what I thought you meant.

M

I was just thinking about how refreshing it is to see you posting again, Malcom. Good having you back sir.

I was just thinking about how refreshing it is to see you posting again, Malcom. Good having you back sir.true dat.

I'm always glad to find you guys still here.
And man: over the years I've really come to appreciate you Jwreck. Optimus, its less surprising because we agree on so many issues - but Jwreck and I had a bumpy start to things.

:nice:

M

I'm always glad to find you guys still here.
And man: over the years I've really come to appreciate you Jwreck. Optimus, its less surprising because we agree on so many issues - but Jwreck and I had a bumpy start to things.

:nice:

M:cool: Love ya man...but you're not getting my Bud Light. (Actually, I'd be glad to give you a Bud Light, but would be disappointed if you actually drank it, because you seem to have much better taste than that. :nice:)

:cool: Love ya man...but you're not getting my Bud Light. (Actually, I'd be glad to give you a Bud Light, but would be disappointed if you actually drank it, because you seem to have much better taste than that. :nice:)

Alright that does it. Please add your name to the list of us who are going to meet for some genuine Guinness in Ireland (one day). Pints and I were talking about this just the other day, and there seems to be a beer theme going on... so yeah :)

M

How exactly do you "treat a whore".
At the risk of sounding like a crass *******: however the **** you want to (short of physically harming her). You're paying her to be there and be an object for you. She's literally turning herself into an object. For that hour (or whatever amount of time), she's agreeing to be an object for her client. If the guy wants to be annoying, obnoxious, creepy, whatever, that's his right. He's paying you to be there and pretend to enjoy it. If you don't like it, go work at the gap.

I'm not at all condoning abuse, and I personally think prostitution should be decriminalized. But if you don't like the way you're treated as a whore, then don't be a whore. For the record, I have a friend that used to be a high-priced hooker, and I don't think any less of her because of it.

Well I guess I'll be the only one to say I have little to no respect for any hooker regardless of their attitude. Since we are talking about a 'particular' hooker(the one on craigslist) I will say she has a double whammy. First of all she puts herself above these people while acting superior when all she is doing is spreading her stuff. She isn't doing anything exceptional, and last I've seen and heard (thanks to cops and mugshots) being pretty isn't even a requirement. Anyone can lay on their backs or suck a lolipop.

Save the well "what if" stuff b/c it won't change my views, and personally if you are happy with what you do, it's not your job to convince others that what you do is a noble-respectful-dignified proffession.

Damn this uppity hooker and her skewed vision of a world where men don't have to dominate and humiliate women in order to get off. She's not unlike our ungrateful former slave population, who bristle at the notion that their centuries long involuntary servitude can be accurately summed up in the song "Zippedy-Doo-Da". You are right, all of you. Bitch needs to quit yapping and remember that she is an "object" rented by the hour for some troglodyte's pleasure.

At the risk of sounding like a crass *******: however the **** you want to (short of physically harming her). You're paying her to be there and be an object for you. She's literally turning herself into an object. For that hour (or whatever amount of time), she's agreeing to be an object for her client. If the guy wants to be annoying, obnoxious, creepy, whatever, that's his right. He's paying you to be there and pretend to enjoy it. If you don't like it, go work at the gap.

Actually, on the face of it, and reduced to its simplest economic terms, he's paying her to be his sex partner, not "an object."

It is unclear why sex without intimacy or familiarity should entail one participant becoming an object for the other. If I pay someone to mow my lawn, I am not entitled to think of the person I hire as an object.

Bitch needs to quit yapping and remember that she is an "object" rented by the hour for some troglodyte's pleasure.

OF HER OWN FREE WILL.

As I posted earlier she is in the same position as any other service provider. Her rant does not surprise me in the least and I'm quite sure her intention was to be, in part humorous. I know I got a bit of a chuckle out of it.

My point is she's in the same position as a large percentage of the population with the exception of the fact that society (not just males) tend to view her line of work as seedy and undesirable...much the same way I see lawyers.

If she's as dissatisfied with her working conditions as she appears to be she'll find another line of work.

Who the **** said anything about violence? One minute she's pining about being a person with feelings and the next she's bitching because guys are too attached to her personally. You can't have it both ways. You seem exceptionally emotionally attached to this issue. Any particular reason why?
Very true.

Also very true. I have more respect for the garbage man.

Amen brother. Not to mention for giving her money for something they could get for free, then listening to her condescending attitude towards her clients. Nothing quite as ironic as a self-richteous whore. :hmm:

Actually, on the face of it, and reduced to its simplest economic terms, he's paying her to be his sex partner, not "an object."

It is unclear why sex without intimacy or familiarity should entail one participant becoming an object for the other. If I pay someone to mow my lawn, I am not entitled to think of the person I hire as an object.

Good point, Guido. But I'm afraid it's a bit much for this crowd to grasp the concept between objectifying a person and engaging in a sex act (however anonymous and lacking in genuine affection) that doesn't entail one person being reviled for their willingness to provide it.

Unfortunately, she's objectifying herself by default. She really can't be surprised when a man objectifies her, after all she's willingly spreading her legs for money. She's the one setting the precedent. Chalk it up to one of the hazards of being a whore. The sex industry isn't pretty. It's never going to be either, it was doomed from the very first time a man offered a woman money for sex and she accepted.

Damn this uppity hooker and her skewed vision of a world where men don't have to dominate and humiliate women in order to get off. She's not unlike our ungrateful former slave population, who bristle at the notion that their centuries long involuntary servitude can be accurately summed up in the song "Zippedy-Doo-Da". You are right, all of you. Bitch needs to quit yapping and remember that she is an "object" rented by the hour for some troglodyte's pleasure.

That's not what 'all of us' said.
You came here to find adversity, obviously, since that is all you see despite other points of view expressed.

Should I conclude that I shouldn't waste my time responding next time you post something - since chances are you'll only read and acknowledge the people who fit your template? Or is it only this subject you are irrational about?

M.

Actually, on the face of it, and reduced to its simplest economic terms, he's paying her to be his sex partner, not "an object."

It is unclear why sex without intimacy or familiarity should entail one participant becoming an object for the other. If I pay someone to mow my lawn, I am not entitled to think of the person I hire as an object.
Of course sex doesn't require one participant becoming an object for the other. I've never objectified a sex partner, but I've never paid someone for sex either. If the john wants to have loving, intimate, passionate physical relations, that's his right. However, if he wants to objectify her, that's his right too.

It's not behavior that I condone or respect, it's just the fact of the matter.

Of course sex doesn't require one participant becoming an object for the other. I've never objectified a sex partner, but I've never paid someone for sex either. If the john wants to have loving, intimate, passionate physical relations, that's his right. However, if he wants to objectify her, that's his right too.

It's not behavior that I condone or respect, it's just the fact of the matter.

I'd go even further: its quite clear from her words that she EXPECTS to be objectified. She ridicules anything a John might do or say that falls outside this script. I'm not saying she likes it: that we don't know. But she's bought into the model, so to speak, to the point where any clumsy attempt by the John to break it is met with the most virulent contempt.

Imagine trying to have loving, intimate, passionate sex with her... if you can bear such a sordid exercise. Do you think she would stand for it?

M.

Damn this uppity hooker and her skewed vision of a world where men don't have to dominate and humiliate women in order to get off. She's not unlike our ungrateful former slave population, who bristle at the notion that their centuries long involuntary servitude can be accurately summed up in the song "Zippedy-Doo-Da". You are right, all of you. Bitch needs to quit yapping and remember that she is an "object" rented by the hour for some troglodyte's pleasure.

I think you have a misconception about the type of man who seeks out prostitutes. There were studies done on the "profile" of the guys who tend to go to hookers, and what they found was that they almost all universally lacked the ability to make their sexual desires known to women. These aren't men who are trying to "dominate" or "humiliate" women, these are men who can't express themselves sexually. Something to think about.

Imagine trying to have loving, intimate, passionate sex with her... if you can bear such a sordid exercise. Do you think she would stand for it?
Indeed. I hadn't even thought of that. The hooker that wrote the original piece demands to be objectified.

Alright that does it. Please add your name to the list of us who are going to meet for some genuine Guinness in Ireland (one day). Pints and I were talking about this just the other day, and there seems to be a beer theme going on... so yeah :)

MWould love to. :)

I'd go even further: its quite clear from her words that she EXPECTS to be objectified. She ridicules anything a John might do or say that falls outside this script. I'm not saying she likes it: that we don't know. But she's bought into the model, so to speak, to the point where any clumsy attempt by the John to break it is met with the most virulent contempt.

Imagine trying to have loving, intimate, passionate sex with her... if you can bear such a sordid exercise. Do you think she would stand for it?

M.That's exactly what I was saying. She wants to be treated like a whore, but doesn't want to be treated like a whore. Somehow that hot turned into me wanted to abuse women...:nonono:

That's exactly what I was saying. She wants to be treated like a whore, but doesn't want to be treated like a whore. Somehow that hot turned into me wanted to abuse women...:nonono:

I think the poster has certain undetermined issues that cause her to read these things into the responses she got here. Its unfortunate. There is enough adversity in the world to not have to invent it where it does not exist.

M.

I think the poster has certain undetermined issues that cause her to read these things into the responses she got here. Its unfortunate. There is enough adversity in the world to not have to invent it where it does not exist.

M.Amen brother. :nice:

I'd go even further: its quite clear from her words that she EXPECTS to be objectified. She ridicules anything a John might do or say that falls outside this script. I'm not saying she likes it: that we don't know. But she's bought into the model, so to speak, to the point where any clumsy attempt by the John to break it is met with the most virulent contempt.

Imagine trying to have loving, intimate, passionate sex with her... if you can bear such a sordid exercise. Do you think she would stand for it?

M.

It is clear from her words that she EXPECTS the John to uphold his end of the bargain, which means wearing a condom and maintaining basic standards of hygiene. How hard can that be? Her "virulent contempt" ie: her understandable displeasure at having to deal with clients who overstep these boundaries (put in place for the comfort and safety of both parties, it would seem) is hardly irrational. Nor is her contempt of the men who place an additional emotional burden on her - the ones too clueless and arrogant to realize that their willfull disregard of the terms set out in their verbal contract is nothing less than condescending. Is it any surprise then, that 'Denver Escort' would be less than eager to pursue a "romantic" (insert big, phlegm filled guffaw here) relationship with someone so dismissive of the standards and guidelines she has established to protect her own safety? If anything, she deserves kudos for exercising sound judgement and being able to set clear boundaries between her private and her professional lives.

Perhaps it comes as a shock to some of you that a "whore" might possess something akin to human feelings and would take exception to a client who displays utter disregard for the terms of her service. Would such a man expect his barber or drycleaner to provide services unrelated to their trade by virtue of his patronage? Why shouldn't a sex worker expect similar adherence on the part of her clients to the common sense rules that govern their arrangement?

Women are often derided for their perceived tendency to be emotional rather than logical, but the majority of men here seem to be basing their arguments on the article's "tone", while assiduously avoiding the rather obvious points laid out in its content, fixating instead on her "anger". (Let's see how jolly and upbeat you would be after being pounded -- and farted on -- by assorted slobs and miscreants at the end of a typical working day.) Strangely, her most unladylike lack of gratitude for the abuse meted out to her seems to offend you more than the fact that these violations occur.

You still haven't bothered to explain why you are so emotionally attached to this issue...

You still haven't bothered to explain why you are so emotionally attached to this issue...
Because she's a hooker. Perhaps even the author of the piece.

Because she's a hooker. Perhaps even the author of the piece.

If I was a hooker, do you think I would be engaged in this sort of thankless, mind-numbing exchange without monetary compensation? Your response here merely proves that you are intellectually incapable of formulating a logical response to my post and have to rely on witless rejoinders. Sadly for you, being called a hooker does not offend me. I can add it to "chink", "jew-lover", "anti-semite", and "femmy-natzi" (sic).

To quote the hopeless 15 year olds on the Maury Povich show, "You don't know me!" :p

Like I said earlier in this thread, I have a friend that was a hooker, and I do not think any less of her for it. I've called her a hooker, she's called herself a hooker, etc. I never used that word with the purpose of offending you or anyone else. My conclusion that you yourself must be involved personally is based solely on the fact that you're trying SO ****ING HARD to find the hate and loathing in all our responses.

You're attached to it personally.
do you think I would be engaged in this sort of thankless, mind-numbing exchange without monetary compensation?
So we're to assume that a hooker doesn't speak to anyone without being paid for it? "That'll be $25.73 for your groceries, ma'am." "**** you, you owe me another $50 for speaking to me."

Don't be ridiculous.

To quote the hopeless 15 year olds on the Maury Povich show, "You don't know me!" :p

Like I said earlier in this thread, I have a friend that was a hooker, and I do not think any less of her for it. I've called her a hooker, she's called herself a hooker, etc. I never used that word with the purpose of offending you or anyone else. My conclusion that you yourself must be involved personally is based solely on the fact that you're trying SO ****ING HARD to find the hate and loathing in all our responses.

You're attached to it personally.

So we're to assume that a hooker doesn't speak to anyone without being paid for it? "That'll be $25.73 for your groceries, ma'am." "**** you, you owe me another $50 for speaking to me."

Don't be ridiculous.

Which part of "thankless and mind-numbing" is beyond your grasp of the English language?

You talk about my "hate and loathing" (a bit redundant, doncha think?) yet you overlook your compatriots' use of the word "c*nt" among other charming descriptions of the woman in question. Based on the ferocity with which you defend the honor of DE's less savory clients, I can only assume you (and several others here) fit the description. What else could explain the fact that you have gotten so bent out of shape over a hooker expressing her disgust and loathing for the miscreants who abuse her?

As for my "personal interest" in this "rant", I posted it because I thought it was suitably entertaining material for a forum like this. I never anticipated having to defend it (or myself) against a barrage of hate missives lobbed at me by a pack of men howling "unfair".

Prostitutes are considered degraded human beings (and therefore different from other people engaged in commerce) to the extent that the prostitute violates a taboo, according to which sex is both dirty and sacred.

Prostitutes are considered degraded human beings (and therefore different from other people engaged in commerce) to the extent that the prostitute violates a taboo, according to which sex is both dirty and sacred.

In a more enlightened world, prostitutes would be recognized as high-priestesses, uniquely endowed with equal measures of sacredness and profanity, the balance by which transcendent and sublime communion with the Gods is achieved.

In a more enlightened world, prostitutes would be recognized as high-priestesses, uniquely endowed with equal measures of sacredness and profanity, the balance by which transcendent and sublime communion with the Gods is achieved.I guess that depends on how you define enlightened.

In a more enlightened world, prostitutes would be recognized as high-priestesses, uniquely endowed with equal measures of sacredness and profanity, the balance by which transcendent and sublime communion with the Gods is achieved.

Now that's some crazy shit.

Based on the ferocity with which you defend the honor of DE's less savory clients, I can only assume you (and several others here) fit the description.

What "ferocity?" You really are looking for anything. All men are "bad", and all women are "good." Right?

What else could explain the fact that you have gotten so bent out of shape over a hooker expressing her disgust and loathing for the miscreants who abuse her?

Uh, we're only responding to your baiting. Look on page one. You're the one who started getting bent out of shape when you saw that we weren't being very sympathetic to your "enlightened hooker." Oh, the horror. You couldn't even believe that I found it fascinating *gasp* that she would bang any lowlife degenerate for money. As if I was in the wrong about finding it interesting.

As for my "personal interest" in this "rant", I posted it because I thought it was suitably entertaining material for a forum like this. I never anticipated having to defend it (or myself) against a barrage of hate missives lobbed at me by a pack of men howling "unfair".

Bullshit. You knew exactly what you were going to do.

Bullshit. You knew exactly what you were going to do.
No, no. She has no interest at all in hookers, she just wants them venerated as the pathway to enlightenment. :|

No, no. She has no interest at all in hookers, she just wants them venerated as the pathway to enlightenment. :|

You might want to familiarize yourself with the work of Georges Bataille:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s281136.htm

You might want to familiarize yourself with the work of Georges Bataille:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s281136.htmWhy?

In a more enlightened world, prostitutes would be recognized as high-priestesses, uniquely endowed with equal measures of sacredness and profanity, the balance by which transcendent and sublime communion with the Gods is achieved.


Civilization has been there, done that. Obviously is wasn't a lasting venture.


Just sayin' :p

It is clear from her words that she EXPECTS the John to uphold his end of the bargain, which means wearing a condom and maintaining basic standards of hygiene. How hard can that be? Her "virulent contempt" ie: her understandable displeasure at having to deal with clients who overstep these boundaries (put in place for the comfort and safety of both parties, it would seem) is hardly irrational. Nor is her contempt of the men who place an additional emotional burden on her - the ones too clueless and arrogant to realize that their willfull disregard of the terms set out in their verbal contract is nothing less than condescending. Is it any surprise then, that 'Denver Escort' would be less than eager to pursue a "romantic" (insert big, phlegm filled guffaw here) relationship with someone so dismissive of the standards and guidelines she has established to protect her own safety? If anything, she deserves kudos for exercising sound judgement and being able to set clear boundaries between her private and her professional lives.


Nobody is defending the guys who don't want to wear condoms.
She expresses contempt for far more than just those who disregard hygiene and safety. But I'm getting used to you ignoring this fact.

You've not responded to my previous posts on the matter, BTW. Why not? You're free to respond to whatever you feel like, but if you choose to ignore certain posts and then return to post as if they don't exist, I will be inclined to draw the conclusion that you are not an honest person.


Perhaps it comes as a shock to some of you that a "whore" might possess something akin to human feelings and would take exception to a client who displays utter disregard for the terms of her service. Would such a man expect his barber or drycleaner to provide services unrelated to their trade by virtue of his patronage? Why shouldn't a sex worker expect similar adherence on the part of her clients to the common sense rules that govern their arrangement?


There is no argument here about hygiene. Perhaps you would like some of us to fight you on this, but I think everyone here agrees with her on that part of her rant. Its the other things she rants about that overwhelm us towards an overall very negative reaction. You know this. Why persist in misconstruing the debate?


Women are often derided for their perceived tendency to be emotional rather than logical, but the majority of men here seem to be basing their arguments on the article's "tone", while assiduously avoiding the rather obvious points laid out in its content, fixating instead on her "anger".


The points she makes are hardly eye-opening or original. Does one bother to state anymore that one opposes what Hitler tried to do to the world? No, we take that as a given. Likewise, I feel no need to spend my energy declaring that men who don't want to use condoms with hookers are Bad People.

Now why are you so eager to gloss over her contempt for everyone but 'normal', good-looking guys? You seem to be avoiding everything unsavoury about this woman.

I continue to wonder why you don't choose a more level-headed prostitute to quote. You only have yourself to blame if you feel our reactions to her tone and unsavoury contempt are blinding us to her points. There are any number of ways to communicate the same points in a way people will listen to.

Of course, then they'll probably just find the topic boring because how much can be actually said about slobs who go see prostitutes? That they're slobs? That's pretty much the end of the story, isn't it?


(Let's see how jolly and upbeat you would be after being pounded -- and farted on -- by assorted slobs and miscreants at the end of a typical working day.)


Nobody asked her to be jolly or upbeat, my desperately exaggerating friend.


Strangely, her most unladylike lack of gratitude for the abuse meted out to her seems to offend you more than the fact that these violations occur.

That is what you desire to perceive in me. It simply isn't there: you are looking at me with very tainted lenses.

You are more transparent than perhaps you imagine.
You have displayed a proclivity to lumping men together in this thread, referring to us as 'all of you' when in fact our responses have been varied. You have buried my measured responses in with all the other ones, only responding to the portions you felt you could leverage some defense for her contempt out of, and using gross exaggerations to do so. You have ignored all points made that do not pertain to YOUR fixation.

People sense dishonesty, Suz. Why not come clean and speak from your own heart, and your own experience, rather than seek to defend your experience by proxy? You will be more successful, deemed more honest, and will avoid the situation where others have to wade through pages of beating about the bush. In a nutshell: cut to the chase.

Then, if YOU choose to be contemptuous of ugly people, fat people, handicapped people, etc... you can do harm to your own cause... but more likely than not, you will be smarter and more compassionate, and will make your points clearly and incisively. Everyone wins.

M.

Which part of "thankless and mind-numbing" is beyond your grasp of the English language?

You talk about my "hate and loathing" (a bit redundant, doncha think?) yet you overlook your compatriots' use of the word "c*nt" among other charming descriptions of the woman in question. Based on the ferocity with which you defend the honor of DE's less savory clients, I can only assume you (and several others here) fit the description. What else could explain the fact that you have gotten so bent out of shape over a hooker expressing her disgust and loathing for the miscreants who abuse her?

As for my "personal interest" in this "rant", I posted it because I thought it was suitably entertaining material for a forum like this. I never anticipated having to defend it (or myself) against a barrage of hate missives lobbed at me by a pack of men howling "unfair".

Its funny. I perceive you as the one who has been most bent out of shape by this thread. As you seem to admit at the end here when you qualify the posts as 'hate missives' directed at you.
Do you really perceive them that way?

Why are you focusing on the words people have used to describe this woman, and distilling it into hate against you? What ties you to this woman in a way that causes you to actually confuse your two identities?

The enduring mystery though, is why you continue to pretend the whore in question was only 'expressing her disgust and loathing for the miscreants who abuse her?'

As for prostitutes as priestesses? Sure, why not? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind why, specifically, they should take on that role. Its a provocative suggestion in our day and age: don't you think it deserves more time than you have given it? Perhaps more time than you have given to defending the author of the rant?

M.

In a more enlightened world, prostitutes would be recognized as high-priestesses, uniquely endowed with equal measures of sacredness and profanity, the balance by which transcendent and sublime communion with the Gods is achieved.
I see what you're about. This "sacred prosititute" is an ancient pagan tradition, no?

I see what you're about. This "sacred prosititute" is an ancient pagan tradition, no?So, we are to presume that ancient pagans were more enlightened that modern people?

So, we are to presume that ancient pagans were more enlightened that modern people?
I have no fricken' idea. I am just saying I think I know where the person who started this thread got her ideas from.

Its funny. I perceive you as the one who has been most bent out of shape by this thread. As you seem to admit at the end here when you qualify the posts as 'hate missives' directed at you.
Do you really perceive them that way?


Why are you focusing on the words people have used to describe this woman, and distilling it into hate against you? What ties you to this woman in a way that causes you to actually confuse your two identities?

The enduring mystery though, is why you continue to pretend the whore in question was only 'expressing her disgust and loathing for the miscreants who abuse her?'

As for prostitutes as priestesses? Sure, why not? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind why, specifically, they should take on that role. Its a provocative suggestion in our day and age: don't you think it deserves more time than you have given it? Perhaps more time than you have given to defending the author of the rant?

M.

Malcolm, should I assume that you are personally invested in every topic you debate? Since you have commented on this thread more than I have, am I to conclude, based on your own flawed reasoning here, that you hire prostitutes? You don't have to answer that because it's none of my business and it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Given the nature of our anonymity, claiming one's personal connections to an issue has absolutely no validity since these assertions cannot be verified. Unfortunately, I can't respond to every single question and comment that has been directed at me by all the "gentlemen" on this thread. There's only one of me and I'm outnumbered by at least a dozen. This is not a complaint, just an assertion of fact based on my admittedly flawed count.

Regarding my comments about prostitutes being (arguably) worthy of veneration, as opposed, that is, to being reviled outcasts, I was simply responding to Guido's earlier comments. If you are interested in this concept, I suggest you follow the link I provided that will give you a brief rundown on the works of the late French philosopher Georges Bataille (who once famously insisted that his church was a brothel.) You are an intelligent fellow, surely you can wrap your mind around an unfamiliar concept without further explanation from me.

Regards,

S

Here's a couple short wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_prostitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierodule

The latter says:

Among some neopagans, a hierodule may be a priestess who has sexual intercourse in the role of whichever Goddess she serves in the divine union of hieros gamos.

If that is true, it is somewhat like practitioners of Vodun and Santa Ria being "mounted" by gods during various rituals. By "mounted" I mean they believe their bodies are taken over by these gods.

See this Wiki article for more on that concept in relation to sex while "channeling" a god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieros_gamos

I see what you're about. This "sacred prosititute" is an ancient pagan tradition, no?
Yep. If I remember correctly, the priestesses of Ishtar supposedly lived this role as sacred prostitute. But it was only a few times per year.

Here's a couple short wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_prostitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierodule

The latter says:



If that is true, it is somewhat like practitioners of Vodun and Santa Ria being "mounted" by gods during various rituals. By "mounted" I mean they believe their bodies are taken over by these gods.

See this Wiki article for more on that concept in relation to sex while "channeling" a god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieros_gamos

Ah yes, Heiros Gamos. One of the main reasons I stayed a solitary pagan.

Malcolm, should I assume that you are personally invested in every topic you debate? Since you have commented on this thread more than I have, am I to conclude, based on your own flawed reasoning here, that you hire prostitutes? You don't have to answer that because it's none of my business and it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Given the nature of our anonymity, claiming one's personal connections to an issue has absolutely no validity since these assertions cannot be verified. Unfortunately, I can't respond to every single question and comment that has been directed at me by all the "gentlemen" on this thread. There's only one of me and I'm outnumbered by at least a dozen. This is not a complaint, just an assertion of fact based on my admittedly flawed count.


Its not the amount of comments but the way one comments that denotes personal investment.
I merely noticed that people's natural reactions to the ugliness of much of the author's sentiments really got you going, and your responses have been, and remain, entirely one-sided. The author displayed disgust at some of the clients who deserve it, and disgust at many who don't. You have acted as if her disgust was only for the deserving. No amount of slipping and sliding will change this fact - and you will excuse those of us who find this imbalance to denote a slant due to personal experience.

You mistakenly interpret that I believe this means you are, or have been a prostitute. I never said anything of the sort. Many things can give a woman the kind of slant you seem to have.

I also do not expect you to answer everyone in the thread. What I do expect you to do is to not lump all the men in the thread together as you have done on TWO occasions. This is part of the slant mentioned above, BTW.
As I said earlier, it is also descriptive of your bias that when outnumbered and having to choose who to respond to, you prefer to see only the adversity (much of which did not even exist), and systematically chose to ignore the rational points (of which there were many). You still ignore them. They remain in this thread, and describe your blind spot exquisitely.


Regarding my comments about prostitutes being (arguably) worthy of veneration, as opposed, that is, to being reviled outcasts, I was simply responding to Guido's earlier comments. If you are interested in this concept, I suggest you follow the link I provided that will give you a brief rundown on the works of the late French philosopher Georges Bataille (who once famously insisted that his church was a brothel.) You are an intelligent fellow, surely you can wrap your mind around an unfamiliar concept without further explanation from me.

Regards,

S

Thank you for the compliment - it is a shame though that you don't want to spend more energy describing an approach you obviously find valuable, and instead have spent your time fending off imaginary attacks on your person.

I will however do the reading. I'll enjoy it less: its so much nicer to hear about something new from the mouth of someone passionate about it.

M.

Yep. If I remember correctly, the priestesses of Ishtar supposedly lived this role as sacred prostitute. But it was only a few times per year.
I am surprised there is not more about this whole subject at Wikipedia. I suppose the reason is that a whole lot isn't actually known. I am going to guess that "prostitute" is probably not an ideal translation and that we simply don't have a word that corresponds. There's some mention of a translation problem in that article.

Malcolm:

You admonish me for violating the rules of fair play (as determined by you, that is) -- as if I am expected to adhere to some protocol that curiously, does not apply to others. This double standard is evidenced in your rather condescending view that my opinions are somehow invalidated by my apparent unwillingness to yield to other points of view however wrong and repellent I may find them. Would you be willing, for instance, to recognize the "validity" of someone's claim that torture is a justifiable practice in order to enhance your credibility among those who advocate it? Assuming that you are a person with at least a modicum of integrity, I would guess that your answer is firmly in the negative. Why then, am I expected to stoop to a similar level of intellectual dishonesty?

Well I guess I'll be the only one to say I have little to no respect for any hooker regardless of their attitude. Since we are talking about a 'particular' hooker(the one on craigslist) I will say she has a double whammy. First of all she puts herself above these people while acting superior when all she is doing is spreading her stuff. She isn't doing anything exceptional, and last I've seen and heard (thanks to cops and mugshots) being pretty isn't even a requirement. Anyone can lay on their backs or suck a lolipop.

Save the well "what if" stuff b/c it won't change my views, and personally if you are happy with what you do, it's not your job to convince others that what you do is a noble-respectful-dignified proffession.

The way I see it, sex workers are little different than girls I knew in college who got drunk on weekends and got laid with the first guy they could find.

I had a buddie who played baseball and was pretty good. He knew a lot of campus jocks. I got into one of the Footballer's parties and saw the chicks, and they were very cute by the way... and they were snorting coke and hanging all over these dudes. I asked my friend if this was what goes on there and he said this was nothing. He told me about one gal we both knew and she pulled a train on all the dudes one night. Now this was a beautiful and intellegent woman.

Personally, I have more respect for sex workers than these sports groopies. At least a sex worker gets something out of the deal.

The way I see it, sex workers are little different than girls I knew in college who got drunk on weekends and got laid with the first guy they could find.

I had a buddie who played baseball and was pretty good. He knew a lot of campus jocks. I got into one of the Footballer's parties and saw the chicks, and they were very cute by the way... and they were snorting coke and hanging all over these dudes. I asked my friend if this was what goes on there and he said this was nothing. He told me about one gal we both knew and she pulled a train on all the dudes one night. Now this was a beautiful and intellegent woman.

Personally, I have more respect for sex workers than these sports groopies. At least a sex worker gets something out of the deal.

Sadly, our culture promotes the whole 'Girls Gone Wild' phenomenon, selling it as a commodity of "empowerment" for women, when in fact it is simply a way to extract more uncompensated labor from the "service" sector.

I don't know anyone that sees "Girls Gone Wild" as empowerment for women. Pretty much everyone I've talked to about it thinks it's pretty sickening.

I don't know anyone that sees "Girls Gone Wild" as empowerment for women. Pretty much everyone I've talked to about it thinks it's pretty sickening.

I'm talking about "empowerment", as it is often applied to "feminism" these days; a term that is meant to justify the debasement of women. Through slick advertising campaigns and other media generated content aimed at selling women on the idea of being eager consumers of a range of goods and services (from lingerie to pepper spray), they are told that fulfillment can be best achieved by "subverting" male privilege (which more often than not, means embracing it.) With women convinced that "empowerment" is best achieved by accepting, indeed, delighting in traditional gender stereotypes, a man needn't use force or even coercion to transform his partner into a low-cost home entertainment phenomenon. The Corporate Media/Industrial/Entertainment Complex has already laid the groundwork for him.

The way I see it, sex workers are little different than girls I knew in college who got drunk on weekends and got laid with the first guy they could find.

I had a buddie who played baseball and was pretty good. He knew a lot of campus jocks. I got into one of the Footballer's parties and saw the chicks, and they were very cute by the way... and they were snorting coke and hanging all over these dudes. I asked my friend if this was what goes on there and he said this was nothing. He told me about one gal we both knew and she pulled a train on all the dudes one night. Now this was a beautiful and intellegent woman.

Personally, I have more respect for sex workers than these sports groopies. At least a sex worker gets something out of the deal.

I feel the same about them as I do prosti's.

I've gradually shifted to a new point of view over the years on the girls gone wild DVD's, porn stars and strippers, etc. I don't think they are being objectified, or degraded. I feel they are exploiting their own power over men. I don't think it empowers them, women are automatically already empowered in our culture by default. Some of them are simply smart enough to capitalize on it for fast easy money, and lots of it.

I've gradually shifted to a new point of view over the years on the girls gone wild DVD's, porn stars and strippers, etc. I don't think they are being objectified, or degraded. I feel they are exploiting their own power over men. I don't think it empowers them, women are automatically already empowered in our culture by default. Some of them are simply smart enough to capitalize on it for fast easy money, and lots of it.


You do have a point. Women know we have the power over men by way of enticement. Women IMHOP are more natural when it comes to manipulation, especially where sex is involved. Look at the women who go after married men because it's a ''challenge'' to see if he'll succomb to the temptation. Look at the women who know how to work their magic in order to get what they want.

The men share equal blame. Men really are weak when it comes to beautiful women, and it's kinda pathetic. Of course not all men are blinded, and under the spell of women. These are the ones who have attained a degree of maturity and logic the others wish they had.

Is there a cliche, stereotype, or generalization that Fairlyconserv doesn't embrace? How does she stuff that much conventional "wisdom" into the narrow confines of her cranium without having her head explode?

Is there a cliche, stereotype, or generalization that Fairlyconserv doesn't embrace? How does she stuff that much conventional "wisdom" into the narrow confines of her cranium without having her head explode?


Aww, did I hurt somebody's feewings? Get over yourself. So far you are the only one on this thread acting like their head is going to explode b/c we don't honor and worship prostitutes.

Is there a cliche, stereotype, or generalization that Fairlyconserv doesn't embrace? How does she stuff that much conventional "wisdom" into the narrow confines of her cranium without having her head explode?All cliches, stereotypes, and generalizations have some basis in truth.

just sayin.

All cliches, stereotypes, and generalizations have some basis in truth.

just sayin.

Perhaps. . . But remember most of these "truths" were created in the first place by European colonial powers in order to justify their violently imposed dominion over the "natives" in lands they had conquered. Their brutal methods could be explained away by de-humanizing the "other", using junk science to "prove" that non-whites were less than human, and therefore incapable of governing themselves, or fullfilling roles outside of menial physical labor. Slavery endured for centuries because it was widely believed that Africans were a sub-sect of humanity, and therefore immune to suffering in the "real" sense. Denied formal education and entrance into mainstream society under subsequent segregation laws enacted after abolition, they gravitated towards sports and entertainment - one of the few places where they stood a chance of breaking the shackles of poverty. Today, the fallacy persists that black people are genetically pre-disposed towards dancing, singing and sport. This myth painfully endures to this day as evidenced by the disproportionately high drop-out rate of African American students, only too aware that their shoddy, under-funded school system is designed to produce an obedient, low-skilled workforce. Not surprisingly, these young people are more inclined to pursue their "hoop and hip-hop dreams" as a means of escape from an endless cycle of despair and hopelessness. This tendency, borne out of centuries of economic hardship and having to constantly rub up against the ingrained prejudices of the dominant class, (whose privileged status is maintained by a socio-economic structure that guarantees the supremacy of pale males) is interpreted instead as some sort of "science-based" given: "Black people have got rhythym". This is certainly "true" if your belief system is informed, that is, by what appears on MTV.

Asians are similarly typecast as possessing traits and tendencies inherent in their racial profile. The Chinese laborers who were "allowed" into the US and Canada to build railways, were similarly assigned sub-human status, forced to live in segregated squalor under laws that denied them marriage and citizenship once their contracts had expired. This inhumane practice was justified as a necessary pre-caution to ensure that the "Yellow Peril" would not gain a foothold into American society and "pollute" the gene pool. As long as the general public believed that these yellow menaces were corrupt, inscrutable, shifty-eyed interlopers, bent on ravishing white women. and horning in on the competition with their sneaky, underhanded business practices, their inhumane treatment could go unchallenged. Wives and other family members of these Chinese laborers were denied entrance to the US; (a law that curiously applied only to Chinese) a practice that was justified as a way to minimize their chances of overwhelming the population with their "vermin like tendencies to endlessly spawn". Not surprisingly, other laws were similarly enacted, making it illegal for them to marry white women. Thus the myth of the "sexless" Asian male was born. Nevermind that he was prohibited from having sexual relations of any kind as a "guest worker" in his inhospitable temporary homeland, the image of the silent, inscrutable Asian male, harboring secret passions for the white women he was denied from ravishing, endures to this day.

The point is, the "truth" underlying most stereotypes is a mostly artificial construct, determined largely by the socio-economic factors of the era from which they were conceived, and perpetuated to this day by the dominant class to ensure that no paradigm shift occurs to upset the delicate imbalance of power that places white males firmly at the top and black/brown women securely at the bottom.