Reak, ever had sex without paying?
 

You sound pathetic, just wondering gauging how pathetic you actually are. Don't count the prostitutes that did it just for a breakfast btw.

bootleg drama

laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawlz:1orglaugh

Lame drama.

I hope you get infertile from a nasty STD (although that's hard nowadays, lol). People like you are a wrath to mankind and should be expelled. It's better if people like you don't proliferate and pass on their habits.

And once again, it is clear: lack of sex leads to bad tempers :warning

In other words: stop worrying about who other people fuck and get a sexlife of your own :2 cents:

Mine is fine, or even better, thanks for asking. I hate unjustice though.

What do you consider unjust about someone paying for sex? It's a perfectly legitimate exchange of services for money.

I just love GFY drama....

No, you're abusing the other person's mental status and situation (especially in third world countries). The transaction is thus not fair. The prostitute is not able to oversee the results of her action at that very moment and is misled by temporary cravings or the routine in it all, while the buyer is in the better position. In common ethics, the buyer is morally obliged to do what is not only in his best interest.

Compare it to signing a contract at gunpoint. While the buyer is not using any threats or violence, there is a definite pressure he is applying.

Reak had sex with me yesterday.
I have not billed him.
I hope he will not bill me as well.

You are apparently a misogynist, unable to comprehend that women are intelligent, rational creatures, who are perfectly capable of making decisions while overseeing both present and future effects of their actions.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "common ethics"? Kantian ethics? Utilitarian ethics? Intuitionist ethics? Egoist ethics? Feminist ethics? Ethics of care? Virtue ethics?

What kind of non-argument is that? The offer to temporarily relieve cravings definitely puts a person under pressure that is in a situation where all those needs are not covered. A human mind can easily be misled into unthoughful actions.

Furthermore, the social cicle of philosophy students is apparently too small for you to have learned that most people are not capable of properly estimating the results of their actions, and understanding what sequence of events is needed for them to get or keep their life on track.

How is this any different than meeting a girl at say a club or a bar? Instead of giving actual cash, you're buying the girl dinner or a drink, whereas the woman wouldn't see the overall picture because at that very moment all she's thinking about is food or drink.

You must think women are dumber than dogs and have absolutely no foresight.

Don't try to impress me with your terms, I know 'common' is incomplete, but I'm sure the message got across.

Personally, I tend towards an ethics mostly based on the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: that one should always treat others not just as means to an end, but as ends in themselves.

Prostitution, however, is fully compatible with this. It acknowledges the status of prostitutes as rational beings, ends in themselves, and by paying them, it clearly respects the goals that they, as rational beings, set for themselves. The goal in this case being money, of course.

I would never have thought the situation you're describing above is as common as you make it seem. I'd call that borderline prostitution.

Ah, so your paternalistic views do not just extend to prostitutes, but to the vast majority of humanity? So, in your view, people should be protected from their own choices, and their freedom to make these choices should be taken away, so that someone else (the state perhaps?) can decide for them what "the good life" is.

By protecting others from their perceived inability to make informed decisions, you simultaneously take away their freedom, which is the very essence of what it means to be human.

You comfortably skip the fact that money is in most cases a means, not a goal.

Are you telling me that you have never taken a girl out for dinner or drinks and gotten laid afterwards?

argumenta ad hominem, out-of-the-blue-generalisations, it's a true feast today...

It is a goal, but not a goal in itself. It is a goal which is valuable because it helps in achieving other goals. Obviously, only humans are ends in themselves, all other goals merely serve either these, or other goals that serve these (or, etc.).

What he's saying goes against "free will". People can't think for themselves.

So who can think for them? If Person A can't think for himself, odds are Person B can't think for themselves either, so if Person B can't think for himself how could he possibly think for Person A?

no, but I'm absolutely sure I'd never let a girl have sex with me as part of an exchange, like you're picturing it.

No, it did not come across. By postulating the term "common ethics", you sneakily insert the idea that we all agree on these into your argument. However, since we clearly do not agree on these (hence this discussion), trying to make it seem that way is a rather obvious logical fallacy (ad populum, to be precise).

That would depend on what you consider an exchange.

You don't really think women flock to your cock because you're the great Sex God Cockaliah and they want to please you with absolutely no desire or need for themselves? Thats an exchange, no different than what you're talking about. Person A wants one thing, Person B wants another, they agree to reciprocate.

Ad hominem? Please, do explain.

I accused you of paternalistic views, yes. But that was in a direct response to your argument, which is in fact paternalistic: "Prostitutes are unable to make informed decisions, and should be protected from this".

You tried to back up your argument by saying that most people are unable to make informed decisions, which would imply (if you were consistent - which is doubtful) that "most people" should be protected from the inability to make informed decisions which you accuse them of.

i still owe reak a hooker

god damnit i never bet against him

i hope she will suck him off good

The usual whoremonger may not be aware of the results of his actions either...

You have two nicks? Busted?

I'll continue this discussion tomorrow if I have time. A sensible discussion on ethics and prostitutes' woes is great, but I don't feel like answering to pretentious bits of 'correct' rethoric that sound like they come straight from 1st year philosophy students' textbooks, that apparently serve no purpose but to impress and to divert the attention. Good night.

In other words, you have no good arguments. Thanks for playing :thumbsup

every girl costs money - it's just the difference between giving her the money directly or paying her dinner, clothes or jewelry. and usually hookers are cheaper than girlfriends - and less hassle. they also don't complain about how your apartment looks like or why you don't wash your dishes. and so on, you get the idea.

He's also posting under 2 nicks. Why?

And since he's posting on an adult message board, its a fair assumption that he makes money from porn in some way or another. I'm no philosophy expert obviously, but isn't that kind of odd?

is this a real life drama?

I have no idea about the 2 nicks thing...

But on the subject of prostitution versus porn, I think it's mostly a matter of esthetics. Adult models (mostly) engage in paid sexual activities with a fairly limited number of people, who are (again, mostly) fairly clean and good-looking. Prostitutes, on the other hand, have sex with thousands of men, many of whom are entirely repulsive.

For some reason, many people seem to believe that nobody could "rationally" make that decision. Which is, quite simply, untrue. I have talked with two prostitutes and one former prostitute in the past month (I live in a red light district, so I often meet prostitutes when I go drinking), and the two current prostitutes said they were saving to go back to their own country and start their own business (one a hotel, the other a restaurant), while the former prostitute said she had done it mainly to explore her sexuality, as well as for the "easy" money.

there's a fair amount of "adult models" that work in clubs or as an escort too. :2 cents:

oh shit this is major drama, call out central!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely true, but they remain two distinct jobs. And for the one, people will condemn them, while for the other, people will pretty much still condemn them, but maybe just a little bit less.

Hey Reak baby! :wetkiss

Just wanted to say Hi! :)

Getting into ethics on an adult webmaster forum… so delicious, so delicious.

Not true. Some girls make more money than their boyfriends/husbands. A lot more. And don't need their significant others to buy them jack shit. They do complain though, a lot, just don't need a man to buy them jack shit. Not even a meal or a fucken drink.

You are right, SOME. We are not talking about SOME, but about the majority. But even the most successful women let men to buy them presents and stuff.

Somuch reply's here but no reak here replying.Strange.

lol why should he?

he has not to proof shit to anyone.

as far as i know him he gives a horseshit about what troll on gfy think.
he does his thing and this makes him successful as he is now

It doesn't make much sense to talk about ethics with people who have never really given this much thought. All you get are personal accusations for questioning their unfounded and contradictory premises.
People still prefer to kill the messenger over thinking about the message.
It's not worth the effort. All you can do is piss people off. They don't listen anyway. :2 cents:

I liek dave :)

lolololololololol

each to his own :D i dont ever pay for girls, hate doing it, its just not me. but i would not stand in the way of a friends love for fine ass just because im not prepared to pay for it :O

and as for exploitation, many of these working girls are very good at it - exploiting their customers that is! dont think they are so vunerable.