PDA

View Full Version : Stripping Is Lucrative (Public school alert)



Pages : [1] 2

Servo
January 14th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Career Day Speaker Tells Children Stripping Is Lucrative (Public school alert) WFTV ^ | 1/14/05


Exotic Dancers Make More Depending On Bust Size, Speaker Says

POSTED: 8:33 am EST January 14, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- An inspirational talk for middle-schoolers isn't what a popular speaker at a middle school's annual career day had in mind.

William Fried told eighth-graders in Palo Alto that stripping -- or
exotic dancing -- could be a lucrative profession. He noted that
strippers can make $250,000 a year or more.

He also said the exact amount of financial opportunity was directly
proportional to the dancer's bust size.

Fried might not be invited back after giving the students at Jane
Lathrop Stanford Middle School that questionable career advice.

Fried is president of a management consulting firm. He gave nearly an hour-long talk to the kids at the Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School on "The Secret of a Happy Life."

Fried told students: "The truth of the matter is you can earn a
tremendous amount of money as an exotic dancer, if that's your desire."

Fried has given his 55-minute talk to students for the past three years.

He also distributed a tip sheet that includes a list of 140 careers,
ranging from accounting to wrestling, as well as exotic dancing and stripping.

Principal Joseph Di Salvo said he plans to send some apologetic
letters home with students.

Fried said he doesn't think he offended anyone.

Poly
January 14th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Dear Lord, come quickly! :nono:

Mr. 5020
January 14th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Fried said he doesn't think he offended anyone. What a moron!

PureX
January 14th, 2005, 08:12 PM
I suppose that exotic dancing does pay pretty well. But there's a lot more to a job than what it pays. A whole lot more. Everything we do effects ourselves and other people and we have a responsibility to try and understand the effects of our actions and to take responsibility for them. A job isn't just about what it pays.

Not by a longshot.

Crow
January 14th, 2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Career Day Speaker Tells Children Stripping Is Lucrative (Public school alert) WFTV ^ | 1/14/05


Exotic Dancers Make More Depending On Bust Size, Speaker Says

POSTED: 8:33 am EST January 14, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- An inspirational talk for middle-schoolers isn't what a popular speaker at a middle school's annual career day had in mind.

William Fried told eighth-graders in Palo Alto that stripping -- or
exotic dancing -- could be a lucrative profession. He noted that
strippers can make $250,000 a year or more.

He also said the exact amount of financial opportunity was directly
proportional to the dancer's bust size.

Fried might not be invited back after giving the students at Jane
Lathrop Stanford Middle School that questionable career advice.

Fried is president of a management consulting firm. He gave nearly an hour-long talk to the kids at the Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School on "The Secret of a Happy Life."

Fried told students: "The truth of the matter is you can earn a
tremendous amount of money as an exotic dancer, if that's your desire."

Fried has given his 55-minute talk to students for the past three years.

He also distributed a tip sheet that includes a list of 140 careers,
ranging from accounting to wrestling, as well as exotic dancing and stripping.

Principal Joseph Di Salvo said he plans to send some apologetic
letters home with students.

Fried said he doesn't think he offended anyone.

:doh:

:vomit:

:mad:

Crow
January 14th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Wait a minute.

Why didn't he mention the lucrative field of prostitution? The Mustang Ranch might be hiring!

ShadowMaid
January 14th, 2005, 08:25 PM
That's terrible advice!! :madmad:

Mr. 5020
January 14th, 2005, 08:33 PM
I wonder if this guy has a daughter.

Crow
January 14th, 2005, 09:03 PM
He's probably her agent.

Mr. 5020
January 14th, 2005, 09:05 PM
:vomit:

Servo
January 14th, 2005, 09:48 PM
I met the author of the following testimony, David Sherman, a few years ago. He was a strip joint manager, now he travels around the county to testify against these clubs. I recall him saying he had a change of heart about his job after his daughter was born.

-Shimei



http://www.adultssavingkids.org/DavidShermanII.html




TESTIMONY OF DAVID SHERMAN
Former Manager of Various Strip Clubs
Sexually oriented businesses: An Insiderís View
Testimony before the Michigan House Committee
Ethics and Constitutional Law
January 12, 2000


The National Organization Against Lewd Activities (NOALA)
800-552-1901

Having been involved in the Adult Entertainment Industry for fourteen years, I am very aware of the consequences this business can have on all involved. Over the years, Iíve seen friendships, families and lives destroyed.

Much of the activity of the adult entertainment industry is illegal and criminal. In addition, there are tremendous negative effects on entertainers, communities, local businesses as well as families.

The following, for your information, are some of my personal experiences with the Adult Entertainment Industry.

Right from the start, drug and alcohol use is rampant. The dancers call it partying. They donít realize that they are medicating themselves in order to do the work they do. Also, the abortion rate is extremely high due to the fact that most have lost contact with family members due to what they do. They also feel they could never take the chance on flawing the body from carrying a child. Additionally, the dancers believe they have no way to support a baby without dancing, and therefore canít quit to have one. Basically, they are caught in a very real, painful Catch-22.

The girls, if they have never danced, are usually extremely against it and most of the time is hired as waitresses, even though waitresses are not needed. This makes the atmosphere become a part of their life. At this point, they see it as a job, not as stripping and are converted quite easily to dancing. Once dancing they get used to being objectified. It becomes as important to them to hear how beautiful they are 200 times a day as it is to actually make the money from the dancing.

Between the use of drugs to medicate what they do and hearing how beautiful they are all the time, they soon experience what I call "BDA", Basic Dancer Attitude. This is when the dancer thinks that no matter what friends, children, husband and families think about her, it doesnít matter. They can all be replaced because all of the patrons around her find her attractive, beautiful and idolized. Now, the dancers are truly caught in the "adult" scene. With friends and family gone from their lives, they exist alone is this dark, subculture of sex, drugs, alcohol and prostitution. All of this perverse living, to the dancer, is now just part of her normal lifestyle.

After a couple of years at this level, the dancer realizes she is getting older and attempts to fit back into society. She tries boyfriends, school or really anything to cling to what is "normal." Realizing that she cannot live in both worlds, she returns to the subculture of the Adult Business, actually despising the real world. This leads to more dependency on drugs and alcohol, which now makes her 100% lost to this life. The dancers will continue living like this until they realize they can no longer stay at their "current level", and keep making money and getting the compliments. Once they realize this, they begin to master more perverse things to make cash, to make up for fading looks and dancer burnout.

The cycle then becomes even more vicious with depression, drugs, alcohol and body mutilation to stay thin. Finally, they realize they can no longer keep up with the new and younger girls and leave, going to one of five places.

They go to a very filthy, nasty club thatís full of girls in their position. Here they perform and do some of the most vile and filthy acts you can imagine to make money.
Some turn to prostitution, meeting customers outside of the club. The club now becomes a place for them to meet new "clients".
Some marry just to be able to survive. But the addictions to drugs and alcohol normally shatter and destroy these relationships.
Some actually do break away and go to school to become productive citizens, but the frequency of this is around 1 of 50.
They become societyís throwaway people. People used up Ė degraded, abused and even sold by the people who own these establishments.
Sadly, these young ladies over time, little by little, become manipulated, controlled and finally destroyed by a world that our communities have closed their eyes to. Thinking back, there are three girls that seem to stand out rather clearly as examples of what can and often does happen to a young, innocent woman who naively gets sucked into the sexually oriented business industry.

She was a pretty, intelligent 20-year-old girl who came into the business as a waitress. She was, from what I could see, from the upper middle class and a loving Christian family. She attended a state university and was fluent in several languages plus carried a 3.8 grade point average. She soon became interested in stripping. She started dancing and very quickly got caught up in the lifestyle of drugs, alcoholism and lesbianism. I watched her life deteriorate for about two years. She has, as far as I know, gone on to graduate from school. But, still after five years, has not left this subculture and only fallen deeper into it.
This young lady was also a nice, 19-year-old pharmacy major at a university. She too started as a waitress and soon converted to dancing. Her family payed all of her schooling and housing. She was from a wealthy family who owned several businesses from construction to restaurants. After about eight months, her family found out what she was doing and did everything in their power to get her to quit. But by this time, she was making enough money and doing enough drugs to think she could handle life on her own. Her family lost all contact, and she lost all control. She disappeared into this subculture and I havenít heard of her since, and that has been over three years ago.
Another young victim was a medical student from a university. Her husband of only a couple of weeks worked in one of these adult clubs. Being newlyweds, they needed money but she did not want to dance. Soon after waitressing, she easily converted to dancing. The life quickly consumed her. She moved to another city for her medical career but soon quit school and started dancing at a club there. Divorce quickly followed, and she went on to another state doing drugs and making XXX films. I recently learned she has contracted AIDS after about two years in the pornography film business and is now working in a fast food restaurant.
THE MANAGERíS ROLE
As far as female employees in adult entertainment nightclubs, everyone you (as manager) hire you treat as a potential dancer. It really doesnít matter if sheís hired as a waitress, hostess, or even a bartender.

First, you must make the girl feel at home in an environment that is so abnormal that most people have to be made comfortable. In fact, you could almost say they have to be "hardened" to the club life. This is easily accomplished by working there as many hours as possible and by having all of the staff treat them as if they were long lost friends. Itís important for the management to do this also.

Second, after a few weeks, because the girl is now your friend, as a manager you bring up how short you are on girls that night or how short the amateur contestants are. You ask them to please help, that they donít need to take their clothes off, but the club just needs an extra body. Usually, they happily agree to do this. You then have them change into dancing attire, usually a skimpy dress, a teddy, g-string or a t-bar (which is a very small pair of panties). Often, the girls, having become used to the environment and having seen nudity daily, are intoxicated with the sense of being on stage and are lured out of their clothing by the other girls, customers, and promises of large tips.

Now, at this point, the managerís job just starts. But, if the girl has not taken her clothes off, the manager again has to start in on her about needing more help on the floor. Again, most of the girls will agree to help the manager out. At this time, you tell them that things are not that busy, and you take them out for dinner, "my treat". Of course, the club always writes this off! So you go out, have some drinks and small talk with the girl. Returning to the club she now believes that youíre good friends, plus she is under the influence of alcohol. At this point, she easily disrobes on the customerís request with the other girls welcoming a new dancer into their ranks. The experienced dancers will then go on about how beautiful she is and how much money sheíll make.

Of course, even now, she still might have not disrobed. But, by this point, you are her friend and can make her feel guilty about not helping out more and ask her to please disrobe, as without her, youíll not make much money that night. She is needed. People who need her and customers who tell her how beautiful she is, surround her.

She now experiences a variety of emotions and, being human, needs to be needed. With this emotion fulfilled, she finds herself wanting to be complemented which she is, and she wants to make money, which she can. You then play on the "what more can a girl want?" and the subject of self-worth never really comes up.

At this point, if she still has not disrobed, you let her know you no longer need her for her position, but dancing is open if she wishes to still work at the club. This does not work unless she has incurred debts and needs the money, or she actually enjoyed the experience and doesnít want to lose her new friends. If she stays, the manager must start training her to be a professional. This means changing almost everything about her including her personality; she must now be a passive/aggressive if she is to survive. This means that she needs to learn to say whatever it takes to make money. She can never talk about her personal life to anyone as clients can hear this.

What you try to do is get the girls programmed to have regular customers. A regular customer is a customer who believes that this girl actually cares for him, and now his fantasy world is complete. He comes in on a regular basis and she invites him back on certain days and times as not to interfere with other regular customers. This is usually set for the clubís slow times because when itís busy she can make money without her regular clientele. Of course, with all of these girls having regular clients, the club is guaranteed a steady income and solid revenues. The club regulars are usually family men looking for an escape from the real world, and the girls are taught to prey upon them.

Mandatory meetings are set for all the girls. This time is really used for mostly programming of the girls and getting into their heads. You again let them know what you want and motivate them by whatever it takes. Soon the new dancer starts running around with the more hardened and seasoned girls, and they realize how much easier this job is being drunk, high or, more often than not, both. By now sheís working until 2 a.m. in the morning, staying out all night partying after work, and then grabbing a breakfast with the girls. They wake up, go to work, and the cycle starts all over.

They have no time to go to the post office, the dentist, or any other "normal" things. They are deep into the club scene and on the road to hard times and even self-destruction. At this point, school, family, and friends as well as everything else they once had faded into a world that no longer exists for them.

As a manager, at this point anything you say, ask or demand of the girl will gladly be done because the club is now their home. The girls donít realize this is their only world now, and the club manager now has total control over whatís going on in their lives. The girls will even put up with degradation, verbal and emotional abuse and everything else the manager wants to do.

At this time the girl may feel fed up and leave, going to a new club thinking to herself that she finally made a decision on her own and things will be better. But, she is really just fooling herself. Now the manager at the new club does the same things, except now she has no friends to talk to and the manager knows that most of the time she cannot return to the old club, so he abuses her even worse than the first manager. Of course, she then drinks more and gets high more than ever, hoping it will go away. It will only get worse for her now.

Soon the dancer finds herself not being complemented as much or making the money she did at first. Because of the drugs and alcohol, she finds herself aging fast and losing her looks. Of course, this now leads to a downward spiral of more drinking, partying and drugs. Many opt for plastic surgery in one form or another because in their own eyes, their looks are what they are worth. With most people, if they gained weight or lost their tan, it would not be a problem. But, to a dancer, it would be devastating for them for days and even weeks and beyond.

CUSTOMERS
Iíve found that there are five categories, or groups of customers, that visit the clubs.

The first customer, usually 28 to 50, is married or recently divorced. He almost always becomes not only a pornography addict but also a "fantasy" addict. He is lured in for just a glimpse of the "other side". But, once he is there, the well trained dancer learns his weaknesses and strengths, and, knowing what buttons to push, soon has him as her "regular". He is soon there three to four times a week, seeing only one dancer, believing she is his girlfriend while being friends with most of the dancers. After a while, he may not come in on his lunch hour but after work before he goes home to his family. Soon bills are not being paid and clothes for his children are not being bought. Iíve seen them believe that this girl so deeply cares for him that he will try to borrow money from her. Iíve also seen regulars leave a 5-year-old locked out in the car in the parking lot for hours while they lived out their fantasies. Also, I watched a patron cause a fatal accident outside of the club. While waiting for the authorities, he walked into the club to see his "girlfriend" who was dancing that night. Those are just a few examples of how physically and emotionally tied to the club these people become. Unfortunately, this group usually makes up about 30% of the entire group, but about 85% of the groupís daytime traffic and 20% of the night traffic. I could write pages on customer number one as far as bad decisions he makes trying to carry on his "love affair" with dancers.

Customer two is the young adult 18 to 30 there for a bachelor party, birthday, college party and so on. A lot of these never come back except for special occasions. But a small percentage will become a regular, being addicted from day one. About 15% of these will return again and again to the club. This group makes up about 20% of the overall club business.

Customer three is the majority of your night business. He is 25 to 30, comes in maybe one or twice a month, and either feels a friendship there or maybe has a need being fulfilled. He continues to teeter-totter on the edge of becoming a regular #1. It only takes the right girl or the right experience and he easily falls into that category.

Customer four is the gentleman 45 to 70 or the 18 to 25 age bracket. He comes in only once in a great while for special events, special entertainers or business meetings. He usually makes up the rest of the 15% of the dayshift business and the minority of your night shift unless he is there for a special event. Most of the time, this will be the only time you see him. A very small percentage of these will become a number one customer.

The fifth, and most dangerous customer, is the person there merely for business, selling, giving and using the girls in his drug trade. Many clubs have several of these people all intertwined together in this dark world. They pull the life from and inflict pain not only upon the girls, but the girlsí families as well. With girls wanting and needing drugs, number five has them in his control as well as the club. He becomes a friendly face everyone wants to see. The bad thing is, many girls owe him money, so he either makes them another bad deal (drawing the girl in deeper), or beings her to his world altogether to be a pusher, to involved in a biker gang, or give himself sexually to a small group of dealers. The sad thing is, the girl will feel like she is among friends, and will try to drag others into this dark world with her.

OVERALL INSIDER OBSERVATIONS
Having been in the adult entertainment industry for years, I have seen everything from monies not being entered into registers to owners leaving with shoe boxes full of cash on a weekly basis. I have walked into clubs and witnessed 15-year-old girls working Ė with their parentsí knowledge. Iíve seen girls leave with customers, meet them outside, as well as literally perform sex acts while lap dancing for customers. Again, the bar may pay en employee to watch for this, but the girls pay them more not to see it. If these are "clean, upstanding businesses", why is it that day after day used condoms were found in the V.I.P. rooms?

The owners many times hide themselves through owing several corporation, one of which will finally own the club. Many times in liquor clubs, the liquor license is not even in an ownerís name, but a manager who was given stock to do this.

Even though the girls are private contractors, the clubs do have contracts with both stage names and real names on them. The clubs hire people to count every lap dance done in order to collect the percentage for the club, but yet the clubs claim there is no way to keep track of what the girls make. In turn, this allows the girls not to file taxes and also be on Federal and State Aid programs even though they may be making hundreds and thousands of dollars weekly.

Again the clubs claim the girls are private contractors, but many are told when they will work which makes them employees.

As far as the clubs themselves following written law, I have copies of the Judgment Entry that since the day it was handed down has not been followed nor enforced. The club owner himself said not to follow it. This club also is part of a very large club chain.

Maybe the reason that it has not been enforced is that a lot of local law enforcement not only frequents these businesses, but also date the entertainers. This is true as well of firemen and city officials who all get in free. In fact, not long ago in a club in Detroit, an off-duty police officers lost his gun and could not find it. Another became mad at this girlfriend who was a dancer. Upon leaving, he discharged his gun into the door, hitting the owner of the club in the face.

Violence does occur. Once during a dancersí meeting, the manager had upset one of the girls who happened to be a member of a gang. She had him beaten up badly following the meeting.

Another manager tried to force himself on an entertainer. Again, her boyfriend belonged to a gang and a bomb threat as well as violence occurred at the club. He was not terminated but merely sent to another club.

Another manager literally held a gun to a girlís head because she wanted to quit. He was still employed for years after that. Again, another manage went on a rampage in a hotel, and while he was there discharged a firearm. He was simply moved to another location, and is now in prison for attempted rape.

As far as the argument that the girls are only putting themselves through school, that is a farce. Very few of these even attend classes once they are making the kind of money that they do. Son they are working until 2, 3 or 4 a.m., and in no way, shape or form are they getting up and going to classes. Very few of these girls finish school

Another dimension to the concern surrounding sex clubs is the rampant tax evasion maneuvers exercised by the various employees.

TAX EVASION AND SEX CLUB EMPLOYEE
DJís(Disk Jockeys)
These people are paid in most clubs hourly but as well as their hourly wages the dancers are made to tip them nightly, usually the trip being 10 percent of what the girl made that evening. The DJ keeps track of how many dances the girls have done to insure this cut. Example: If there were 30 girls working a night shift and the average tip to the DJ is, letís go low and say $15 then in cash income, the DJ just made $450. This income is generally not reported as the DJ receives his regular paycheck and usually only claims that.

DOORMEN
Again in most clubs the girls are required to tip the doormen out, as he walks them to and from the parking lot, and tries to insure their safety in the club as well. While the tips are not as good as the DJís, the doormen still could average $60 nights. Five nights a week figures out to $300 weekly in pretty much unreported income.

FLOORWALKERS
These are the people who count dances for the clubs to make sure that the girls pay the 33% they are required to the club for every dance done. These also are the same ones that are responsible for watching to make sure the girls are not doing things outside the line of the law. They make tips by turning their heads to illegal dances. In turn the girls up them better for letting them make more money by dancing a little more dirty than legal. I have seen floorwalkers leave with as much as $600 in one night. Again they receive a paycheck so reporting the extra income generally does not happen. The truly bad thing about a dishonest floorwalker is if one girl is paying him to dance dirty, soon all the girls have to do the same. In order to make any money at all, they too must alter the dances they do to illegal ones.

DANCERS
I would say by far the dancer is the worst offender of tax evasion in the clubs as she generally has nothing in her name and reports very little, if any, of her income. The dancers with children generally are on federal and state welfare programs collecting food stamps, checks and insurance while making hundreds if not thousands of dollars a week or more.

BARTENDERS/WAITRESSES
This group is probably the last tipped by the dancers, but again most clubs require that the dancers do tip. The reasoning behind all this tipping is it lets the club owners pay bottom dollar for help but yet the employees make good money due to the tipping program.

MANAGERS
The managers on the other hand are not tipped, but in a lot of cases if a girl does something wrong or doesnít show up for work, he will fine her. In turn, most of the time that money never makes it to the register but directly into his pocket. The clubs knew of this. Thatís how they get by with paying some managers as little as $7 an hour. Again, this money never gets reported as it too is untraceable cash.

I could easily fill an entire book with what Iíve observed in the adult pornography industry. Iíve seen countless lives shattered and unbelievable heartache. You would be surprised at the amount of "it canít happen to me" or "I wonít be like that" that I have heard.

Iíve formed the National Association Against Lewd Activities (NOALA) with a few others to educate the public as to the manner in which these so-called Adult Clubs are sucking in well-intentioned young people seeking quick bucks for survival. Unwittingly the demands brought on by the abusive lifestyle leads to the degradation, if not the destruction, of themselves and countless others.

But it isnít enough just to educate the public. It is vital that this committee recognize that it is the role of government to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of its citizenry. My testimony here today represents merely a tip of the iceberg.

Background checks, licensing as well as enforcing regulations are essential for the safety of clients, entertainers, and communities.

LOBBYING Ė TO AVOID RESTRICTIONS
Adult entertainment businesses use lobbying as a key to keeping new ordinances or legislation from being passed. This plays a very important role in allowing them to run these businesses the way THEY want to.

Large turnouts by entertainers, owners, owners reps, as well as attorneys, law students and even the ACLU at times are used to intimidate those in local government and to keep the new legislation from passing Ė by making the government body think that masses have formed on their own when in actuality they have been pulled together by a team of people paid to do just that.

Another thing not touched on is that in every club in the state where the new legislation is being considered, there are signature cards for the patrons to sign as well as information giving times and locations of hearings.

In fact one company I worked for had this down to a fine art. Every manager was required to attend all city council meetings in order to stay on top of any new legislation being proposed. They then were to buy the minutes from the meeting and fax or send them to the corporate office. If any new legislation was proposed, that information went to the person who was in charge of lobbying and to the corporate attorney.

Even if the proposed legislation involved a city, town or state in which the adult business had no entities, the club attorneys and attorneys would still come out in full force to defeat it, as it may have had an adverse effect on them at a later time.

Another tactic used so frequently is to bring in big gun attorneys from elsewhere to intimidate and sue as well as tie up in court the passed ordinance for as long as possible or until it ran the city or township out of funding. These businesses have plenty to spend on staying open and running the way THEY want to. From time to time the company would use a local attorney, coaching him and making him file the things they needed in order to make it look as though they were a local business.

In regard to the lobbying, the attorney, the funding as well as lawsuits, the adult businesses seem to somehow utilize the press to their advantage. The press simply didnít deal with the real issues in most cases.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
The entertainers who work in these clubs, even though supposedly independent contractors, oddly enough pay upwards of 30% of their income to work in these establishments. This does not include the unwritten laws of tipping, which are all explained to them by the management or other entertainers. This includes tipping the DJ in order to listen to or dance to the music they want to have played. They also must tip door men, floorwalkers, waitresses and bartenders in turn helping the club to pay the wages for the cheap labor which the clubs employ.

By the time a dancer is done she may have paid up to 50% of her income just to work. These employees do not report most of this income in my experience. One instance stands out clearly: an entertainer phoned me saying she knew that fines, or so-called reinstatement fees, were not being rung into the register. I in turn told her to write the management a check and ask for a receipt. At that point she was told to leave and not come back as the club did not give out receipts or accept checks for fines.

NINE REASONS FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
In closing, I would like to say that without regulation of the kind proposed by these bills Ė and mind you, this is merely the tip of the iceberg Ė businesses like these will continue to get away with whatever, whenever they please.

There are several reasons as to why this legislation is needed. The following, while not an exhaustive list, are the ones that come immediately to mind.

Helping set and ENFORCE regulation on a state-wide level will keep the criminals from moving from city to city, staying employed in the same type of business, never having to be but a ghost to the current laws. In other words, these regulations will help keep these lawless ones more answerable to the laws of the land and prevent them from preying on naÔve young ladies, desensitizing them, duping them into gradual steps of so-called entertainment which ultimately leads them to their degradation and destruction.
Drug above and dealing run rampant in many clubs, almost always in the bathrooms, locker rooms, and yes, even offices. Again, licensing should help curb the offenders by letting them know it is no longer tolerated, and is being regulated on a statewide level in addition to local regulation.
It would keep known sex offenders as well as known felons from working, owning or entertaining in the clubs and adult businesses, as many owners in these businesses have a criminal record.
The licensing issue should keep the entertainers from soliciting in any way, which, as we all know, comes in many forms. In turn, that will help keep adult businesses as above-table as possible. It will also help keep the reasoned entertainer from teaching the new ones the so-called "tricks of the trade" which most of the time are illegal.
The hours of operation will help in curbing many of the illegal activities such as drug dealing, solicitation, and illegal dances due to the fact that the more intoxicated the entertainer is the more she is likely to do. It is a big plus on the safety and welfare of the entertainers, employees, citizens and communities as many of the late night people are truly drunk or intoxicated on other forms of drugs and literally do things they would never do if it were not in the late night situation.
State regulation on lap dances and lewd behavior will keep the entertainers from just being fined or as it is called in the business, "contract reinstatement fees", which most entertainers gladly pay as they make a lot more money than they lose Ė the dirtier the dances are. Dirtier most of the time means illegal.
The proposed legislation will put the entertainer in a position to pay taxes as she would no longer be an unknown person without an income. This, in turn, will keep the clubs above board on what they are being paid by the entertainers as the girls will need every writeoff they can get, including the stage fees. It will also keep the many girls who are on federal and state aid (while making hundreds of dollars a week) off these programs.
Several small clubs come to mind that it will really keep above board. I consulted on a few smaller clubs, and in the back room I found all paperwork hidden away that would ever be used to pay taxes. The pages were in total disarray as if they were just thrown in there nightly. What taxes were paid on, Iíll never know; but it was not on the paper work or register receipts I found or which dated back several years.
The next thing Iím sure it will curb is the blatant cash flowing out of clubs. One club I had consulted on, I found $672,000 in lost retail liquor sales. The owner, upon my telling him what I found, has not spoken to me since. He did, however, build a new house paying cash for the labor.
In closing, with great concern for our present generation and those will come after us, I encourage this committee to vigorously support the passage of the proposed 13-bill package and to move it with great haste. This is a significant package of bills because, if enforced, it will curb the criminality and lawlessness that is directly linked to sexually oriented businesses. Without its passage, untold numbers of lives will continue to be degraded, victimized and destroyed.

Lighthouse
January 15th, 2005, 03:15 AM
I've been looking for a better paying job.:eek:

julie21
January 15th, 2005, 03:36 AM
Lighthouse:
I've been looking for a better paying job.

:darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm:
Haven't actually seen you LH, but I just get this really bad mental picture!!!...sorry Dude!

Lighthouse
January 15th, 2005, 03:42 AM
http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=1117&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

julie21
January 15th, 2005, 04:21 AM
Okay...maybe...:D
[You do realise I wasn't serious, don't you?...you guess as to which post though!]

Lighthouse
January 15th, 2005, 04:23 AM
:chuckle:

BillyBob
January 15th, 2005, 05:27 AM
I've made good money as a stripper!

Greywolf
January 15th, 2005, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob
I've made good money as a stripper!

:shut:

BillyBob
January 15th, 2005, 06:33 AM
:noid:

Servo
January 15th, 2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I've been looking for a better paying job.:eek:

Great Pic Lighthouse. I am sure BillyBob might hire ya!
:D

Lighthouse
January 15th, 2005, 04:22 PM
:chuckle:

firechyld
January 19th, 2005, 02:12 AM
PureX...


I suppose that exotic dancing does pay pretty well. But there's a lot more to a job than what it pays. A whole lot more. Everything we do effects ourselves and other people and we have a responsibility to try and understand the effects of our actions and to take responsibility for them. A job isn't just about what it pays.

Not by a longshot.

Quite.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here who has actually worked in the sex industry, so my perspective is a little different. It can be a rewarding and well-paying career... and it can also go horribly, horribly wrong. It's certainly not something you'd promote in general terms to school children...

Granite
January 19th, 2005, 08:52 AM
So stripping's lucrative. Big surprise.

In the interest of full disclosure the guy should have examined the down side of the industry, too...

Nineveh
January 19th, 2005, 08:59 AM
In the name of fairness and equality, perhaps they should have David Sherman in as a guest speaker....

Granite
January 19th, 2005, 09:00 AM
Sounds like the speaker went off on a tangent, that's all. Not like he went in there with "Showgirls" tucked under one arm as informational material...

Nineveh
January 19th, 2005, 09:07 AM
Never mind the kids who might take what he said to heart.

Granite
January 19th, 2005, 09:20 AM
If they have any kind of parents, that won't be a problem.

Mr Jack
January 19th, 2005, 09:21 AM
I hate stories like this, there's so little information to base an opinion on it's pointless even to try.

His statement is factually correct, and without a context I can't say whether his speech is objectionable or not.

Servo
January 19th, 2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here who has actually worked in the sex industry, so my perspective is a little different. It can be a rewarding and well-paying career... and it can also go horribly, horribly wrong. It's certainly not something you'd promote in general terms to school children...

firechyld,


Did you experience anything like what David Sherman mentioned in his testimony?

Again, David's testimony is here:

http://www.adultssavingkids.org/DavidShermanII.html

PureX
January 19th, 2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

I hate stories like this, there's so little information to base an opinion on it's pointless even to try.

His statement is factually correct, and without a context I can't say whether his speech is objectionable or not. Since when has the lack of facts ever stopped anyone around here from passing judgment? *smile*

firechyld
January 20th, 2005, 01:12 AM
firechyld,


Did you experience anything like what David Sherman mentioned in his testimony?

Again, David's testimony is here:

http://www.adultssavingkids.org/DavidShermanII.html



Not at all. My experiences, and the experiences of most of those I know who have worked in the industry, have been nothing but positive. I myself haven't worked as a stripper, but I know quite a few girls who have.

That said, we're all very aware of the negative side to the industry. It does exist, and the fact that we've avoided it doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of girls (and boys) get into the work for the wrong reason, or through the wrong people, and can have very nasty experiences.

Still... as much as we try not to blank out the negatives of the industry, I do think this guy is ignoring the positives, and the neutrals. That may just be his experiences, and I'm not going to dispute that. But he is presenting a very one sided view as though it is the be-all and end-all of the story.

Mr Jack
January 20th, 2005, 03:52 AM
Not at all. My experiences, and the experiences of most of those I know who have worked in the industry, have been nothing but positive.

Is there any industry that cannot be said of?

Granite
January 20th, 2005, 07:51 AM
Sherman's testimony has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The Christian right, for example, loves trotting out women such as Andrea Dworkin when discussing the evils of pornography. They neglect to tell you that Dworkin had a vicious, sexually-addicted husband who degraded her regularly, and that Dworkin is now about the biggest bra-burning left-wing feminist you can find.

Just gimme both sides, is all I'm saying.

Servo
January 20th, 2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Not at all. My experiences, and the experiences of most of those I know who have worked in the industry, have been nothing but positive. I myself haven't worked as a stripper, but I know quite a few girls who have.



I kind of figured you would say something like that.

Are your parents proud of the sex industry work that you have done?

When David Sherman's daughter was born, that is when he decided to get out of the business. He knew how the industry prays on women, and he wanted no part of it anymore.

Granite
January 20th, 2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

I kind of figured you would say something like that.

Are your parents proud of the sex industry work that you have done?

When David Sherman's daughter was born, that is when he decided to get out of the business. He knew how the industry prays on women, and he wanted no part of it anymore.

Why is it supposedly impossible to believe that some women LIKE working in the sex industry? Or is that something That Just Can't Happen?

Servo
January 20th, 2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Why is it supposedly impossible to believe that some women LIKE working in the sex industry? Or is that something That Just Can't Happen?

Yes, I am sure that they LIKE it.

From David Sherman:

Right from the start, drug and alcohol use is rampant. The dancers call it partying. They donít realize that they are medicating themselves in order to do the work they do. Also, the abortion rate is extremely high due to the fact that most have lost contact with family members due to what they do. They also feel they could never take the chance on flawing the body from carrying a child. Additionally, the dancers believe they have no way to support a baby without dancing, and therefore canít quit to have one. Basically, they are caught in a very real, painful Catch-22.

Granite
January 20th, 2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Yes, I am sure that they LIKE it.

From David Sherman:

Right from the start, drug and alcohol use is rampant. The dancers call it partying. They donít realize that they are medicating themselves in order to do the work they do. Also, the abortion rate is extremely high due to the fact that most have lost contact with family members due to what they do. They also feel they could never take the chance on flawing the body from carrying a child. Additionally, the dancers believe they have no way to support a baby without dancing, and therefore canít quit to have one. Basically, they are caught in a very real, painful Catch-22.

For one thing, this is Sherman's personal opinion, nothing more. For another, this doesn't answer my question: is or is it not possible that some women do enjoy the lifestyle?

Asking Sherman for his take on the industry's about as useful as Dworkin denouncing porn or Ted Bundy blaming skin mags for his deviancies.

Zakath
January 20th, 2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by granite1010
...Asking Sherman for his take on the industry's about as useful as Dworkin denouncing porn or Ted Bundy blaming skin mags for his deviancies. Or a former preacher for his/her opinion on the efficacy and veracity of religion... ;)

(Sorry; but the whole story makes me think of Dan Barker....)

Servo
January 20th, 2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

For one thing, this is Sherman's personal opinion, nothing more. For another, this doesn't answer my question: is or is it not possible that some women do enjoy the lifestyle?

Asking Sherman for his take on the industry's about as useful as Dworkin denouncing porn or Ted Bundy blaming skin mags for his deviancies.

Granite, next time you are at the strip joint, maybe you could take a survey from some of the strippers about weather of not they like their work. If any of them are not too high, maybe they could give you an answer similar to firechyld's, or maybe one of them will tell you the truth.

David Sherman's personal opinion? Uhh, he was the MANAGER of several strip joints for several years. He may know SOMETHING about the business. Or maybe he was just lying to the Michigan House Committee.

Granite
January 20th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Granite, next time you are at the strip joint, maybe you could take a survey from some of the strippers about weather of not they like their work. If any of them are not too high, maybe they could give you an answer similar to firechyld's, or maybe one of them will tell you the truth.

David Sherman's personal opinion? Uhh, he was the MANAGER of several strip joints for several years. He may know SOMETHING about the business. Or maybe he was just lying to the Michigan House Committee.

Shimei, you're not answering my question.

Is it or is it not possible for some of the girls in this lifestyle to genuinely enjoy it?

Or is a self-destructive lifestyle of ANY kind somehow "impossible" to enjoy?

Servo
January 20th, 2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, you're not answering my question.

Is it or is it not possible for some of the girls in this lifestyle to genuinely enjoy it?

Or is a self-destructive lifestyle of ANY kind somehow "impossible" to enjoy?

I am sure destroying your life has its moments. What is your point? Since some of them sometimes enjoy getting high and drunk, it is ok?

Granite
January 20th, 2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

I am sure destroying your life has its moments. What is your point? Since some of them sometimes enjoy getting high and drunk, it is ok?

Well this was like pulling teeth.

So you are admitting that it's possible that some of these women DO enjoy the lifestyle. I think. Whether or not it's "okay" is really beside the point (for the record, getting high and/or drunk is okay in my book, but all things in moderation). I was trying to see if you were willing to admit that not every woman in adult entertainment was miserable and not having what she thought was a good time.

firechyld
January 23rd, 2005, 11:29 PM
Mr Jack...


Is there any industry that cannot be said of?

That's more or less my point. The sex industry is just like any other in that respect: Sometimes people have good experiences, sometimes bad. Personally, I've had much better experiences in the sex industry than I have at, say, ISP tech support. *shudder* Now THAT was a draining job.

Shimei...


I kind of figured you would say something like that.

I'm sorry if my story doesn't match up to your pre-conceived notions, but there are many different sides to the sex industry.


Are your parents proud of the sex industry work that you have done?

*shrug* I've never asked them.


When David Sherman's daughter was born, that is when he decided to get out of the business. He knew how the industry prays on women, and he wanted no part of it anymore.

Some in the industry prey on women. Some prey on men. Some run honest businesses that allow women and men to have a profitable and enjoyable career.


Yes, I am sure that they LIKE it.

From David Sherman:

Right from the start, drug and alcohol use is rampant. The dancers call it partying. They donít realize that they are medicating themselves in order to do the work they do. Also, the abortion rate is extremely high due to the fact that most have lost contact with family members due to what they do. They also feel they could never take the chance on flawing the body from carrying a child. Additionally, the dancers believe they have no way to support a baby without dancing, and therefore canít quit to have one. Basically, they are caught in a very real, painful Catch-22.

Again, one man's impression. You're just going to have to accept the fact that some of us in the industry love our jobs. Just as some of us are drug free.


Granite, next time you are at the strip joint, maybe you could take a survey from some of the strippers about weather of not they like their work.

I advise that you do the same thing. Check out a few strip clubs... not just the seediest one you can find... and survey some dancers. You might be surprised at the responses.


If any of them are not too high, maybe they could give you an answer similar to firechyld's, or maybe one of them will tell you the truth.

You think I'm lying? What on earth would i have to gain from that.

Incidentally... if you're going to accuse me of telling lies, you could at least have the balls to say it to me, rather than another poster.


David Sherman's personal opinion? Uhh, he was the MANAGER of several strip joints for several years. He may know SOMETHING about the business. Or maybe he was just lying to the Michigan House Committee.

You know what? If he was the MANAGER of several strip joints, then I'm afraid that the vast majority of the responsibility for the safety of his dancers, the reputation of his clubs and the behaviour expected from his clients falls on him. It's certainly not impossible to run a club where the dancers are safe and happy, the clients are well behaved, and drug pushers know to steer clear.

It seems to me that this Sherman character wants to blame the sex industry as a whole for his own failings as an operator.

Servo
January 25th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Well this was like pulling teeth.

So you are admitting that it's possible that some of these women DO enjoy the lifestyle. I think. Whether or not it's "okay" is really beside the point (for the record, getting high and/or drunk is okay in my book, but all things in moderation). I was trying to see if you were willing to admit that not every woman in adult entertainment was miserable and not having what she thought was a good time.

When a stripper quits the business (is fired because she is too old) and looks back at her life, I am sure she has feelings of joy.

That is, if she can remember what happened. Most end up broke and addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

Servo
January 25th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Shimei...



I'm sorry if my story doesn't match up to your pre-conceived notions, but there are many different sides to the sex industry.



*shrug* I've never asked them.



Some in the industry prey on women. Some prey on men. Some run honest businesses that allow women and men to have a profitable and enjoyable career.



Again, one man's impression. You're just going to have to accept the fact that some of us in the industry love our jobs. Just as some of us are drug free.



I advise that you do the same thing. Check out a few strip clubs... not just the seediest one you can find... and survey some dancers. You might be surprised at the responses.



You think I'm lying? What on earth would i have to gain from that.

Incidentally... if you're going to accuse me of telling lies, you could at least have the balls to say it to me, rather than another poster.



You know what? If he was the MANAGER of several strip joints, then I'm afraid that the vast majority of the responsibility for the safety of his dancers, the reputation of his clubs and the behaviour expected from his clients falls on him. It's certainly not impossible to run a club where the dancers are safe and happy, the clients are well behaved, and drug pushers know to steer clear.

It seems to me that this Sherman character wants to blame the sex industry as a whole for his own failings as an operator.

firechyld,
Your parents have never commented on your job? Do they even know what you do?

What is/was your job in the sex industry BTW?

Granite
January 25th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

When a stripper quits the business (is fired because she is too old) and looks back at her life, I am sure she has feelings of joy.

That is, if she can remember what happened. Most end up broke and addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

Shimei. Your sarcasm aside, it is POSSIBLE for some to have enjoyed the lifestyle, whether you want to admit it or not. Hair splitting doesn't change that.

The narrow-mindedness of evangelical Christianity seems to presuppose that a "destructive" lifestyle (which, by the way, is truly in the eyes of the beholder) isn't fun or enjoyable at the time. I think you need to get out more.:rolleyes:

Servo
January 25th, 2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei. Your sarcasm aside, it is POSSIBLE for some to have enjoyed the lifestyle, whether you want to admit it or not. Hair splitting doesn't change that.

The narrow-mindedness of evangelical Christianity seems to presuppose that a "destructive" lifestyle (which, by the way, is truly in the eyes of the beholder) isn't fun or enjoyable at the time. I think you need to get out more.:rolleyes:

If a stripper enjoys her job, so what? It destroys her life.
How do you define good and bad? Does good=enjoy and bad = not enjoy?

Granite
January 25th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

If a stripper enjoys her job, so what? It destroys her life.
How do you define good and bad? Does good=enjoy and bad = not enjoy?

It MAY and it MAY NOT. I think you're creating a false dilemma here. Unless you think it's impossible for women to leave the life and start anew.

"Good" for me equals pleasure plus not hurting anyone. "Bad" would be the reverse. This is the third grade version, anyway.

Servo
January 25th, 2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

It MAY and it MAY NOT. I think you're creating a false dilemma here. Unless you think it's impossible for women to leave the life and start anew.

"Good" for me equals pleasure plus not hurting anyone. "Bad" would be the reverse. This is the third grade version, anyway.

So if the stripping lifestyle hurts anyone at all, you would call it "bad"?

Granite
January 25th, 2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

So if the stripping lifestyle hurts anyone at all, you would call it "bad"?

For them, yes, but not universally.

firechyld
January 26th, 2005, 02:03 AM
When a stripper quits the business (is fired because she is too old) and looks back at her life, I am sure she has feelings of joy.

That is, if she can remember what happened. Most end up broke and addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

What are you basing that statement on? And have you actually asked any ex-strippers why they left the industry?


Your parents have never commented on your job? Do they even know what you do?

*shrug* I presume that they have an idea. I've never felt a need to quiz them on it. But they're both intelligent people. I'm sure they've figured it out.


What is/was your job in the sex industry BTW?

BDSM. Mostly Mistressing. Some submissive work.


If a stripper enjoys her job, so what? It destroys her life.

Again, what are you basing that on? Seems to be just the word of this one guy. Have you asked any sex workers, past or present, whether their life has been destroyed by their time in the industry?

My life certainly hasn't been destroyed. I don't see it happening at any point in the foreseeable future, either. Quite the opposite.


How do you define good and bad? Does good=enjoy and bad = not enjoy?


What definition are YOU using? Seems to be that anything involving the sex industry is "bad", even if its profitable and enjoyable for the participants.

firechyld
January 26th, 2005, 02:05 AM
Shimei:

I'd like you to answer my question, please. What makes you think that I'm lying about my experiences, or that any other sex worker/ex-sex worker would be lying if she said that hers were positive?

Lighthouse
January 26th, 2005, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

This is the third grade version, anyway.
You acting like a third grader?!:noway::shocked:

:rolleyes:

Granite
January 26th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You acting like a third grader?!:noway::shocked:

:rolleyes:

Look who's talking: Blizzard Boy himself.

Not my fault you people can only handle a bite-size discussion...

Servo
January 26th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Shimei:

I'd like you to answer my question, please. What makes you think that I'm lying about my experiences, or that any other sex worker/ex-sex worker would be lying if she said that hers were positive?

Well, try and find yourself a decent and righteous man to marry, see if you can find one. A decent man would turn you down after he finds out that you are a tramp.

As far as the washed up hookers who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, it is quite obvious that they are lying if they tell you that they are happy about their lives and how they turned out.

More info about the realities of the sex industry can be found here:

http://www.adultssavingkids.org/Default.html

Granite
January 26th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Well, try and find yourself a decent and righteous man to marry, see if you can find one. A decent man would turn you down after he finds out that you are a tramp.

As far as the washed up hookers who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, it is quite obvious that they are lying if they tell you that they are happy about their lives and how they turned out.

More info about the realities of the sex industry can be found here:

http://www.adultssavingkids.org/Default.html

Shimei, self-righteous prudes such as yourself are in no position to dispense with advice, much less advice vis a vis relationships. I'm not sure how one is a "tramp" if they are "formerly" involved in the sex industry. (This certainly didn't matter to the Christian right when they salivated over Linda Lovelace's denounciation of the porn industry.)

Sorry, but this mind reader act of yours has gotten real old. In a way I'm glad you people are so uptight: when you become a walking caricature, nobody takes you seriously anymore.

Servo
January 26th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, self-righteous prudes such as yourself are in no position to dispense with advice, much less advice vis a vis relationships. I'm not sure how one is a "tramp" if they are "formerly" involved in the sex industry. (This certainly didn't matter to the Christian right when they salivated over Linda Lovelace's denounciation of the porn industry.)

Right, I should try and be more like you.

Don't know about Linda Lovelace, but if she repented then she is forgiven. Firechyld could still do the same.



Originally posted by granite1010

Sorry, but this mind reader act of yours has gotten real old. In a way I'm glad you people are so uptight: when you become a walking caricature, nobody takes you seriously anymore.

Then why do you keep responding?

Lighthouse
January 27th, 2005, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Then why do you keep responding?
Obviously he was lying. He's very proficient at it. He used to call himself a Christian, if you remember.

Mr Jack
January 27th, 2005, 05:03 AM
Well, try and find yourself a decent and righteous man to marry, see if you can find one. A decent man would turn you down after he finds out that you are a tramp.

"Interesting" notion of what constitutes decent you've got there...

If you ask me any man so pathetically shallow and judgemental would not be worthy of Firechyld.

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 07:19 AM
"Right, I should try and be more like you."

No, not at all. Be yourself. But if you happen to be a self-righteous prude, your loss.:D

"Don't know about Linda Lovelace, but if she repented then she is forgiven."

How generous.:rolleyes:

"Then why do you keep responding?"

Because it's easy (and entertaining) to hit a slow-moving target. That and you seem like a glutton for punishment.

Then this peanut gallery shout-out from Blizzard Boy Brandon:

"He used to call himself a Christian, if you remember."

Actually, you flabby minimum-wage pew groveler, I WAS (unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that for unknown reasons I masqueraded on TOL for a solid YEAR before revealing my "true" Keyser Soze identity).

I happen to be free from the psycho circus of the Christian faith now and couldn't be happier.

:devil:

Flipper
January 27th, 2005, 08:31 AM
How is it more demeaning to take a $200,000 a year job stripping (more than many CEOs make) than it is to take a $7.50 an hour job on a production line where your job expects nothing more than a human automaton and a significant part of the human interaction of your job involves fending off sexual harrassment?

Is that more empowering and noble? How about being long-term unemployed? Better?

You should read Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed. To research it she worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. Even without kids, she rapidly discovered that she needed to work two of these jobs to stay off the streets. Most of her co-workers did, even those with working spouses, particularly if they had kids. So if you have children and you have to work a low-wage job, you have no choice but to get involved with that fundamentalist equivalent of garlic-to-a-vampire; daycare!

Obviously not expensive Waldorf-style daycare either. No, this is the unlicensed kind. So you can see your poverty-stricken kids quite infrequently as you struggle not to get swept away in the uphill struggle to make ends meet. But at least you have your dignity, right?

http://www.henryholt.com/holt/nickelanddimed.htm

Shimei, you're an ignorant idiot. Also, the irony of someone who uses the stripper-loving robot bender as his avatar when handing out lectures may be lost on you, but not on me.

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Oooh. Ouch...don't go after the avatar, man!

Mr Jack
January 27th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Flipper,

Well said!

Does is strike anyone else as ironic that as a society we constantly tell people that your mind is more important than your body, that how you act and think is more important than how you look and yet we think that selling what is important (your mind) is less demeaning than selling what is less important (your body or looks)?

Servo
January 27th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by granite1010



"Then why do you keep responding?"

Because it's easy (and entertaining) to hit a slow-moving target. That and you seem like a glutton for punishment.



I happen to be free from the psycho circus of the Christian faith now and couldn't be happier.

:devil:

Actually that is what I was thinking about you. You have not said anything remotely interesting and have not challenged my argument at all. You are just another silly liberal pervert. I am glad other people have finally responded to this argument.

You must have had a bad experiance(s) in what ever church you went to.

Servo
January 27th, 2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Flipper

How is it more demeaning to take a $200,000 a year job stripping (more than many CEOs make) than it is to take a $7.50 an hour job on a production line where your job expects nothing more than a human automaton and a significant part of the human interaction of your job involves fending off sexual harrassment?

Is that more empowering and noble? How about being long-term unemployed? Better?

You should read Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed. To research it she worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. Even without kids, she rapidly discovered that she needed to work two of these jobs to stay off the streets. Most of her co-workers did, even those with working spouses, particularly if they had kids. So if you have children and you have to work a low-wage job, you have no choice but to get involved with that fundamentalist equivalent of garlic-to-a-vampire; daycare!

Obviously not expensive Waldorf-style daycare either. No, this is the unlicensed kind. So you can see your poverty-stricken kids quite infrequently as you struggle not to get swept away in the uphill struggle to make ends meet. But at least you have your dignity, right?

http://www.henryholt.com/holt/nickelanddimed.htm

Shimei, you're an ignorant idiot. Also, the irony of someone who uses the stripper-loving robot bender as his avatar when handing out lectures may be lost on you, but not on me.

Drug dealers make good money also. Many of them sell drugs to strippers. Is that ok with you to?

If your daughter became a stripper, would that make you proud?

Reading some of your previous posts, I am glad you disagree with me. Being on the opposite side of your world view is where I want to be.

Leave Bender out of this! He liked girl robots, not strippers.

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Actually that is what I was thinking about you. You have not said anything remotely interesting and have not challenged my argument at all. You are just another silly liberal pervert. I am glad other people have finally responded to this argument.

You must have had a bad experiance(s) in what ever church you went to.

:yawn:

Not interesting to you, no. Fortunately you're not the litmus test or be-all end-all for what is "interesting" on TOL.

As for my politics...if being a pro-life opponent of big government who has voted for and supported Pat Buchanan in the past qualifies as being a "liberal," you need a CAT scan or three.:rolleyes:

Flipper
January 27th, 2005, 09:49 AM
Shimei:


Drug dealers make good money also. Many of them sell drugs to strippers. Is that ok with you to?

Two fallacious arguments in a single sentence. My congratulations.

1) Drug dealing is illegal
2) Many factory workers buy illegal drugs also

You haven't really addressed my argument.


Leave Bender out of this! He liked girl robots, not strippers.

Didn't he take Fry to a robot strip club? You know, I think he did.

Servo
January 27th, 2005, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

:yawn:

Not interesting to you, no. Fortunately you're not the litmus test or be-all end-all for what is "interesting" on TOL.

As for my politics...if being a pro-life opponent of big government who has voted for and supported Pat Buchanan in the past qualifies as being a "liberal," you need a CAT scan or three.:rolleyes:

You are pro life? You got me there! I am happy that you are pro life, but why are you so liberal in other areas? Maybe you need the CAT scan.

Servo
January 27th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Flipper

Shimei:



Two fallacious arguments in a single sentence. My congratulations.

1) Drug dealing is illegal
2) Many factory workers buy illegal drugs also

You haven't really addressed my argument.



Didn't he take Fry to a robot strip club? You know, I think he did.

Prostitution is illegal and many strippers become prostitutes. Many strippers ARE prostitutes on the side. I realize stripping is not illegal, but it should be.
Stripping really is a form of prostition if you think about it.

prosētiētuētion
n.
1. The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.
2. The act or an instance of offering or devoting one's talent to an unworthy use or cause.


Fry took Bender to a strip club? How does a robot strip? Maybe he did, I don't know. Why don't you check into that since you seem to be the cartoon expert.

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

You are pro life? You got me there! I am happy that you are pro life, but why are you so liberal in other areas? Maybe you need the CAT scan.

I'm sorry, but what's "liberal" about what I've posted here? One way or another I'm more of a libertarian than anything else...

Servo
January 27th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I'm sorry, but what's "liberal" about what I've posted here? One way or another I'm more of a libertarian than anything else...

Libertarian? Yeah, I could buy that. Are most libertarians pro-life?

Granite
January 27th, 2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Libertarian? Yeah, I could buy that. Are most libertarians pro-life?

"Most"? Not sure, to be honest. Some are, some aren't.

firechyld
January 28th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Shimei...


Well, try and find yourself a decent and righteous man to marry, see if you can find one.

*shrug* I've been married. I now have a loving and very decent partner, who loves me for a lot more than my occupation.


A decent man would turn you down after he finds out that you are a tramp.

*grin* Any man who would act in such a shallow fashion isn't one I'd want to spend my time with. And are you seriously proposing that a girl should choose her occupation based on how it affects her chances of "landing a husband"? Please.


As far as the washed up hookers who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, it is quite obvious that they are lying if they tell you that they are happy about their lives and how they turned out.

I'd say the same about the washed out drug-addicted housewives, lawyers, doctors and professional athletes. But we aren't talking about washed out drug addicted people. We're talking about happy, healthy, well-adjusted sex workers. Why wouldn't they tell you that they're happy with their lives?


Don't know about Linda Lovelace, but if she repented then she is forgiven. Firechyld could still do the same.

But, according to you, I'll still have "blown my chances of finding a man". Woe is me. :rolleyes:


Drug dealers make good money also. Many of them sell drugs to strippers. Is that ok with you to?

Many also sell drugs to lawyers, housewives, doctors, middle-managers and CEOs. What's your point?


Prostitution is illegal and many strippers become prostitutes. Many strippers ARE prostitutes on the side. I realize stripping is not illegal, but it should be.
Stripping really is a form of prostition if you think about it.

Actually, legislated prostitution is legal in Australia. And there's STILL a firm line between stripping and prostitution. They are two very different areas of the sex industry, and the blurring of that line is a lot rarer than you think.

A stripper is not a prostitute is not a Mistress is not a stripper. Job descriptions are just a firm as they are in any other industry.

As for your comments about older strippers "washing out", I won't deny that some areas of this industry can be a little hard on older women. Some areas of the sex industry are very reliant on looks. But the same can be said for acting, modelling, classical ballet... it's not restricted to the sex industry, and it's not a calamitous thing. Just like in the acting, modelling and ballet worlds, there are roles that an older woman can move into.

You seem to have some very firm convictions about an area you know nothing about. I'd suggest you do a little more research. I can assure you that many of your preconceptions are waaay off.

And you still haven't answered my question. Why do you think I'm lying?


mr jack...


"Interesting" notion of what constitutes decent you've got there...

If you ask me any man so pathetically shallow and judgemental would not be worthy of Firechyld.

Thank you, Mr Jack. That's much appreciated. I must say that I agree. :)

Lighthouse
January 28th, 2005, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Then this peanut gallery shout-out from Blizzard Boy Brandon:

"He used to call himself a Christian, if you remember."

Actually, you flabby minimum-wage pew groveler, I WAS (unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that for unknown reasons I masqueraded on TOL for a solid YEAR before revealing my "true" Keyser Soze identity).

I happen to be free from the psycho circus of the Christian faith now and couldn't be happier.

:devil:
I never said you masqueraded. I just said you were never an actual Christian. If I'm going to call myself a Christian, then I should define it Biblically. And Biblically, you never were.

Granite
January 28th, 2005, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I never said you masqueraded. I just said you were never an actual Christian. If I'm going to call myself a Christian, then I should define it Biblically. And Biblically, you never were.

This is the only defense you have, as admitting otherwise puts you and the other Christians of the world at risk.

"Eternal security" is a myth. It can happen to anybody.

Servo
January 28th, 2005, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Shimei...



*shrug* I've been married. I now have a loving and very decent partner, who loves me for a lot more than my occupation.



But, according to you, I'll still have "blown my chances of finding a man". Woe is me. :rolleyes:



So now you are shacking up with someone? Good grief!

If you repent and become a Christian, of course you could still find a decent man. But as you are now, a tramp who performs sex for money, you will never find a decent man.

Granite
January 28th, 2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

So now you are shacking up with someone? Good grief!

If you repent and become a Christian, of course you could still find a decent man. But as you are now, a tramp who performs sex for money, you will never find a decent man.

I thought 'chyld said she'd given that life up.

And excuse me, but is finding a so-called "decent" man only possible for Christian women?:rolleyes:

Lighthouse
January 28th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Well, your ex-wife claimed to be a Christian, and she found you...so it seems that finding a truly decent man is only possible for someone who is in Christ, and not just someone who's decided to label themselves with a religious moniker because they go to church.

Granite
January 28th, 2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Well, your ex-wife claimed to be a Christian, and she found you...so it seems that finding a truly decent man is only possible for someone who is in Christ, and not just someone who's decided to label themselves with a religious moniker because they go to church.

"Truly decent." Ah. And such "men" as yourself, and Sozo, are examples of this Christian "decency."

Man you people are laughable.

Lighthouse
January 28th, 2005, 01:53 PM
Actually, I was just alerting you to the fact thay you are an indecent man.

Granite
January 28th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Me. Really. Uh-huuuh...I didn't know the slobs behind the DQ counter could divine the decency of someone a few thousand miles away. Is that part of your job description?

Lighthouse
January 28th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Based on our interactions, you have proven yourself to be an...well there are children present, so I shall refrain.:shut:

Granite
January 28th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Based on our interactions--which, to be fair, are not truly representative of our "true" selves, corny as it sounds--you're immature, shy, awkward, and pompous. (Unlike you I can actually throw a verbal punch or two without vulgarity.) You've got some serious personal issues to iron out, my man.

Brandon, I'm happy. I'm sure of myself. I'm excited for the future. I'm at peace. I've made peace with my ex, forgiven her, moved on from the freakshow of Christianity, and I'm all around very satisfied. Life is good. Let me repeat that: LIFE IS GOOD. Your witchy little comments about my decency or lack thereof don't change that.

Whatever you say--whatever scripture you throw at me, whatever you insist--you do not have this happiness or security right now, and you damn well know it.

firechyld
January 31st, 2005, 12:21 AM
Shimei...


So now you are shacking up with someone? Good grief!

If you repent and become a Christian, of course you could still find a decent man. But as you are now, a tramp who performs sex for money, you will never find a decent man.

*grin*

The "insults" aren't going to work, doll. I'm quite secure in my status as a "de facto", and I adore my partner. He's an amazing human being, and I find it quite amusing that you'd accuse him of lacking decency when all you know about him is that he's involved with me.

I treasure everything about him. Even typing this is making me smile. If I have to trade that in for someone that you feel is "decent", I think I'll pass.

Oh, and incidentally... as far as I'm concerned, a Mistress does not have sex with her clients. Some do, but they are definitely in the minority. Perhaps you should find out what my job description actually consists of before you condemn in.

Actually, better skip that bit. You might have to read things written by happy and functional sex workers, rather than those bitter individuals who attempt to justify their own bad experiences by condemning the entire industry.

Granite
January 31st, 2005, 07:18 AM
Keep going, 'chyld.:thumb:

Servo
January 31st, 2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Shimei...



*grin*

The "insults" aren't going to work, doll. I'm quite secure in my status as a "de facto", and I adore my partner. He's an amazing human being, and I find it quite amusing that you'd accuse him of lacking decency when all you know about him is that he's involved with me.

I treasure everything about him. Even typing this is making me smile. If I have to trade that in for someone that you feel is "decent", I think I'll pass.

Oh, and incidentally... as far as I'm concerned, a Mistress does not have sex with her clients. Some do, but they are definitely in the minority. Perhaps you should find out what my job description actually consists of before you condemn in.

Actually, better skip that bit. You might have to read things written by happy and functional sex workers, rather than those bitter individuals who attempt to justify their own bad experiences by condemning the entire industry.



I was just stating that you are a (former) sex worker who is shaking up with someone. Sorry if you take that as an insult. Is this "partner" of yours amazing enough to commit to you in marriage? Or is it just another why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free type scenario?

BTW, this person you are shaking up with, this person is not granite1010 is it?


tramp
v. tramped, tramp∑ing, tramps

One who travels aimlessly about on foot, doing odd jobs or begging for a living; a vagrant.

A prostitute.
A person regarded as promiscuous.

Granite
January 31st, 2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

I was just stating that you are a (former) sex worker who is shaking up with someone. Sorry if you take that as an insult. Is this "partner" of yours amazing enough to commit to you in marriage? Or is it just another why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free type scenario?

BTW, this person you are shaking up with, this person is not granite1010 is it?


tramp
v. tramped, tramp∑ing, tramps

One who travels aimlessly about on foot, doing odd jobs or begging for a living; a vagrant.

A prostitute.
A person regarded as promiscuous.

Actually I think it'd be an honor to hook up with 'chyld should she suddenly become single. Since she happens to be in Australia while I'm in New Hampshire, it might be a little tough.

Try again champ.:rolleyes:

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 12:19 AM
It amuses me how she still uses the term "partner.":rolleyes:

Greywolf
February 1st, 2005, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse
It amuses me how she still uses the term "partner.":rolleyes:

What term should she use?

firechyld
February 1st, 2005, 02:51 AM
Shimei:


I was just stating that you are a (former) sex worker who is shaking up with someone. Sorry if you take that as an insult.

Since neither of us is stupid, we both know that your words were intended to be insulting. And there's not much ambiguity when you look at:


So now you are shacking up with someone? Good grief!


and


But as you are now, a tramp who performs sex for money

Unfortunately, you're focussing on two areas of my life I'm quite comfortable with. So, no, I'm not insulted. More amused. :)


Is this "partner" of yours amazing enough to commit to you in marriage? Or is it just another why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free type scenario?

We might get married one day. It's not what we want right now.


BTW, this person you are shaking up with, this person is not granite1010 is it?

That would be a pretty big shack, spanning half the world and all.


tramp
v. tramped, tramp∑ing, tramps

One who travels aimlessly about on foot, doing odd jobs or begging for a living; a vagrant.

Certainly doesn't sound like me. I did travel on foot today, but I was aiming for the shops and this net cafe. I certainly don't "beg" for a living. And I have a house.


A prostitute.

Not a prostitute either.


A person regarded as promiscuous.

By whom? You?

granite...


Actually I think it'd be an honor to hook up with 'chyld should she suddenly become single. Since she happens to be in Australia while I'm in New Hampshire, it might be a little tough.

Thanks, doll. :) That's quite a compliment. I'll take you out for a drink should I ever be in New Hampshire.

I might have to figure out where it is, first....


Try again champ.

I'm sure he will. :)

lighthouse...


It amuses me how she still uses the term "partner."

What on earth should I call him? He IS my partner.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 05:20 AM
What amuses me is that you never use the term "boyfriend." And I am even more amused by the fact that you will most likely never refer to him as your "fiancé," or your "husband." And what does "partner" mean anyway? Sexual partner? Life partner? Also, using the term "partner" to refer to your boy/girlfriend was started by homos, because they couldn't get married. By calling him your "partner" you are affirming the notion that you do not intend to marry him. If you are using it because he is your sexual partner, this affirms the notion that you do not intend to marry, and reduces him to nothing more than a sex toy.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 05:30 AM
"Unless you're perfect, don't judge." - is that intended to be ironic, Lighthouse?

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 05:47 AM
No. Do you have a Bible? A KJV would be preferrable, because that is the version I used in finding the verse I was looking for. If so, look up the verse. If not, let me know and I will post it for you.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 05:49 AM
I was refering to you, personally, using that verse as your sig. That I find ironic.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 05:52 AM
If you read the verse, you will get it.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 07:15 AM
"Thanks, doll. That's quite a compliment. I'll take you out for a drink should I ever be in New Hampshire. I might have to figure out where it is, first...."

Ummm...well, it's somewhere to your right.:D

Let's see what gems the monk-like Brandon has today.

"What amuses me is that you never use the term 'boyfriend.'

Some women detest the word as too child-like, too high school.

"And what does 'partner' mean anyway? Sexual partner? Life partner?"

And if it does, so what? Brandon, do you actually sound JEALOUS? I don't know. You keep going like this, I might wonder.

"If you are using it because he is your sexual partner, this affirms the notion that you do not intend to marry, and reduces him to nothing more than a sex toy."

For one thing, you don't have a real clue about firechyld's situation; for another, someone who doesn't even believe in dating has no room to talk; and for another, even if what you say is true, SO WHAT?

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Let's see what gems the monk-like Brandon has today.

"What amuses me is that you never use the term 'boyfriend.'

Some women detest the word as too child-like, too high school.
I can understand that. There are other terms, though.


"And what does 'partner' mean anyway? Sexual partner? Life partner?"

And if it does, so what? Brandon, do you actually sound JEALOUS? I don't know. You keep going like this, I might wonder.
That sounds like jealousy to you? Projection? Transference? I know I'd be in a jealous mood if my wife cheated on me. No offense intended this time.


"If you are using it because he is your sexual partner, this affirms the notion that you do not intend to marry, and reduces him to nothing more than a sex toy."

For one thing, you don't have a real clue about firechyld's situation; for another, someone who doesn't even believe in dating has no room to talk; and for another, even if what you say is true, SO WHAT?
1] I didn't say I knew why she was using it. That's what "if" means.:duh:

2] I do not see the point in being in a relationship that you don't think is going to go anywhere. And especially not in intentionally not moving forward with it. That is the only reason I'm against "dating." It is the only form of "dating" I am against."

3] I would not be happy if that's all I was seen as.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 07:43 AM
"I do not see the point in being in a relationship that you don't think is going to go anywhere."

Well obviously firechyld thinks it's either important, satisfying, or going somewhere. You don't date people you think are a perfect fit, because no one is. You date to figure it out...

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 07:54 AM
You're an idiot. No wonder your wife left you.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You're an idiot. No wonder your wife left you.

Brandon. You keep saying this, without a clue to the real circumstances. Quit it. It's offensive in the extreme, ill-informed, and doesn't contribute to the discussion. If you can't keep up with the adults, get lost or go back to the DQ. I don't need someone like you giving me lectures on life.

Get a clue.

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 08:52 AM
It's not a lecture on life. You're a jerk. And that's putting it nicely.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

It's not a lecture on life. You're a jerk. And that's putting it nicely.

Funny how those filled with the love of Christ turn into hateful toddlers...

Lighthouse
February 1st, 2005, 09:19 AM
What's hateful about it? I'm not being hateful. I am being honest, though.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by firechyld



We might get married one day. It's not what we want right now.


Why not?

Or is it more like, why should he? He is getting what he wants right now, without any real commitment.



Originally posted by firechyld



Not a prostitute either.



So you performed sexual acts for free?



Originally posted by firechyld

What on earth should I call him? He IS my partner.


Until something better comes along.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by granite1010


Well obviously firechyld thinks it's either important, satisfying, or going somewhere. You don't date people you think are a perfect fit, because no one is. You date to figure it out...

To figure what out? How to break up?

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

To figure what out? How to break up?

Why not? Sometimes things don't work out when you're dating. In any event, how do you propose people meet other people and see if they're a fit? You have to get out there, see what's out there, and figure out what you want for yourself. You also have to get to know people. Pretty straightforward.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Shimei
Or is it more like, why should he? He is getting what he wants right now, without any real commitment.

Wow, you have a really broken view of marriage there, Shimei. It seems in your world, men only get married so they can have sex with their partners, and the women better hold out or they won't be able to forcing their partner into doing something they don't want.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Why not? Sometimes things don't work out when you're dating. In any event, how do you propose people meet other people and see if they're a fit? You have to get out there, see what's out there, and figure out what you want for yourself. You also have to get to know people. Pretty straightforward.

It might even lead to shaking up and obtaining a PARTNER.....

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

It might even lead to shaking up and obtaining a PARTNER.....

Well, you have a problem with this and I don't. So I'm not shaking in my boots.

Personally I wish I had lived with my ex before we plunged into marriage. Would've saved us both a lot of trouble.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

Wow, you have a really broken view of marriage there, Shimei. It seems in your world, men only get married so they can have sex with their partners, and the women better hold out or they won't be able to forcing their partner into doing something they don't want.

Men do not get married just to have sex. Nowhere did I say that.
But if women are willing to have sex without any real commitment from a man, then the chances of the man wanting to get married go down.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 10:50 AM
IMO, not living with someone before you marry them is just plain stupid. There's no other word for it. I expect it's one of the contributing factors in the higher divorce rate among Christians.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Shimei
But if women are willing to have sex without any real commitment from a man, then the chances of the man wanting to get married go down.

Which is equivalent to saying that women need to bribe men into marriage with the promise of sex - which is a broken view of marriage.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Well, you have a problem with this and I don't. So I'm not shaking in my boots.

Personally I wish I had lived with my ex before we plunged into marriage. Would've saved us both a lot of trouble.

Actually God has a problem with this. It is called fornication.

Maybe now you can go out and find someone to shack up with and never get married at all. Firechyld seems happy with her situation. Plus if you ever get tired of your partner, you can always move on to a new and improved one. Don't worry if you have kids, they won't mind.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

IMO, not living with someone before you marry them is just plain stupid. There's no other word for it. I expect it's one of the contributing factors in the higher divorce rate among Christians.

A higher divorce rate among Christians? Where did you get that idea from?

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

Which is equivalent to saying that women need to bribe men into marriage with the promise of sex - which is a broken view of marriage.


A man and a woman committed in marriage is equivalent to a bribe? You are the one who is broken.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

A higher divorce rate among Christians? Where did you get that idea from?

More specifically, among conversative Christians.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Note the source: this research was carried out by a Christian organisation.

Mr Jack
February 1st, 2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

A man and a woman committed in marriage is equivalent to a bribe? You are the one who is broken.

Er, no. Try reading what I said again.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Actually God has a problem with this. It is called fornication.

Maybe now you can go out and find someone to shack up with and never get married at all. Firechyld seems happy with her situation. Plus if you ever get tired of your partner, you can always move on to a new and improved one. Don't worry if you have kids, they won't mind.

Shimei, you don't seem to realize: not being a Christian any longer, I could really care less what Christians consider fornication or not. I've seen enough shady behavior by Christians to know a lot of them don't seem phased by it, either.

Now, your smarmy little self-righteous carping aside, I do intend to get married again at some point and have a family, and do right what I did wrong before. But what I do in the meantime is my business and it's really not any of yours. By the way, you're the one who sounds unsatisified, while apostates like me, Jack, and firechyld are just living our lives and not obsessing about yours.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, you don't seem to realize: not being a Christian any longer, I could really care less what Christians consider fornication or not. I've seen enough shady behavior by Christians to know a lot of them don't seem phased by it, either.

Now, your smarmy little self-righteous carping aside, I do intend to get married again at some point and have a family, and do right what I did wrong before. But what I do in the meantime is my business and it's really not any of yours. By the way, you're the one who sounds unsatisified, while apostates like me, Jack, and firechyld are just living our lives and not obsessing about yours.

I am just debating the issues; I am not at all obsessed with your life. You have some strange ideas and plenty of them.

How do you stop being a Christian? You either are one are you are not. By that I mean you have repented and accepted Christ as your Savior or you have not.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

I am just debating the issues; I am not at all obsessed with your life. You have some strange ideas and plenty of them.

How do you stop being a Christian? You either are one are you are not. By that I mean you have repented and accepted Christ as your Savior or you have not.

Don't see what's so "strange" about my ideas on this thread. What's "strange" is the way you jump to conclusions (my position on abortion, for example).

As for the whole stopped being a Christian thing, I've covered that topic on other threads and really don't feel like rehashing/hijacking this thread.

Servo
February 1st, 2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Don't see what's so "strange" about my ideas on this thread. What's "strange" is the way you jump to conclusions (my position on abortion, for example).



Yep, I am glad that you are against murdering unborn babies.

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 12:54 PM
:cool:

Rolf Ernst
February 1st, 2005, 02:18 PM
MY,my!! Isn't it terrible that the children in Christian schools and home schooled children are deprived of the great advantage of social adjustment through the government schools!! TSK, TSK!

Granite
February 1st, 2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

MY,my!! Isn't it terrible that the children in Christian schools and home schooled children are deprived of the great advantage of social adjustment through the government schools!! TSK, TSK!

Personally I don't see why everyone's flipping out over this. Now, if they brought a STRIPPER in and she started extolling the life that'd be one thing. But what the guy said is, technically, true: there's money to be made.

By the way, having gone to a parochial school I can tell you plenty goes down in there that wouldn't look out of place in a public one.

Rolf Ernst
February 2nd, 2005, 09:08 AM
Granite1010--If you have a charge to make against anyone, be specific--who, what , where when, why, how.

Granite
February 2nd, 2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Granite1010--If you have a charge to make against anyone, be specific--who, what , where when, why, how.

Huh?:confused:

Lighthouse
February 2nd, 2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Why not? Sometimes things don't work out when you're dating. In any event, how do you propose people meet other people and see if they're a fit? You have to get out there, see what's out there, and figure out what you want for yourself. You also have to get to know people. Pretty straightforward.
Yeah. Dating is the only way you can ever get to know anybody. I've met all of my friends this way.:rolleyes:

Lighthouse
February 2nd, 2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

IMO, not living with someone before you marry them is just plain stupid. There's no other word for it. I expect it's one of the contributing factors in the higher divorce rate among Christians.
Uh huh.:rolleyes: Is that why the divorce rate was lower when people didn't live together before marriage?

Granite
February 2nd, 2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Yeah. Dating is the only way you can ever get to know anybody. I've met all of my friends this way.:rolleyes:

Brandon. Don't be a tool. How else are you going to figure out if you want to marry someone, much less even like them, without dating them first?

Servo
February 2nd, 2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon. Don't be a tool. How else are you going to figure out if you want to marry someone, much less even like them, without dating them first?

Spend time with them in a group setting. Couples don't have to be alone to get to know each other.

Having sex right away (dating in the 00's) is not getting to know them, unless sex is all you are after.

Gerald
February 2nd, 2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
Uh huh.:rolleyes: Is that why the divorce rate was lower when people didn't live together before marriage? No, the divorce rate was lower because in those days getting divorced was usually a sentence to death by starvation or exposure.

And no, people were not inclined to take suffering strangers into their homes.

Granite
February 2nd, 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Spend time with them in a group setting. Couples don't have to be alone to get to know each other.

Having sex right away (dating in the 00's) is not getting to know them, unless sex is all you are after.

Shimei: why do you, Brandon, and others seem to think "dating" automatically means "sex"? Says more about you than me.

By the way, this group setting nonsense is a waste of time and awkward, especially if you honestly DO just want some legitimate one-on-one time to get to know one another.

Servo
February 2nd, 2005, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei: why do you, Brandon, and others seem to think "dating" automatically means "sex"? Says more about you than me.



A man and a woman who are attracted to each other and who spend a lot of time alone with each other. Hello?

Granite
February 2nd, 2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

A man and a woman who are attracted to each other and who spend a lot of time alone with each other. Hello?

Well, you obviously think self-control is an impossibility...

Personally I think the idea of adults needing to be chaperoned in groups is a little ridiculous, but that's just me.

Turbo
February 2nd, 2005, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

No, the divorce rate was lower because in those days getting divorced was usually a sentence to death by starvation or exposure. Living Together Before Marriage Leads To Divorce (http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20030706221939data_trunc_sys.shtml)
7 August 2003

Even though more than 50 percent of couples now do it, compared with only 10 percent thirty years ago, living together before marriage is still linked to higher rates of troubled unions, divorce and separation, Penn State researchers have found.

The Penn State team compared data on 1425 people married between 1964 and 1980 when cohabitation was less common and between 1981 and 1997 when cohabitation was more common. In both groups, cohabiters reported less happiness and more marital conflict than noncohabiters. Also, couples who lived together before marriage were more likely to divorce.

Claire M. Kamp Dush, first author of the study said, "It had been consistently shown in the past that, contrary to the popular belief that living together will improve a person's ability to choose a marriage partner and stay married, the opposite is actually the case."

The study, "The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts?," was published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family. Dush's co-authors are Dr. Catherine Cohan and Dr. Paul Amato.

Although all the reasons why cohabitation and troubled unions are related remains unknown, the researchers report that their data and a review of the literature suggest that both personal characteristics and the experience of cohabitation play important roles.

The Penn State team notes that research indicates that people choose riskier partners when cohabiting because they think cohabitation will be easier to break up than marriage. However, once a couple is living together, the fact that they share possessions, pets, and children and have invested time in their relationship may propel them to marry.

Research has also shown that living together in an unconventional relationship can make people less religious and may encourage them to develop problematic relationship skills and to spend less time resolving problems or providing support to their partners.

They write, "A weak commitment to lifelong marriage and less attention to communication skills during cohabitation may carry over into marriage and make couples more vulnerable to the inevitable challenges that couples face over time."

Granite
February 2nd, 2005, 02:41 PM
I dunno. Personally those I know who either lived together versus those who didn't is a wash. I think it's just a matter of different strokes.

Servo
February 2nd, 2005, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Well, you obviously think self-control is an impossibility...



So are you implying that having sex while dating is wrong?

Gerald
February 2nd, 2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Shimei
So are you implying that having sex while dating is wrong? It certainly creates more problems than it solves, and is best avoided.

Of course, not all folks on the dating scene have that much foresight..

Granite
February 2nd, 2005, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

So are you implying that having sex while dating is wrong?

I don't think it is, no.

Lighthouse
February 3rd, 2005, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Brandon. Don't be a tool. How else are you going to figure out if you want to marry someone, much less even like them, without dating them first?
You're a complete dumbass. I know my best friend pretty well, and I've spent time alone with him. Those times were obviously not dates. I can get to know someone and spend time alone with them, without it being a date.

Lighthouse
February 3rd, 2005, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

No, the divorce rate was lower because in those days getting divorced was usually a sentence to death by starvation or exposure.
Bull.

Lighthouse
February 3rd, 2005, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

It certainly creates more problems than it solves, and is best avoided.

Of course, not all folks on the dating scene have that much foresight..
Well, at least you're somewhat intelligent.

Granite
February 3rd, 2005, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You're a complete dumbass. I know my best friend pretty well, and I've spent time alone with him. Those times were obviously not dates. I can get to know someone and spend time alone with them, without it being a date.

Well of course, half-wit: my best friend happens to be a guy, don't know about you, but a date was unnecessary to get to know him. So at least you're willing to admit that people can spend time alone together and get to know each other? How is this NOT a date? Maybe your definition differs from mine. You and Shimei seem so obsessed with sex (perhaps because you're not getting it) that you seem to equate the word "date" with "sex."

firechyld
February 4th, 2005, 12:03 AM
This is getting ridiculous. I love the way that people here think that once you've shared some small amount of personal information, the rest of your private life is promptly their business...

lighthouse:


What amuses me is that you never use the term "boyfriend."

*shrug* I do sometimes. But he's more than a "boyfriend".

Bear in mind that this might be something as simple as Australian vs American idiom. Most people i know who are in serious relationships refer to their significant other as their "partner". We both used the term to refer to our (now ex) fiance/es.


And I am even more amused by the fact that you will most likely never refer to him as your "fiancť," or your "husband."

What on earth are you basing that on?


And what does "partner" mean anyway? Sexual partner? Life partner?

All of the above? He's the person who walks beside me, and shares my life. My partner. I guess I use it almost in terms of a dance partner. :)


Also, using the term "partner" to refer to your boy/girlfriend was started by homos, because they couldn't get married. By calling him your "partner" you are affirming the notion that you do not intend to marry him.

No, I'm not. That's just what you're reading into it.


If you are using it because he is your sexual partner, this affirms the notion that you do not intend to marry, and reduces him to nothing more than a sex toy.

Once again, you profess knowledge of something you know nothing about. One day you'll figure out that relationships are a lot more complex than you think.


2] I do not see the point in being in a relationship that you don't think is going to go anywhere. And especially not in intentionally not moving forward with it. That is the only reason I'm against "dating." It is the only form of "dating" I am against."

There's something else that I hope you'll one day realise. A relationship isn't about a destination... it's about a journey. Your insistance that a relationship has to be "going somewhere" is simplistic... all relationships go somewhere. They go into the future.

We're happy with where we are now, and we're happy with how we're moving forward. Neither of us can possibly know what the future holds. Wherever we're going, we'll get there together. That's the important thing.

Shimei:


Why not?

A whole bunch of reasons. :)


Or is it more like, why should he? He is getting what he wants right now, without any real commitment.

You've got a really messed up perception of how relationships work, you know that? We are not getting married yet because it is not what we want. It's not a case of me trying and failing to convince my man to "make an honest woman of me". It's a mutual decision.

As for commitment, you're an idiot if you think that people can't commit without a marriage certificate. I have one of those. I also have a certificate of divorce. I know first hand that there is a lot more to a commitment than the piece of paper. My partner is more committed to me than my ex-husband ever was.


So you performed sexual acts for free?

*grin* In my personal life, if I wanted to sleep with someone, yes. But my professional life has never involved sexual intercourse for money.


Until something better comes along.

Unlikely. :) What makes you think that someone is disposable, just because they aren't your legal husband/wife?


Maybe now you can go out and find someone to shack up with and never get married at all.

You seem to be missing the point that both granite and I have been married.


Firechyld seems happy with her situation.

She is. :)


Spend time with them in a group setting. Couples don't have to be alone to get to know each other.

There are aspects of a romantic relationship that only develop in private... and, no, I don't mean sex. My partner knows parts of me that few other people have seen, and he's opened up to me in ways that he hasn't done in front of anyone else. Anyone can tell you that this is part of forming a romantic bond. I certainly couldn't commit to someone for the rest of my life without knowing that they had seen and accepted those most personal parts of myself.


Having sex right away (dating in the 00's) is not getting to know them, unless sex is all you are after.

*shrug* That's not how my relationship started, but I know many who have built successful relationships on such a foundation.

But, more importantly, why do you think that dating automatically involves sex?


A man and a woman who are attracted to each other and who spend a lot of time alone with each other. Hello?

... are getting to know each other, and enjoying each other's prescence? I've been on plenty of dates that haven't involved sex. Have you ever considered that people can choose not to sleep together? They don't always need to be chaperoned, or leashed.

MR Jack...


Wow, you have a really broken view of marriage there, Shimei. It seems in your world, men only get married so they can have sex with their partners, and the women better hold out or they won't be able to forcing their partner into doing something they don't want.

I concur. I'm finding these insights into shimei quite perturbing...

Granite
February 4th, 2005, 07:09 AM
As I said: Shimei and Brandon seemed so obsessed with SEX=DATE that it makes me wonder if it's just jealousy or voyeurism on their part.

Neither of them seem to have crawled out from under their rocks in a long, long time.

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Well of course, half-wit: my best friend happens to be a guy, don't know about you, but a date was unnecessary to get to know him. So at least you're willing to admit that people can spend time alone together and get to know each other? How is this NOT a date? Maybe your definition differs from mine. You and Shimei seem so obsessed with sex (perhaps because you're not getting it) that you seem to equate the word "date" with "sex."
What is wrong with you?! How stupid can one person be?! I never said that date=sex! I said that I can get to know a person without dating them, idiot! And I can. I don't need to date to get to know someone!:doh:

Granite
February 4th, 2005, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

What is wrong with you?! How stupid can one person be?! I never said that date=sex! I said that I can get to know a person without dating them, idiot! And I can. I don't need to date to get to know someone!:doh:

:yawn:

The blizzard boy doth protest too much, me thinks.

Both you and Shimei SEEM to think it's impossible for people to date without having sex. Now, if you want to clarify, go right on ahead. We'd both agree--now, apparently--that you can get to know someone without dating them, but that wasn't my point. You and Shimei seem positively paranoid about every single date out there degenerating into sex (oh, heavens, what IS this world coming to).

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

lighthouse:



*shrug* I do sometimes. But he's more than a "boyfriend".
I don't believe you.


Bear in mind that this might be something as simple as Australian vs American idiom. Most people i know who are in serious relationships refer to their significant other as their "partner". We both used the term to refer to our (now ex) fiance/es.
He's nothing more than a security blanket for you. You use him to make yourself feel like you're worth something, because he makes you feel good.



What on earth are you basing that on?
You've already said that you don't want to marry him.



All of the above? He's the person who walks beside me, and shares my life. My partner. I guess I use it almost in terms of a dance partner. :)
He's not a "life" partner, until you've committed to spend the rest of your life with him. And you haven't.



No, I'm not. That's just what you're reading into it.
You've already said that you don't want to marry him.



Once again, you profess knowledge of something you know nothing about. One day you'll figure out that relationships are a lot more complex than you think.
You've already said that you don't want to marry him. And the statement stands, if all you mean is "sex partner," then that reduces him to nothing morethan a sex toy. I never said that "sex partner" is all you mean.



There's something else that I hope you'll one day realise. A relationship isn't about a destination... it's about a journey. Your insistance that a relationship has to be "going somewhere" is simplistic... all relationships go somewhere. They go into the future.
You're kidding, right? I'd prefer not to "date" someone that I don't want to actually be with. That's all. And I never said anythign about a destination. I do not need a girlfriend to feel better about myself, or to elevate myself to some societal status. When I'm ready to get married, it will be after I've found someone I want to sepnd the rest of my life with, and I will pursue a relationship, with the intetntion of marriage. I will wait until I find someone who feels the same way, and we will move forward with it. And the marriage will not be some imaginary destination, it will be the continuation of the journey.


We're happy with where we are now, and we're happy with how we're moving forward. Neither of us can possibly know what the future holds. Wherever we're going, we'll get there together. That's the important thing.
You're not moving forward. you're staying in the same place. Neither of you seems to have decided that you want to move forward. And the most likely scenario is that instead of moving forward, you'll move apart.


*grin* In my personal life, if I wanted to sleep with someone, yes. But my professional life has never involved sexual intercourse for money.
You sound like Bill Clinton. Sexual act does not = sexual intercourse.:doh:

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

:yawn:

The blizzard boy doth protest too much, me thinks.

Both you and Shimei SEEM to think it's impossible for people to date without having sex. Now, if you want to clarify, go right on ahead. We'd both agree--now, apparently--that you can get to know someone without dating them, but that wasn't my point. You and Shimei seem positively paranoid about every single date out there degenerating into sex (oh, heavens, what IS this world coming to).
I do believe you are dumber than a box of hammers. Nothing I have ever said indicates that dating=sex. I know people who date without sex. I just don't see the point in dating to get to know someone when it is obviously unnecessary.

Granite
February 4th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I do believe you are dumber than a box of hammers. Nothing I have ever said indicates that dating=sex. I know people who date without sex. I just don't see the point in dating to get to know someone when it is obviously unnecessary.

Look who's talking: I didn't know that minimum wage slaves who slobbed behind a DQ counter could be counted on to quantify someone's intelligence.:rolleyes:

But I digress...Brandon, how exactly would you define a "date"? Spending time with somebody, one-on-one, and getting to know them is a "date." Go out somewhere, movie, park, bowling alley, football game, what have you. You are on a "date," at least as I understand the word. Maybe our definitions aren't exactly the same. I'd like to know yours.

What would you call such activities? And how do you propose people get to know one another if dating is so "obviously" unnecessary? Shimei's Group Date idea is a little absurd: adults don't need chaperones.

P.S. When did YOU actually go out, or have you been under your rock longer than you'd like to admit?

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Look who's talking: I didn't know that minimum wage slaves who slobbed behind a DQ counter could be counted on to quantify someone's intelligence.:rolleyes:
I'm smarter than you.


But I digress...Brandon, how exactly would you define a "date"? Spending time with somebody, one-on-one, and getting to know them is a "date." Go out somewhere, movie, park, bowling alley, football game, what have you. You are on a "date," at least as I understand the word. Maybe our definitions aren't exactly the same. I'd like to know yours.
Like I said, I've gone to movies with my friends. That's not a date. It's not a date unless it's specified as a date. moron.


What would you call such activities? And how do you propose people get to know one another if dating is so "obviously" unnecessary? Shimei's Group Date idea is a little absurd: adults don't need chaperones.
Your definition of date is flawed, dumbass. I can go to a movies with someone I'm interested in without it being a date. Even if it is just the two of us, and we are both interested in each other.


P.S. When did YOU actually go out, or have you been under your rock longer than you'd like to admit?
I've never been on anything specifically specified as a date.

Granite
February 4th, 2005, 12:56 PM
"I'm smarter than you.

:darwinsm:

Sorry, sorry, that was just priceless. Hint: those who have brains don't need to brag about it, nor do they need to prove it on a bulletin board. Get a life, my man.

"Like I said, I've gone to movies with my friends. That's not a date. It's not a date unless it's specified as a date."

FEMALE friends, I assume. (You've been very gender-vague. Coincidence?) What do you call it? "Going somewhere"? "Going out"? If not a date, what? Do you really need to spell it out? "Hey, let's go have dinner, see a movie, and spend time alone. But LEMME BE SPECIFIC: THIS IS NOT A DATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM."

Uh-huuuuh. If it looks like a date, feels like a date--aw, forget it.

"I can go to a movies with someone I'm interested in without it being a date. Even if it is just the two of us, and we are both interested in each other."

Again: what's this called? Brandon, the only person who doesn't know he's on a date is YOU. And if you're so interested in this person--guy? gal? you tell me--maybe you should actually let them know. I mean, jeez oh pete. Grow up. Grow SOMETHING, anyway.

"I've never been on anything specifically specified as a date."

And this, my nominally employed Christ-loving friend, is very sad commentary.

Gerald
February 4th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Perhaps an arranged marriage would be more agreeable to lighthouse's sensibilities.

That way, love/chemistry/attraction/lust/etc. is not a factor.

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"I'm smarter than you.

:darwinsm:

Sorry, sorry, that was just priceless. Hint: those who have brains don't need to brag about it, nor do they need to prove it on a bulletin board. Get a life, my man.
I'm not bragging. You're just an idiot. I'm not. Pointing it out to you isn't bragging. You don't see me trying to tell someone else that I'm smarter than you, do you?


"Like I said, I've gone to movies with my friends. That's not a date. It's not a date unless it's specified as a date."

FEMALE friends, I assume. (You've been very gender-vague. Coincidence?) What do you call it? "Going somewhere"? "Going out"? If not a date, what? Do you really need to spell it out? "Hey, let's go have dinner, see a movie, and spend time alone. But LEMME BE SPECIFIC: THIS IS NOT A DATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM."
Both male and female. I don't date guys, obviously. And that leads into my point. When I go to a movie with a guy friend, it isn't a date. And when I go to a movie with a female friend, it isn't a date. Is it really that hard for you to comprehend?

I actually asked a female friend if she wanted to go see a movie once, and she said she wouldn't go unless there were other people. I asked why, and she said that if it were just the two of us it would be a date. I had to laugh. I never asked her out on a date, but she assumed it would be a date if it were just the two of us. Even if all we did was see the movie. And she wouldn't go unless she had the money to pay for herself, because if I paid it would be a date. I told her that I pay for my friends all the time. It's sad that the world has devolved into this. I never said I wanted it to be a date, but she thought it would be a date if either of those two conditions took place.:nono:


Uh-huuuuh. If it looks like a date, feels like a date--aw, forget it.
You really are stupid.


"I can go to a movies with someone I'm interested in without it being a date. Even if it is just the two of us, and we are both interested in each other."

Again: what's this called? Brandon, the only person who doesn't know he's on a date is YOU. And if you're so interested in this person--guy? gal? you tell me--maybe you should actually let them know. I mean, jeez oh pete. Grow up. Grow SOMETHING, anyway.
If I don't ask her on a date, but I ask her to see a movie, it isn't a date. I went to see The Incredibles with a female friend of mine. I'm interested in her. It wasn't a date.

I have let her know. So what?

Even if we like each other, it doesn't make it a date. It's two friends hanging out. Just like it is when I'm with my best friend.


"I've never been on anything specifically specified as a date."

And this, my nominally employed Christ-loving friend, is very sad commentary.
I never said I've never had a girlfriend, did I? I've just never been on anything specified as a date. I tried to once, and a "friend" attempted to ruin it, by lying to the girl. And because she thought he was telling the truth, by the time I explained to her the truth it was too late. If you want an explanation, I'll give it, but I don't think it's necessary.

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Perhaps an arranged marriage would be more agreeable to lighthouse's sensibilities.

That way, love/chemistry/attraction/lust/etc. is not a factor.
Love has to be a factor. Are you incapable of paying attention? Lust is the antithesis of love, and should not be a factor in marriage.

Anyway, I am against arranged marriages in that order. Love must exist for a marriage to work.

OMEGA
February 4th, 2005, 01:47 PM
So far , lighthouse has called his fellow posters

IDIOT MORON STUPID

I think that this is Offencive and Not a sign of a Mature Person.

Gerald
February 4th, 2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
Anyway, I am against arranged marriages in that order. Love must exist for a marriage to work. That depends on what you want the marriage to work for.

In the days when arranged marriages were the norm, how the marriage would benefit the families involved was more important than the desires of the couple being married.

Granite
February 4th, 2005, 01:59 PM
"And when I go to a movie with a female friend, it isn't a date."

Well, says you. Unfortunately you're in the minority, these days. It may be a CASUAL date without much subtext, but it is what it is.

"I never asked her out on a date, but she assumed it would be a date if it were just the two of us."

Did it ever occur to you that she was RIGHT, Brandon? You may dislike the assumptions people bring into these situations, but maybe you should get with the times.

"It's sad that the world has devolved into this."

Maybe yes and maybe no, but that is the status quo. Get with the program.

"Even if we like each other, it doesn't make it a date. It's two friends hanging out. Just like it is when I'm with my best friend."

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Ever seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Sure, it's a flick, but it makes a valid point. Men and women can't just be friends. Because there will always be sexual tension on at least the part of one of them. That's the way we're built, Brandon.

P.S. Omega, this might be a first, but I agree with you.

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by OMEGA

So far , lighthouse has called his fellow posters

IDIOT MORON STUPID

I think that this is Offencive and Not a sign of a Mature Person.
An idiot is an idiot. Whether I say it or not. Anyway, why aren't you outside watching for the comet?

Gerald
February 4th, 2005, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
An idiot is an idiot. Whether I say it or not. Anyway, why aren't you outside watching for the comet? Because being a pain to you is more fun...?

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"And when I go to a movie with a female friend, it isn't a date."

Well, says you. Unfortunately you're in the minority, these days. It may be a CASUAL date without much subtext, but it is what it is.
So, is it a date when I go to a movie with a guy friend?:rolleyes:


"I never asked her out on a date, but she assumed it would be a date if it were just the two of us."

Did it ever occur to you that she was RIGHT, Brandon? You may dislike the assumptions people bring into these situations, but maybe you should get with the times.
You're a dumbass. I didn't want it to be a date, and neither did she. So it WOULD NOT have been a date.:duh:


"It's sad that the world has devolved into this."

Maybe yes and maybe no, but that is the status quo. Get with the program.
No. Most of my life has been based on going against the flow. I'm not going to change to make you happy.


"Even if we like each other, it doesn't make it a date. It's two friends hanging out. Just like it is when I'm with my best friend."

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Ever seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Sure, it's a flick, but it makes a valid point. Men and women can't just be friends. Because there will always be sexual tension on at least the part of one of them. That's the way we're built, Brandon.
That is complete (sanitized for your protection, by :crow2: )

Lighthouse
February 4th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Because being a pain to you is more fun...?
:chuckle:

Well, he must really like me then. You know what they say about imitation.

Granite
February 4th, 2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

So, is it a date when I go to a movie with a guy friend?:rolleyes:


You're a dumbass. I didn't want it to be a date, and neither did she. So it WOULD NOT have been a date.:duh:


No. Most of my life has been based on going against the flow. I'm not going to change to make you happy.


That is complete (sanitized for your protection by :crow2: )

:rolleyes:

With reasoning like this...

Greywolf
February 4th, 2005, 03:55 PM
lighthouse,
What is your definition of a date?

Turbo
February 4th, 2005, 04:07 PM
Hey lighthouse, watch your language.

Mustard Seed
February 4th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by firechyld
Still... as much as we try not to blank out the negatives of the industry, I do think this guy is ignoring the positives, and the neutrals. That may just be his experiences, and I'm not going to dispute that. But he is presenting a very one sided view as though it is the be-all and end-all of the story.

I mean no disrespect. I respect your intellectual prowis and you may well believe that you are/have enjoyed your experiences in related fields. But I could likely find a well articulated intellegent, surviving, and in some ways thriving, bolemic and or anorexic celebrity or model who, if such a stance had no chance of destroying their current livelyhood and lifestyle, would anc could very easily advocate the bolemic/anorexic 'life style' using the very same logic you've displayed. The same stance could be taken by a great many others in society on topics I think you would not openly embrace.

Lighthouse
February 5th, 2005, 12:56 AM
I apologize for the language. I allowed his idiocy to cloud my judgment.

Greywolf-
It's not a date if neither of us sees it as a date. If just one of us sees it that way, it isn't one. We have to agree that it's a date. And it has to involve more than just hanging out.

That does not mean it has to involve sex to be a date, rocky.

Granite
February 5th, 2005, 09:51 AM
Brandon: I don't think either of us should continue this discussion. You keep getting carried away and I think you're just immature when it comes to this subject.

BillyBob
February 5th, 2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Lust is the antithesis of love, and should not be a factor in marriage.



My friend, a marriage without lust is destined to be unfulfilling to at least one of the parties involved. Paul even encouraged people to mary because of lust, rather than them having sex outside of marriage.

But my first point is the most pertinent, trust me.

Nineveh
February 5th, 2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

My friend, a marriage without lust is destined to be unfulfilling to at least one of the parties involved. Paul even encouraged people to mary because of lust, rather than them having sex outside of marriage.

But my first point is the most pertinent, trust me.

Seconds BillyBob's statement to lighthouse:

Lust in and of itself is not sinful. It becomes sinful when it's misused (misdirected).

Lighthouse
February 5th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Somethin' tells me this is a semantics issue.

Servo
February 5th, 2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

My friend, a marriage without lust is destined to be unfulfilling to at least one of the parties involved. Paul even encouraged people to mary because of lust, rather than them having sex outside of marriage.



That has been my point when it comes to dating. You can't tell me that a man and a woman who are attracted to each other and who spend a lot of time alone are not going to eventually have sex. Today most people who date have sex sooner than later. Hence my previous points about getting to know each other in a group setting and getting married sooner, not later.

Granite, apparently, is above all of this.

Lighthouse
February 5th, 2005, 01:42 PM
No he's not. He's perfectly okay with having sex outside of marriage.

Servo
February 5th, 2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by firechyld


A whole bunch of reasons. :)


Like what?


Originally posted by firechyld

You've got a really messed up perception of how relationships work, you know that? We are not getting married yet because it is not what we want. It's not a case of me trying and failing to convince my man to "make an honest woman of me". It's a mutual decision.

As for commitment, you're an idiot if you think that people can't commit without a marriage certificate. I have one of those. I also have a certificate of divorce. I know first hand that there is a lot more to a commitment than the piece of paper. My partner is more committed to me than my ex-husband ever was.



When it comes to relationships I believe what the Bible says. So if you think my perception is messed up, take it up with God.

If you are so committed to this guy you live with, why not make it a real commitment? It is not about a piece of paper. It IS about a commitment, one you and your boyfriend do not have.


Originally posted by firechyld

*grin* In my personal life, if I wanted to sleep with someone, yes. But my professional life has never involved sexual intercourse for money.


I thought you worked in the sex industry. Did you do it for free?
If you mean that you would perform sexual acts but did not perform intercourse, why not? Is their something wrong with that?


Originally posted by firechyld


I concur. I'm finding these insights into shimei quite perturbing...

Good. I am glad that my views perturb a tramp.

Mustard Seed
February 5th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Shimei
When it comes to relationships I believe what the Bible says. So if you think my perception is messed up, take it up with God...

...Good. I am glad that my views perturb a tramp.

__11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

___12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

___13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

___14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.




__3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

___4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

___5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

___6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

___7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

___8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

___9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

___10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

___11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

various excerpts from The Bible

Servo
February 5th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Matthew 7
"Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


Don't judge as a hypocrite. The Pharisees were judging as hypocrites since they were adulterers judging an adulterer.

John 8:

6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ďIf any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.Ē 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.



John 7:24
24Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Mustard Seed
February 5th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Matthew 7
"Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Amen.



Don't judge as a hypocrite. The Pharisees were judging as hypocrites since they were adulterers judging an adulterer.

John 7:24
24Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Amen. Do you know all the details of firechyld's life? I don't.

Servo
February 5th, 2005, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed






Amen. Do you know all the details of firechyld's life? I don't.

She is a former sex industry worker (prostitute) who is shaking up with her boyfriend.

Granite
February 5th, 2005, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

No he's not. He's perfectly okay with having sex outside of marriage.

Why are fundies so obsessed?

Servo
February 5th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Why are fundies so obsessed?

Why are you so obsessed with people who know the difference between right and wrong?

Mustard Seed
February 5th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

She is a former sex industry worker (prostitute) who is shaking up with her boyfriend.

So? The harlot who saved the spies was the only one who's houshold was suffered to survive in Jericho. You know about .ooooo1% of her life. Yes those things are not correct and are sinful but you do not know her upbringing etc.. You are in no position to act the judge. You may not be commiting the exact sins she is but we all need redemption as much as anyone. Whether 15 or 5000000000000000000 is your number of sins you need redeemed you still need redemption.

Servo
February 5th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

So? The harlot who saved the spies was the only one who's houshold was suffered to survive in Jericho. You know about .ooooo1% of her life. Yes those things are not correct and are sinful but you do not know her upbringing etc.. You are in no position to act the judge. You may not be commiting the exact sins she is but we all need redemption as much as anyone. Whether 15 or 5000000000000000000 is your number of sins you need redeemed you still need redemption.

Is firechyld repentant? No.

Is firechyld forgiven? No.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a certain past, then their current sinful ways are void from being judged with righteous judgment?

Where do you get off judging me for judging an unrepentant sinner?

Mustard Seed
February 5th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Is firechyld repentant? No.

Is firechyld forgiven? No.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a certain past, then their current sinful ways are void from being judged with righteous judgment?

Where do you get off judging me for judging an unrepentant sinner?

I'm saying people are judged on the light they've received. God will be the final judge. If you feel I am judging you that's your own perception. I've simply pointed to the scriptures you claimed to give heedence to. Just acting on my observation.

firechyld
February 6th, 2005, 01:37 AM
I got part way through replying to this this morning, but I had to go help my partner's father with something. Funny story: He introduced me to his friend as "my son's partner".

lighthouse:


I don't believe you.

That's pretty funny, considering you know nothing about the man or our relationship outside of what I've told you.


He's nothing more than a security blanket for you. You use him to make yourself feel like you're worth something, because he makes you feel good.

And lighthouse is playing the mind reader again. Here I thought we'd actually convinced you to give that a rest. :rolleyes:

Of course he makes me feel good. He loves me, and he gives me the opportunity to spend my life with someone that I love. Our relationship enhances my life. Taking another individual into consideration in every aspect of your life sounds like a burden, but when you care about that individual it's quite rewarding.

If you want me to get scientific about it, any relationship can be reduced to three simple factors: oestragen/testosterone, monoamine, and oxytocin. Based on elevated levels of these hormones associated with our partners, we make conscious decisions to spend time/our lives with them.

He's a lot more than a security blanket, doll. I'm not in any great need for one of them. I'm quite secure in and of myself... I don't need a man to make me feel good about myself.


You've already said that you don't want to marry him.

No, not now. We don't want to get married at this point. Perhaps we will later. We're in no rush... we know we've got plenty of time. :)


He's not a "life" partner, until you've committed to spend the rest of your life with him. And you haven't.

How do you know that? Just because we aren't married? Don't be an idiot.


You've already said that you don't want to marry him.

No, not now.


You've already said that you don't want to marry him. And the statement stands, if all you mean is "sex partner," then that reduces him to nothing morethan a sex toy. I never said that "sex partner" is all you mean.

Good. :)


You're kidding, right? I'd prefer not to "date" someone that I don't want to actually be with. That's all.

I certainly want to be with my partner. Otherwise I wouldn't be. A yes/no tickbox to the question "Are you married?" is not a fair assessment of whether or not someone wants to be with someone else.


And I never said anythign about a destination. I do not need a girlfriend to feel better about myself, or to elevate myself to some societal status.

Of course not. You have self-righteousness and arrogance for that, mixed in with a dose of religion.


When I'm ready to get married, it will be after I've found someone I want to sepnd the rest of my life with, and I will pursue a relationship, with the intetntion of marriage.

And if that wedding doesn't take place within a month, are you really serious about them? Two months? What's the appropriate length of time, in your expert opinion, that people can be together-but-not-married and still be assured that they are doing things in a lighthouse-approved manner?


I will wait until I find someone who feels the same way, and we will move forward with it. And the marriage will not be some imaginary destination, it will be the continuation of the journey.

Exactly. It's a continuation of a journey... a journey that begins with a relationship. That relationship is not stagnant just because it's not immediately rushing towards a wedding date.


You're not moving forward. you're staying in the same place. Neither of you seems to have decided that you want to move forward.

Yes, we have. We're moving comfortably towards tomorrow. And the next day. Etcetera and so on.


And the most likely scenario is that instead of moving forward, you'll move apart.

I don't think so. We, like most, build on our relationship every day. We may move apart one day. But, if that's going to happen, a marriage certificate won't stop it. Only we can.


You sound like Bill Clinton. Sexual act does not = sexual intercourse.

Actually, the distinction between various sex acts is something we tend to leave to you nitpicky heterosexuals. You'd be hard pressed to find a queer who'd agree with Bill Clinton, but heterosexual men everywhere seem to hold that view.

I digress. Sexual intercourse, or variations on the theme, do not form part of my job description.


Your definition of date is flawed, dumbass. I can go to a movies with someone I'm interested in without it being a date. Even if it is just the two of us, and we are both interested in each other.

Sounds like a date to me.


I'm not bragging. You're just an idiot. I'm not. Pointing it out to you isn't bragging. You don't see me trying to tell someone else that I'm smarter than you, do you?

It's a message board. You're telling everyone who reads it, and you know it. And most of us are either chuckling, or marvelling at your arrogance and ignorance.


Love has to be a factor. Are you incapable of paying attention? Lust is the antithesis of love, and should not be a factor in marriage.

Lust is a vital part of any marriage, and of romantic love. Even romantic love that doesn't have sex in it... lust tempered by self control. I already pity the poor girl you end up marrying, but I'll pity her even more if you don't realise that simple fact. A marriage without lust is likely to be an unsatisfying and frustrating one.


It's not a date if neither of us sees it as a date. If just one of us sees it that way, it isn't one. We have to agree that it's a date. And it has to involve more than just hanging out.

Some of the best dates I've ever been on have involved just hanging out. That's usually one of the best indications that you're onto something... when just hanging out with that person becomes a romantic and fascinating way to spend your time.


Mustard Seed:


I mean no disrespect. I respect your intellectual prowis and you may well believe that you are/have enjoyed your experiences in related fields. But I could likely find a well articulated intellegent, surviving, and in some ways thriving, bolemic and or anorexic celebrity or model who, if such a stance had no chance of destroying their current livelyhood and lifestyle, would anc could very easily advocate the bolemic/anorexic 'life style' using the very same logic you've displayed. The same stance could be taken by a great many others in society on topics I think you would not openly embrace.

I can see where you're coming from, but bulimia and anorexia are only diagnosed when the symptoms begin to pose serious physical or mental health risks. Same with alcoholism. Without the health risk, you're just dealing with a person who doesn't eat much, or likes to have a drink.

I'm talking about a mentally and physically healthy sex worker. If their occupation began to post significant physical or mental health risks, then my response would be the same as that I'd give to a person who was suffering because of their diet or drinking: Get help, and get out. But those who have no problems? Why shouldn't they continue with their non-destructive action?


Shimei:


Like what?

A hell of a lot of personal reasons? :)

A few significant ones that I feel comfortable discussing: I've only been divorced since November. I see no need to rush into another marriage.

Actually, that's all you're getting. Everything else is between he and I. Suffice to say that we're happy with our relationship as it is, and see no need to change it at this point in time. That should be as good a reason as any.


When it comes to relationships I believe what the Bible says. So if you think my perception is messed up, take it up with God.

God says that you should flatly refused to get involved with a girl who was once a sex worker, regardless of her current occupation or opinion of her previous life? I must have missed that chapter.


If you are so committed to this guy you live with, why not make it a real commitment? It is not about a piece of paper. It IS about a commitment, one you and your boyfriend do not have.

We have commitments other than that single piece of paper. :)


I thought you worked in the sex industry. Did you do it for free?
If you mean that you would perform sexual acts but did not perform intercourse, why not? Is their something wrong with that?

No, nothing wrong with it in my eyes. But it's not for me.

See how I can do that? Regard something as not right for me, but possibly right for another? You should try it some time.

*shrug* My job description is quite specific. It's something I enjoy making a living of. I see no need to branch out into other areas I'd be less comfortable with. Besides, I get paid better than a prostitute. :)


Good. I am glad that my views perturb a tramp.

*shrug* Tramp or not, I can still spot bitterness and a skewed perspective when I'm being poked with it.

As for this little exchange...



Mustard Seed:

Amen. Do you know all the details of firechyld's life? I don't.


Shimei:

She is a former sex industry worker (prostitute) who is shaking up with her boyfriend.


Mustard Seed:

You know about .ooooo1% of her life.



Mustard Seed is onto something, Shimei. Are you defined completely by your job? I'd put money on the fact that most people here don't even know what your last position was, much less care about it. Do you meet people, check the "occupation" and "marital status" boxes, and promptly decide that you don't need to know anything more about them? That would be silly, wouldn't it?

Anyway, off again. Going to watch a movie with my partner's parents.

Mustard Seed
February 6th, 2005, 05:01 AM
I can see where you're coming from, but bulimia and anorexia are only diagnosed when the symptoms begin to pose serious physical or mental health risks. Same with alcoholism. Without the health risk, you're just dealing with a person who doesn't eat much, or likes to have a drink.

The atribution of something to the health of a person is quite a subjective matter. I've seen deathly ill people convince themselves they were just having a bad bout of the flu when it was realy the fact that they were quite close to leaving the mortal realm.

You are impllying that there is no real health risk in 'moderation' in those areas, or if there is you esteem it as trivial. I mean not to be one that says it's okay to sacrifice your life to TV or internet addiction as long as you shun a tobaco habit but it should be acknowledged that such choices being seen as a negligable risk situation or as one that is JUST in the realm of a 'lifestyle choice' is quite the oversimplification.

Like entering a gang, sure a few get out and survive and thrive to a good old age but the majority, even if they eventually largely get away from it, suffer horrible side affects throughout life, assuming of course that they make it out with their lives. Sure there are those who are quite good at keeping up appearances while being social drinkers. There's likely a good percentage of people that can do it for a good part of their lives. Then you hear about career profesionals, judges and lawyers, who get caught with a DUI or actually end up taking a life and then their career is down the tube. Were they ever necesarily drunkards? No, not necesarily. Items like 'social drinking' are quite dishonest in how they are portrayed by society at large.

The same is true with the sex industry. I've run into a great many people that have had their lives wasted, some who've lost loved ones in some of the most cruel and pathetic ways, to the various sex industries. I've heard people, not often, who like yourself, portray themselves as being pleased with what they've gotten out of it thus far out of such lifestyles. Numericaly they have no comparison. I've never met a woman of any substantial age whose participated in that industry who would be a good case, by any stretch of the imagination, for advocating participation in it. Granted it is not a subject I imagine many would parade around among general aquaintances if they had dabbled in it to any degree early on. In general I've not found any one who's moved on from the industry that can make the recomendations you seem to imply by the relation of your current status with regard to whatever exactly your occupation may be.

So the contrast seems pretty major.

I have quite a few female relatives and am keen that, just as every boy, at some time or another, imagines himself an admirable hero or superman of some kind, that it's likely every girl has done something similar with regard to whatever they envision the prime archtype to be for themselves. I've heard them talk about considering various diets and measures to help them obtain this. I recognize that such adaptation of behaviour is natural for all humans in some form or another for the various stimuli they may receive from their enviroment(s), but one must recognize that certain paths are of such a nature that once started on they are nigh imposible to backtrack, with any degree of ease, on ones own. They become easily hardcore obsessions at best 'just' obsessions that, regardless of exactly what chemical releases in the brain or whatever chain of events, be they physiological, psychological or both, that, with regards to numbers of probability when compared to the cumulative human experience as we presently can see it, gives one a very low chance of ever escaping the mindset/habits.

As I've mentioned if you find yourself in one of these groves and you are not necesarily thinking your anywhere near to hitting any kind of a 'rock bottom' and you have any sizable intellect it becomes an easy thing to formulate your own set of apologetics for continuing in the state your in. The fact that you've fallen out of what is healthy can be cloaked to ones own mind like the social drinking problems are cloaked by many who suffer at the hands of that evil. (I realise the terminology like 'evil' gives away my bias against these various things, please don't dismiss the argument on the grounds that I have strong motives against these items)




I'm talking about a mentally and physically healthy sex worker.


This is a great part of my disputation that there is such a thing as a mentally and physically healthy sex worker. I have a hard time seeing that as being possible. Perhapse it's the high number of destroyed lives I've heard come out of it that's skewing my view but I see it like gambling. (Entering this not knowing what your view is of gambling, if you'll humor me) Many people I've talked to have said essentialy 'What's the problem with gambling? 'Why is it wrong for me, if I find it entertaining, to go and put down x amount of dollars twice a week at the casino?' They'll give the line that 'I only do it occasionaly and I limit what I spend'.

I may just be dense but to see someone that sees the best way of releaving stress is to go sit at a table or a machine each week untill they've sacrificed a certain, usualy relatively significant segment of money with respect to their incomes, they worked for, makes me think that this person has some serious underlying issues. Likewise with the sex industries. I think the very fact that those who you may consider 'consumers' in the industry are in it to receive something they otherwise would need to put forth a healthy effort to acheive lends an atomsphere of people trying to skirt the system. Trying to get satisfaction without the work that is generaly naturaly accompanying it. I believe this being the driving force of the industry makes it inherently unhealthy to all involved.

Take profesional sports for example. The whole point, originally, was to see what one could accomplish with their own prowis and determination. With the introduction of biological enhancing drugs and proceedures it's mutated into, rather than a show of raw determination on the part of the player, to something little different from a massive science contest to see who can engineer the human to fit the sport the best. It becomes a contest not of merit or anything earned but one to see who can cut the most corners. Or who can purchase the best combination. At times it's merely an extension of fiscal competitions.

It also has the sad side affect of turning people more and more into merchandise or simple consumers than actually giving them humanity and an enhanced richness of life they as humans need. Psychology class taught me that to fight the very nature of physical intercourse that prostitutes will often avoid interpersonal contact to avoid the bonding that the prossess is designed to produce. In otherwords, they are trying to fight their bodies much the way a modern day farmer tries to fight/manipulate biology and milk the most production out of his livestock, change the lighting in the warehouse to affect the production of eggs etc.. I believe these inherently dehumanizing necesities of the industry are what render it inherently 'unhealthy' on all levels to one degree or another.



If their occupation began to post significant physical or mental health risks, then my response would be the same as that I'd give to a person who was suffering because of their diet or drinking: Get help, and get out. But those who have no problems? Why shouldn't they continue with their non-destructive action?

Reminds me of the Don't Drink and Drive campaign. The 'little' miscalculation that once you leave 'healthy' and in the case of alcohol 'sober' that you will act as logicaly as you seemingly did before hand is a great grave mistake. You seem aware of the powerful nature of the various chemicals our bodies produce to make bonding on many levels possible. Certainly you must have some degree of respect for the power of these chemicals in affecting our thoughts and even our very capacity to know when to get help.

Reminds me of a quote on habits I came accross today. I don't remember exactly what it is and I a may give it incorectly but I don't have time at present to hunt it down. It says that an addiction is a link that is initialy too light to be recognized and that when it is finaly recognized it is to strong to be easily broken, something along those lines.

I hope you get the general direction of my thoughts. We can all become quite good at deceiving ourselves. I've done it in various things at various times in my life. I think it's important to always remember that we can't always discern when or if we've lost the capacity to discern something. I see this making 'eternal vigilance' of great importance in keeping our wits and as much sanity as we can bare to have about us.

Hope you are doing well and continue to do well and do not take my view as bigoted or just rhetorical mumbo jumbo.

BillyBob
February 6th, 2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I'd put money on the fact that most people here don't even know what your last position was, much less care about it.

Missionary. :angel:

julie21
February 6th, 2005, 05:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by firechyld

I'd put money on the fact that most people here don't even know what your last position was, much less care about it.




BillyBob:
Missionary. :angel:
:darwinsm:

Granite
February 6th, 2005, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Shimei

Why are you so obsessed with people who know the difference between right and wrong?

Shimei, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth at the thought of people dating and sleeping together. You and Brandon are. Me, firechyld, and others here don't care one way or another what you do or how you do it. But you people, on the other hand, gnash your teeth at the thought of two adults sleeping together, which has been part of the pleasure and joy of the human condition ever since Cave Man was introduced to Cave Woman at a prehistoric cocktail party.

People will, and will want to, with or without your ideas about what is "right" or "wrong," and the idea of unmarried people having sex MADDENS you. INFURIATES you, in fact.

Now if this isn't fruit for some basic psychology lessons I don't know what is...

Granite
February 6th, 2005, 08:57 AM
By the way, has anyone noticed that the most reasonable person here, other than firechyld, is a MORMON? I mean, will wonders never cease?

Mustard Seed, all sarcastic pot shots I've taken on you in the past are hereby withdrawn. (Till I decide to go after you again.) Keep up the good work.:thumb:

BillyBob
February 6th, 2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

By the way, has anyone noticed that the most reasonable person here, other than firechyld, is a MORMON? I mean, will wonders never cease?



I'm not a Mormon. :noid:

Granite
February 6th, 2005, 10:13 AM
:chuckle:

BillyBob
February 6th, 2005, 10:15 AM
:D

Mustard Seed
February 6th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

By the way, has anyone noticed that the most reasonable person here, other than firechyld, is a MORMON? I mean, will wonders never cease?

Mustard Seed, all sarcastic pot shots I've taken on you in the past are hereby withdrawn. (Till I decide to go after you again.) Keep up the good work.:thumb:

Thanks, I guess. Well how ever long such lasts I'm not sure. Guess we'll see.

*quietly sets timer and places it on the desk*

Lighthouse
February 6th, 2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

lighthouse:



That's pretty funny, considering you know nothing about the man or our relationship outside of what I've told you.
I'm going on what you've said.



And lighthouse is playing the mind reader again. Here I thought we'd actually convinced you to give that a rest. :rolleyes:

Of course he makes me feel good. He loves me, and he gives me the opportunity to spend my life with someone that I love. Our relationship enhances my life. Taking another individual into consideration in every aspect of your life sounds like a burden, but when you care about that individual it's quite rewarding.
He loves you? Is that why he won't marry you?


If you want me to get scientific about it, any relationship can be reduced to three simple factors: oestragen/testosterone, monoamine, and oxytocin. Based on elevated levels of these hormones associated with our partners, we make conscious decisions to spend time/our lives with them.
Riiight. Reducing relationships to nothing more than chemicals is exactly what we should do.:rolleyes:


He's a lot more than a security blanket, doll. I'm not in any great need for one of them. I'm quite secure in and of myself... I don't need a man to make me feel good about myself.
Uh huh.



No, not now. We don't want to get married at this point. Perhaps we will later. We're in no rush... we know we've got plenty of time. :)
No you don't. Didn't you say your condition greatly shortens your life expectancy? YOu're oth afraid of committment.



How do you know that? Just because we aren't married? Don't be an idiot.
What you have is not a commitment. If you ever decide to break it off, all you have to do is break it off. There's no gaurantee that you'll be together for the rest of your lives. You haven't done anything to make it solid.



No, not now.
Most likely never.



I certainly want to be with my partner. Otherwise I wouldn't be. A yes/no tickbox to the question "Are you married?" is not a fair assessment of whether or not someone wants to be with someone else.
It isn't the fact that you aren't yet married. It's that you don't want to get married.



Of course not. You have self-righteousness and arrogance for that, mixed in with a dose of religion.
What do I have to be arrogant about? And what righteousness do I have? Certainly none of my own. And what's religion? I deny religion. Too much doctrine and not enough relationship. I like the relationship, and I prefer it over religion.



And if that wedding doesn't take place within a month, are you really serious about them? Two months? What's the appropriate length of time, in your expert opinion, that people can be together-but-not-married and still be assured that they are doing things in a lighthouse-approved manner?
Nobody needs my approval.

I prefer to wait until I want to get married. I'm not sitting here trying to figure out how soon someone should get married. That doesn't matter. I just want to wait to have a relationship until I want to get married.


[qutoe]Exactly. It's a continuation of a journey... a journey that begins with a relationship. That relationship is not stagnant just because it's not immediately rushing towards a wedding date.[/quote]
I didn't say it was stagnant. But if the two people don't want to get married, then their relationship is goiong to stay where it is. It's going to continue but it isn't going to move along. It'll most likely end at some point, and neither person will care, because they weren't planning on getting marired anyway. But they'll miss the sex.:rolleyes:



Yes, we have. We're moving comfortably towards tomorrow. And the next day. Etcetera and so on.
Where you'll be nothing more than "partners." Either that or it'll end.



I don't think so. We, like most, build on our relationship every day. We may move apart one day. But, if that's going to happen, a marriage certificate won't stop it. Only we can.
The marriage certificate shows that you don't want it to end. Right now one can only assume you won't ccare if it does.



Actually, the distinction between various sex acts is something we tend to leave to you nitpicky heterosexuals. You'd be hard pressed to find a queer who'd agree with Bill Clinton, but heterosexual men everywhere seem to hold that view.
Well I'm a heterosexual male and sex does not equal intercourse.


I digress. Sexual intercourse, or variations on the theme, do not form part of my job description.
Does that mean there was no nudity? Or are you saying that nobody got off on it? If you say the second one, you're a liar.



Sounds like a date to me.
I went to the movies with my best friend a couple of times. He's a guy. Does that sound like a date too?:rolleyes:

Just because we both might be interested in each other that does not make it a date. If we go out as friends, it isn't a date.



It's a message board. You're telling everyone who reads it, and you know it. And most of us are either chuckling, or marvelling at your arrogance and ignorance.
Most of the people that read this don't need to be told that I'm smarter than granite.



Lust is a vital part of any marriage, and of romantic love. Even romantic love that doesn't have sex in it... lust tempered by self control. I already pity the poor girl you end up marrying, but I'll pity her even more if you don't realise that simple fact. A marriage without lust is likely to be an unsatisfying and frustrating one.
As I said eralier, I don't define lust the way you do. I've grown up knowing lust to be the misuse of sexual desire, not sexual desire itself.:doh: And if you really think I meant that sexual desire, interest...and all that shouldn't be part of a marriage you need to take a logic class, and use it.



Some of the best dates I've ever been on have involved just hanging out. That's usually one of the best indications that you're onto something... when just hanging out with that person becomes a romantic and fascinating way to spend your time.
See. You mention romance. If it doesn't contain romance, it isn't a date. Apparently you feel that way. So put two and two together, if you can do that, and use your brain.

Lighthouse
February 6th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth at the thought of people dating and sleeping together. You and Brandon are.
You can't talk without trying to drag my name through the mud, can you?:rolleyes:

I do not agree with Shimei. I know people can date withour having sex. I've said that already in this theread. So learn to read and put a sock in it, dogboy. Shut your mouth and eat your vomit.

Delmar
February 6th, 2005, 02:23 PM
Delmar's definition
Date:spending time togther with romantic intentions.

BillyBob
February 6th, 2005, 02:27 PM
BillyBob's definition
Date: Lying to a woman, spending lotsa money, hoping to hit pay dirt at the end of the date

Delmar
February 6th, 2005, 02:46 PM
:chuckle:

Servo
February 6th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse


I do not agree with Shimei. I know people can date withour having sex.

I believe people can date and not have sex also.

My point is that most couples do end up having sex BEFORE marriage. They have sex while they are dating. That hurts the relationship.

Servo
February 6th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth at the thought of people dating and sleeping together. You and Brandon are. Me, firechyld, and others here don't care one way or another what you do or how you do it. But you people, on the other hand, gnash your teeth at the thought of two adults sleeping together, which has been part of the pleasure and joy of the human condition ever since Cave Man was introduced to Cave Woman at a prehistoric cocktail party.

People will, and will want to, with or without your ideas about what is "right" or "wrong," and the idea of unmarried people having sex MADDENS you. INFURIATES you, in fact.

Now if this isn't fruit for some basic psychology lessons I don't know what is...

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. I am just debating a topic. I have not been mad once. I think you are talking about yourself when you say "MADDENS you", and "INFURIATES". Frothing at the mouth? Dude, get a grip.

Actually, it has been fun slapping you upside the head while we debate. If YOU are angry, maybe take a break from it.

:granite:

Servo
February 6th, 2005, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

BillyBob's definition
Date: Lying to a woman, spending lotsa money, hoping to hit pay dirt at the end of the date


BB, to cut down on expenses, try buying the 30 pack instead of the 24. More bang for the buck, and the date might last longer. But you probably already knew that.

Yee haw.

Mustard Seed
February 6th, 2005, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Shimei
have sex while they are dating. That hurts the relationship.

I have to agree with the above. One can talk about 'trying things out' and 'making sure' about things before advancing on marraige. The problem with that is the inherent absence of commitment. Even my psychology of love class I took some time ago showed through scientific studies that far and away the single biggest, most successful and by far and away most accurate indicator of a relationship lasting was whether or not the couple decided at the begining that they were going to make it work. Nothing else has been statisticaly shown to come as close to guarenteeing that people will stay together and will remain friends/partners. In fact statisticaly those who 'try' it out are basing their relationship on a foundation of noncertainty. That simple fact, regardless of how fitting they find the relationship later on, will render them less likely to have longevity near that of any couple who enters an arrangemet with complete intention of having it work regardless of the points of seeming 'incompatability' they might find at latter points. To arrive at points of intimacy before one does not really know a person in any depth on other levels makes it very difficult for the friendhip to flourish without being hog tied to the rapidly changing hormonal states associated with such contacts.

When I learned that the scientific community in many ways (not all) had come to identical conclusions as those who have taken the side of religious-faith based convictions I was both amazed and invigorated. I believe that at some point in the future we'ss see all true paths of the pursuit of knowledge converge. Faith in God and true science will at some point dove tail together.

firechyld
February 6th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Since these posts are really getting quite lengthy, I'll reply to them seperately. :)


Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Like entering a gang, sure a few get out and survive and thrive to a good old age but the majority, even if they eventually largely get away from it, suffer horrible side affects throughout life, assuming of course that they make it out with their lives. Sure there are those who are quite good at keeping up appearances while being social drinkers. There's likely a good percentage of people that can do it for a good part of their lives. Then you hear about career profesionals, judges and lawyers, who get caught with a DUI or actually end up taking a life and then their career is down the tube. Were they ever necesarily drunkards? No, not necesarily. Items like 'social drinking' are quite dishonest in how they are portrayed by society at large.

The same is true with the sex industry. I've run into a great many people that have had their lives wasted, some who've lost loved ones in some of the most cruel and pathetic ways, to the various sex industries. I've heard people, not often, who like yourself, portray themselves as being pleased with what they've gotten out of it thus far out of such lifestyles. Numericaly they have no comparison. I've never met a woman of any substantial age whose participated in that industry who would be a good case, by any stretch of the imagination, for advocating participation in it. Granted it is not a subject I imagine many would parade around among general aquaintances if they had dabbled in it to any degree early on. In general I've not found any one who's moved on from the industry that can make the recomendations you seem to imply by the relation of your current status with regard to whatever exactly your occupation may be.

So the contrast seems pretty major.

I think the difference in our perspectives here is clearly based on personal experience. The vast majority of sex workers or ex sex workers that I know ARE healthy, happy and well-adjusted... but I'm obviously moving in different circles to you. :) Still, I'm well aware of the negatives of the industry, and most I know do have their eyes open to them. We're realistic about our jobs.

It should also be noted that quite a lot of the girls I know who work in the industry are or were in my specific field, which... well, it's kinda elite for the sex industry. We're regarded by our clients as goddesses. That tends to skim out a lot of the nastiness that girls in other areas can be exposed to.

I wish I could get a particular friend of mine in here to discuss this topic with you. She worked as a prostitute for six or seven years, then left the industry to become a physiotherapist. I'd rate her as possibly the single most well adjusted and together person that I've ever met. Not only is she not ashamed of her past, she embraces it. As far as she's concerned, those six or seven years gave her certain insights and skills (not directly connected to the job description) that have proved invaluable in her new field.

As for the question of "women of substantial age", I guess I'm also in a position where I'm bound to have a positive view of that as well. My field is one of the few in the sex industry where older women are actually the preferred model. A Mistress with a lifetime of experience behind her receives far more work than a young beauty who has only been on the scene for a few years. Also, many of the women involved tend to be "lifestylers"... they work in BDSM because it's what they live. As such, it's not something that they leave, even when they quit their jobs.

*shrug*

I've repeatedly acknowledged the down side of the industry. I guess I'm just trying to point out that that isn't all that it is.


As I've mentioned if you find yourself in one of these groves and you are not necesarily thinking your anywhere near to hitting any kind of a 'rock bottom' and you have any sizable intellect it becomes an easy thing to formulate your own set of apologetics for continuing in the state your in. The fact that you've fallen out of what is healthy can be cloaked to ones own mind like the social drinking problems are cloaked by many who suffer at the hands of that evil. (I realise the terminology like 'evil' gives away my bias against these various things, please don't dismiss the argument on the grounds that I have strong motives against these items)

Of course not. :) I hope that you won't dismiss mine on the basis that I am obviously inclined towards the positive. :)


This is a great part of my disputation that there is such a thing as a mentally and physically healthy sex worker. I have a hard time seeing that as being possible. Perhapse it's the high number of destroyed lives I've heard come out of it that's skewing my view but I see it like gambling.

How many of those destroyed lives have you been involved with personally? And has your research been limited predominantly to America?


I may just be dense but to see someone that sees the best way of releaving stress is to go sit at a table or a machine each week untill they've sacrificed a certain, usualy relatively significant segment of money with respect to their incomes, they worked for, makes me think that this person has some serious underlying issues.

*grin* Should I even ask what you think of "retail therapy"?


Likewise with the sex industries. I think the very fact that those who you may consider 'consumers' in the industry are in it to receive something they otherwise would need to put forth a healthy effort to acheive lends an atomsphere of people trying to skirt the system. Trying to get satisfaction without the work that is generaly naturaly accompanying it. I believe this being the driving force of the industry makes it inherently unhealthy to all involved.

Again, my perspective on this is coloured by my specific experiences. An individual sees a Mistress for something that they often cannot find anywhere else. It's a very specific skillset for a very specific demographic. And there's a lot of work involved on both sides. :)

I'd say that over 50% of the people who walk through the door of a professional dungeon are repeat clients of a specific Mistress... some of whom have been seeing her for years. There's a relationship built up there, even though it has a professional basis. It can't really be compared to the guy who buys a standard hour session to see what the deal is.

I guess the same applies to strippers, in a certain way. You see a stripper to watch something you don't see in everyday life. No matter how healthy your relationships are, it's unlikely your partner can or will remove her shirt whilst swinging upside down from a pole. It's a show. It just has a sexual bent.

Having no specific experience with prostitution outside of the stories of some friends, I can't really speak as to what men gain out of that experience or what the dynamic between client and worker consists of. All I know is that many of those girls love their work.


It also has the sad side affect of turning people more and more into merchandise or simple consumers than actually giving them humanity and an enhanced richness of life they as humans need.

Interesting perspective, but I can't say I agree. I guess I see people in my line of work as more people with specific desirable skills. Not in the line of, say, a doctor... but perhaps in the line of someone who offers professional massage. You don't just ask for a rub down from anyone. You go and see someone who has been trained, and who knows how to provide the service you want. I hesitate to refer to Mistresses as artists, as that's just too self serving, but I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this.

*shrug*

It may be an overly romanticised view, and it's certainly not indicative of how things work across the board in the industry, but that's the perspective my experiences have left me with. I can only speak for myself and throw in the testimony of those I've discussed the matter with.


Psychology class taught me that to fight the very nature of physical intercourse that prostitutes will often avoid interpersonal contact to avoid the bonding that the prossess is designed to produce. In otherwords, they are trying to fight their bodies much the way a modern day farmer tries to fight/manipulate biology and milk the most production out of his livestock, change the lighting in the warehouse to affect the production of eggs etc.. I believe these inherently dehumanizing necesities of the industry are what render it inherently 'unhealthy' on all levels to one degree or another.

Again, I can't really speak for prostitution... all my knowledge of it is second hand.


Reminds me of the Don't Drink and Drive campaign. The 'little' miscalculation that once you leave 'healthy' and in the case of alcohol 'sober' that you will act as logicaly as you seemingly did before hand is a great grave mistake. You seem aware of the powerful nature of the various chemicals our bodies produce to make bonding on many levels possible. Certainly you must have some degree of respect for the power of these chemicals in affecting our thoughts and even our very capacity to know when to get help.

Well aware of it. :) Most of the girls I know in the industry are very careful to keep an "outside life", and to keep their communication open with people both inside and outside the industry. Since this is a more personal matter, I really can't speak for anyone but myself... but I know that for me, the opinions of those close to me are very important. I hope that if my experience sours without my knowledge, I'd listen to them.


I hope you get the general direction of my thoughts. We can all become quite good at deceiving ourselves. I've done it in various things at various times in my life. I think it's important to always remember that we can't always discern when or if we've lost the capacity to discern something. I see this making 'eternal vigilance' of great importance in keeping our wits and as much sanity as we can bare to have about us.

I do understand where you're coming from, and i appreciate the sentiment. :)


Hope you are doing well and continue to do well and do not take my view as bigoted or just rhetorical mumbo jumbo.

Not in the slightest. :) You've been very reasonable and polite in presenting your views. It's much appreciated. :)

erinmarie
February 6th, 2005, 06:42 PM
Firechyld- I guess this is a dumb question, but I'm assuming prostitution is legal in Australia?

So, could the way you look at these " sexual occupations" be partly because of a cultural bias?

Secondly, to all the posters coming "down" on Firechyld, just a quick question. Do you think nude modeling is wrong? Like non-raunchy nudity type modeling? And on the furtherest spectrum, nude modeling; as in figure modeling...i.e. for a college art class.?

firechyld
February 6th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm going on what you've said.

You're going on what I've said, but you don't believe what I've said to be the truth. How does that make sense?


He loves you? Is that why he won't marry you?

Man, what is wrong with you people? For the last friggin' time, marriage is not a one-way street! It's not a case of "him not wanting to marry me"... it's a case of the two of us not wanting to get married yet. I am half of this relationship, and half of this decision.


Riiight. Reducing relationships to nothing more than chemicals is exactly what we should do.:rolleyes:

Oh, that's right. You're allergic to science. :rolleyes:


Uh huh.

*grin* Quite.


No you don't. Didn't you say your condition greatly shortens your life expectancy? YOu're oth afraid of committment.

Hello? Been married, remember? Clearly I'm not afraid of the concept. Besides, there are other forms of commitment.

You have raised a valid point in bringing up my illness, however. It's one of the factors affecting my side of this decision. I want my condition to remain stable for a little longer than it has before I ask someone to make the promise of "in sickness and in health" to me. While I have no doubt at all that he would do so, I can't in good conscience make him promise to be what could essentially amount to a nurse maid. I care too much for him to put him in that position if it is at all avoidable.

*shrug* I've placed a limit of three years without symptoms on myself before I even try to get a drivers license. Why should a marriage be less important than that?


What you have is not a commitment. If you ever decide to break it off, all you have to do is break it off. There's no gaurantee that you'll be together for the rest of your lives. You haven't done anything to make it solid.

Two points: First, a marriage is also not a guarantee that we'll be together for the rest of our lives. I know from experience that being man and wife doesn't stop someone from "just breaking it off" if they want to. I'd prefer a commitment that means something because it matters to us, not because it's legal, or because a Christian I've never met on the other side of the world thinks it's the only one that matters.

Secondly: Commitments exist in other forms. As our relationship stands at this point, neither of us could just "break it off", even if we wanted to. We have financial, emotional and familial commitments to each other. This relationship is well and truly formalised, even if it's not a marriage.


Most likely never.

I think I'd have a better idea of that than you would, don't you?


It isn't the fact that you aren't yet married. It's that you don't want to get married.

Yet. For the last freakin' time.


What do I have to be arrogant about?

I don't think you have anything worth being arrogant about. But that doesn't stop you.


And what righteousness do I have? Certainly none of my own.

Again, doesn't stop you.


And what's religion? I deny religion. Too much doctrine and not enough relationship. I like the relationship, and I prefer it over religion.

Semantics.


Nobody needs my approval.

Damn straight. :)


I prefer to wait until I want to get married. I'm not sitting here trying to figure out how soon someone should get married. That doesn't matter. I just want to wait to have a relationship until I want to get married.

Good on you. I hope that works for you.


I didn't say it was stagnant. But if the two people don't want to get married, then their relationship is goiong to stay where it is. It's going to continue but it isn't going to move along.

Of course it will. Relationships develop and grow over time, regardless of their official capacity. Do you honestly think that someone who has been married for a month to someone they met three months ago has a deeper relationship with their partner than two people who have been living together for fifteen years and raised two children together? They're different relationships, sure, but everything is relative.


It'll most likely end at some point, and neither person will care, because they weren't planning on getting marired anyway. But they'll miss the sex.:rolleyes:

You're so short sighted. You really think that how much someone cares about the ending of a relationship relies on whether or not they were married? That's ridiculous.


Where you'll be nothing more than "partners." Either that or it'll end.

What do you mean "nothing more than"? The label "partner" is very important to me.

Lighthouse, I couldn't help but notice this:

In response to the discussion a couple of pages back about the role of lust in a marriage, you posted this:


Somethin' tells me this is a semantics issue.


You're quite willing to ackowledge (rather flippantly, in fact) that people may be using the same word for different meanings. But when the oh-so-much-more important issue (that's sarcasm, by the way) of what word I use to refer to my partner comes up, you'll fight tooth and nail to convince me and everyone else that I don't really mean what I think I mean by the word, and that your interpretation of it is the more accurate one.

Grow up. He's my partner, which is the word I use to refer to him. It means what I intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. You have no special insight into my relationship with a man you've never even had a conversation with, and you certainly can't see into the future of that relationship. It's time to move on.


Does that mean there was no nudity? Or are you saying that nobody got off on it? If you say the second one, you're a liar.

If that's what I was saying, I wouldn't identify my profession as being part of the sex industry.


I went to the movies with my best friend a couple of times. He's a guy. Does that sound like a date too?:rolleyes:

Was there romantic intention? I must say I agree with delmar's definition. It doesn't matter what you're doing, but if you're doing it with romantic intention and interest, it's a date.

I think perhaps "date" has just become a dirty word for you.


Just because we both might be interested in each other that does not make it a date. If we go out as friends, it isn't a date.

The fact that you need to specify that it is "as friends" and "not a date" tends to imply that the default status of such an outing is... *dramatic music*... a date.


Most of the people that read this don't need to be told that I'm smarter than granite.

No, most of them aren't going to believe it no matter how many times they're told. And you claimed to not be arrogant...


As I said eralier, I don't define lust the way you do. I've grown up knowing lust to be the misuse of sexual desire, not sexual desire itself.:doh:

And I've grown up with a different defintion of the word "partner" than you have. Get it?

firechyld
February 6th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Firechyld- I guess this is a dumb question, but I'm assuming prostitution is legal in Australia?

Yep, regulated but legal.


So, could the way you look at these " sexual occupations" be partly because of a cultural bias?

Very likely. :) I think I may have mentioned that before.

Certain aspects of the nastiness that seems to permeate the American sex industry don't seem to be as prevalent over here. It's not really for me to say whether that's because of it's legal status or other factors, but I'm sure it comes into it.


Secondly, to all the posters coming "down" on Firechyld, just a quick question. Do you think nude modeling is wrong? Like non-raunchy nudity type modeling? And on the furtherest spectrum, nude modeling; as in figure modeling...i.e. for a college art class.?

Good question. :)

Mustard Seed
February 6th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Since these posts are really getting quite lengthy, I'll reply to them seperately. :)



I think the difference in our perspectives here is clearly based on personal experience. The vast majority of sex workers or ex sex workers that I know ARE healthy, happy and well-adjusted... but I'm obviously moving in different circles to you. :) Still, I'm well aware of the negatives of the industry, and most I know do have their eyes open to them. We're realistic about our jobs.

Being realistic and having a full respect for what one weilds can be quite different things.


It should also be noted that quite a lot of the girls I know who work in the industry are or were in my specific field, which... well, it's kinda elite for the sex industry. We're regarded by our clients as goddesses. That tends to skim out a lot of the nastiness that girls in other areas can be exposed to.

So you would conceed that your experience is likely very atypical?

The designation "goddess" can either be one that denotes litteral worship and the accompanying reverence or it can be on par with more materialistic conotations as to giving supercilious designation to a woman or feminine figure. One may well have reverence while the other have quite the antithesis of reverence.




I wish I could get a particular friend of mine in here to discuss this topic with you. She worked as a prostitute for six or seven years, then left the industry to become a physiotherapist. I'd rate her as possibly the single most well adjusted and together person that I've ever met. Not only is she not ashamed of her past, she embraces it. As far as she's concerned, those six or seven years gave her certain insights and skills (not directly connected to the job description) that have proved invaluable in her new field.

As for the question of "women of substantial age", I guess I'm also in a position where I'm bound to have a positive view of that as well. My field is one of the few in the sex industry where older women are actually the preferred model. A Mistress with a lifetime of experience behind her receives far more work than a young beauty who has only been on the scene for a few years. Also, many of the women involved tend to be "lifestylers"... they work in BDSM because it's what they live. As such, it's not something that they leave, even when they quit their jobs.

*shrug*

I've repeatedly acknowledged the down side of the industry. I guess I'm just trying to point out that that isn't all that it is.


My stance is not simply that it has it's bad parts but that it is inherently something unhealthy. Even in your upper echelons you are first a commodity and afterwords a human. In the family unit, as it is suppose to be, the husband and wifes are equals. They have different roles but one is not in the employ of the other at any time. I cannot see how a setup in which those feelings that are the most intimate and sacred (I believe they are very sacred) are part of some business arangement regardless of how profesional it seems. I do not see the acceptance of such interaction as a form of profit making is remotely healthy even if the person is able to maintain the appearance of thriving. Many in the past, many connected to many supposed religious traditions, have been able to have economies and cultures that give the appearance of thriving for some time. I do not think that means that they were healthy cultures or that those in their societies were healthy. Spartan society was a society that lasted for quite sometime. It is considered by some to be the most musical oriented. In sexual matters it was both 'contained' in respects but also quite liberal in many others. Just because they had a society that was sustainable and was 'healthy' in the sight of many does not mean that it was inherently healthy.




Of course not. :) I hope that you won't dismiss mine on the basis that I am obviously inclined towards the positive. :)

I hope I can always judge with as much justice as is possible for a mere mortal. I hope to judge as I believe God would.




How many of those destroyed lives have you been involved with personally? And has your research been limited predominantly to America?

I've been in both ends of the spectrum. I've lived in California (the Bay area) for two years (recently) and I've been in Utah for a good portion of my life. I've been witness to probably the greatest extreems I could be without leaving the states. The diversity available in both locals with regard to culture, socioeconomic, ideological and other diversity is quite high. In Utah it's far higher than stereotypical treatments I've seen give it credit for. Between the University of Utah (likely one of the most 'liberal' intellectual communities in the Nation if not the World) next to one of the seemingly most conservative institutions in the world. My international forays, at present are limited to Canada and Mexico but in both of my primary residences I've had a great deal of access to cultures and ideologies originating from all over the world. I may be deluding myself but I think I'm far more literate in various views on the world than I think many think any died in the wool born in the faith 'Mormon boy' can be.


Again, my perspective on this is coloured by my specific experiences. An individual sees a Mistress for something that they often cannot find anywhere else. It's a very specific skillset for a very specific demographic. And there's a lot of work involved on both sides. :)

[quote]I'd say that over 50% of the people who walk through the door of a professional dungeon are repeat clients of a specific Mistress... some of whom have been seeing her for years. There's a relationship built up there, even though it has a professional basis. It can't really be compared to the guy who buys a standard hour session to see what the deal is.

I guess the same applies to strippers, in a certain way. You see a stripper to watch something you don't see in everyday life. No matter how healthy your relationships are, it's unlikely your partner can or will remove her shirt whilst swinging upside down from a pole. It's a show. It just has a sexual bent.

'It's a show' is likely the biggest lie our society has been telling itself. We go to movies that would have left traditional Roman gladiator fans aghast yet since we see it as 'just a show' or 'make believe' that all it is is 'entertainment'. I've not read clockwork orange (I think that's the title of the story) nor seen the movie but the concept I believe I've heard originating from it of an entire society having minds that are constantly dwelling on that which is something society could never permit to go into the open in any large scale is something both frightening and inherently destructive. We can chalk it up to 'just' a show with just a 'bent' of something but the reality is that we are deluding ourselves. We are developing apeteits and drives that if ever they lost the current outlets they would drive the people en mass into actions that would destroy the society as we now know it. Regardless of how 'refined' we make it looks or how much we try and link it to the 'arts' or 'culture' the biological time bomb is being armed regardless. At some point the chips will fall and any people in that society tied to those drives that have been illegitimately fostered will seek some outlet that will not be restrained by any semblance of logic, reason, or civility. Society as a whole can and does self destruct on such seemingly little things as 'shows' and 'entertainment'.



Interesting perspective, but I can't say I agree. I guess I see people in my line of work as more people with specific desirable skills. Not in the line of, say, a doctor... but perhaps in the line of someone who offers professional massage. You don't just ask for a rub down from anyone. You go and see someone who has been trained, and who knows how to provide the service you want. I hesitate to refer to Mistresses as artists, as that's just too self serving, but I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this.

*shrug*

It may be an overly romanticised view, and it's certainly not indicative of how things work across the board in the industry, but that's the perspective my experiences have left me with. I can only speak for myself and throw in the testimony of those I've discussed the matter with.

All I can do is offer my knowledge and experience with respect to the matter.



Well aware of it. :) Most of the girls I know in the industry are very careful to keep an "outside life", and to keep their communication open with people both inside and outside the industry. Since this is a more personal matter, I really can't speak for anyone but myself... but I know that for me, the opinions of those close to me are very important. I hope that if my experience sours without my knowledge, I'd listen to them.

I realise I am not in your close knit circle of friends, as we've never met to my knowledge, but I hope you will listen to me when I tell you that regardless of your current view there will come a time when you will regret your associations. I can't say when it will come but, forgive the seemingly dogmatic certainty of my assertion, it will come and it will not be a passing remorse if you do not heed that part of you that is telling you there is a problem.




I do understand where you're coming from, and i appreciate the sentiment. :)

I couldn't say I completely understand where you're coming from but I equally appreciate the civility you approach this subject with.



Not in the slightest. :) You've been very reasonable and polite in presenting your views. It's much appreciated. :)

I'm not perfect, but one must try. Thank you for your patience. As I will likely not be able to post here for quite some time I wish to leave you something that is important to me and linked to the topic at hand.



THE FAMILY (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html)

Servo
February 6th, 2005, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

I'm saying people are judged on the light they've received. God will be the final judge.

God will be the final Judge, no doubt. Is that not obvious?

That light that people have received? What does that mean? Have you received more "light" than firechyld or I?


Originally posted by Mustard Seed



If you feel I am judging you that's your own perception.



My own perception. So you were not judging me?


Originally posted by Mustard Seed


I've simply pointed to the scriptures you claimed to give heedence to. Just acting on my observation.

And I quoted scriptures that put the scriptures that you quoted in context. Was my observation incorrect?

Granite
February 6th, 2005, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You can't talk without trying to drag my name through the mud, can you?:rolleyes:

I do not agree with Shimei. I know people can date withour having sex. I've said that already in this theread. So learn to read and put a sock in it, dogboy. Shut your mouth and eat your vomit.

Go Pats, you floppy minimum wage sexually-repressed porn grubbing Jesus fanatic.

Lighthouse
February 6th, 2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by erinmarie

Secondly, to all the posters coming "down" on Firechyld, just a quick question. Do you think nude modeling is wrong? Like non-raunchy nudity type modeling? And on the furtherest spectrum, nude modeling; as in figure modeling...i.e. for a college art class.?
:shut:

Pornography is wrong, whether raunchy or "classy." But the human form is a thing of beauty.

If it doesn't make a statement, it's pornography.

Lighthouse
February 6th, 2005, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

You're going on what I've said, but you don't believe what I've said to be the truth. How does that make sense?
You contradict yourself. You say one thing, then another. GOing by what you originally said, the contradicition is a lie. Therefore, I don't believe it.



Man, what is wrong with you people? For the last friggin' time, marriage is not a one-way street! It's not a case of "him not wanting to marry me"... it's a case of the two of us not wanting to get married yet. I am half of this relationship, and half of this decision.
When did I say it was a one-way street? Neither of you want to marry. We get that. But you say he loves you, but doesn't want to marry you. You probably say that you love him, but don't want to marry him either.:rolleyes:



Oh, that's right. You're allergic to science. :rolleyes:
No. I just prefer not to reduce relationships to science. They are personal, science isn't.:doh:



*grin* Quite.
If you lie to yourself long enough, you might just believe it.



Hello? Been married, remember? Clearly I'm not afraid of the concept. Besides, there are other forms of commitment.
:doh:

Your last marriage fell apart. He was abusive. Are you saying that didn't put you off the idea? And just because you've been married once, that doesn't mean you're not afraid of committment now.


You have raised a valid point in bringing up my illness, however. It's one of the factors affecting my side of this decision. I want my condition to remain stable for a little longer than it has before I ask someone to make the promise of "in sickness and in health" to me. While I have no doubt at all that he would do so, I can't in good conscience make him promise to be what could essentially amount to a nurse maid. I care too much for him to put him in that position if it is at all avoidable.
Riiiight. Because it would inconvienience him, and he would despise you for it, right?:rolleyes: If he loves you as much as you say he does, he's going to be there for you whether you're married or not. So why does the paper matter?


*shrug* I've placed a limit of three years without symptoms on myself before I even try to get a drivers license. Why should a marriage be less important than that?
Because a driver's license doesn't have someone else in it. If he loves you, he's not going to care.



Two points: First, a marriage is also not a guarantee that we'll be together for the rest of our lives. I know from experience that being man and wife doesn't stop someone from "just breaking it off" if they want to. I'd prefer a commitment that means something because it matters to us, not because it's legal, or because a Christian I've never met on the other side of the world thinks it's the only one that matters.
If he loves you, as you say he does, and you love him, then you're not going to break it off. So why not get married? It's because you're afraid that he might leave you if you get sick, and you don't want to go through a divorce. You want to make it easy for you. But, like I said, if he loves you, he won't leave.


Secondly: Commitments exist in other forms. As our relationship stands at this point, neither of us could just "break it off", even if we wanted to. We have financial, emotional and familial commitments to each other. This relationship is well and truly formalised, even if it's not a marriage.
:blabla:

Sure it is.:rolleyes:

Let me guess, if you break up, one of you has to move out?



I think I'd have a better idea of that than you would, don't you?
You already said you didn't want to get married. Which is it?



Yet. For the last freakin' time.
Why not? Because it would be easier to break up?



I don't think you have anything worth being arrogant about. But that doesn't stop you.
So, I'm arrogant?:rolleyes:

Prove it.



Again, doesn't stop you.
:rolleyes:



Semantics.
You don't have a clue.



Damn straight. :)
Then shut up about it.



Good on you. I hope that works for you.
And it's because I don't see the point in a relationship that doesn't want to go anywhere.



Of course it will. Relationships develop and grow over time, regardless of their official capacity. Do you honestly think that someone who has been married for a month to someone they met three months ago has a deeper relationship with their partner than two people who have been living together for fifteen years and raised two children together? They're different relationships, sure, but everything is relative.
Once again, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about.



You're so short sighted. You really think that how much someone cares about the ending of a relationship relies on whether or not they were married? That's ridiculous.
And you're an idiot. I didn't say anythign about them being married. I said they weren't even planning on it. They don't care that the relationship ended because they weren't planning on moving to the next level, anyway.:doh:



What do you mean "nothing more than"? The label "partner" is very important to me.
Because it distances you, right?


Lighthouse, I couldn't help but notice this:

In response to the discussion a couple of pages back about the role of lust in a marriage, you posted this:



You're quite willing to ackowledge (rather flippantly, in fact) that people may be using the same word for different meanings. But when the oh-so-much-more important issue (that's sarcasm, by the way) of what word I use to refer to my partner comes up, you'll fight tooth and nail to convince me and everyone else that I don't really mean what I think I mean by the word, and that your interpretation of it is the more accurate one.
Different word. And I never said anything about what you actually meant. I asked you what you meant.


Grow up. He's my partner, which is the word I use to refer to him. It means what I intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. You have no special insight into my relationship with a man you've never even had a conversation with, and you certainly can't see into the future of that relationship. It's time to move on.
Apparently you can't see a future to the relationship, or you would move on. But you prefer to stay "partners" with no promise of spending the rest of your lives together.:nono:



If that's what I was saying, I wouldn't identify my profession as being part of the sex industry.
Then it stands that you performed sexual acts for money.



Was there romantic intention? I must say I agree with delmar's definition. It doesn't matter what you're doing, but if you're doing it with romantic intention and interest, it's a date.
Agreed. So, like I said, I can hang out with a female friend, without it being a date. And I can get to know her. Which is what would lead me to wanting to marry her in the first place. Then I can pursue a relationship. Why pursue a relationship to find out if we'd make a good couple? If we don't know that we would, then our relationship coudl sour quickly, and go nowhere. It's better to find out if there's an interest, beyond initial impressions.


I think perhaps "date" has just become a dirty word for you.
Now that's being stupid. I thought you said you were intelligent.



The fact that you need to specify that it is "as friends" and "not a date" tends to imply that the default status of such an outing is... *dramatic music*... a date.
You're missing the point. I'm emphasizing to get the point across to you and granite. I never said anything about emphasizing it to the girl. If we don't see it as a date, it isn't a date.:doh:



No, most of them aren't going to believe it no matter how many times they're told. And you claimed to not be arrogant...
They don't have to be told. I know plenty of people who think granite is an idiot.



And I've grown up with a different defintion of the word "partner" than you have. Get it?
:blabla:

So, why is it you don't want to get married? Really.

Lighthouse
February 6th, 2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Go Pats, you floppy minimum wage sexually-repressed porn grubbing Jesus fanatic.
Football sucks.

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 06:58 AM
It's that exact same feeling of exhasperation I felt when anami kept dragging me back into a pointless discussion. But, still, I keep responding. More fool me, I guess.

*sigh*

Here we go...


Originally posted by lighthouse

You contradict yourself. You say one thing, then another. GOing by what you originally said, the contradicition is a lie. Therefore, I don't believe it.

Please be specific. Where have I contradicted myself on that specific matter? Provide quotes.


When did I say it was a one-way street? Neither of you want to marry. We get that. But you say he loves you, but doesn't want to marry you. You probably say that you love him, but don't want to marry him either.:rolleyes:

I don't want to marry him yet. He doesn't want to marry me yet. You seem to have some sort of hysterical illiteracy when it comes to that word. Dictionary.com provides three relevant definitions:


[1]At this time; for the present: isn't ready yet.
[2]Up to a specified time; thus far: The end had not yet come.
[3]At a future time; eventually: may yet change his mind.


Is it starting to sink it? Or not yet?


No. I just prefer not to reduce relationships to science. They are personal, science isn't.:doh:

Everything can be reduced to science. You seem to find that threatening. To me, it's somewhat reassuring. :)


If you lie to yourself long enough, you might just believe it.

Lol! :) I don't need to lie to myself about my sense of personal security. Unlike some, I don't need to cling to emotional crutches to make myself feel like a whole human being. I know that I don't need a partner. That's why I appreciate the one I have... he's not there because I need him to be, he's there because I want him to be.

Seriously, lighthouse, do I strike you as an insecure shrinking violet type? That's pretty amusing. :) I'm hardly defined by my man. He's a complement, not a crutch.


:doh:

Your last marriage fell apart. He was abusive. Are you saying that didn't put you off the idea?

Nope. Put me off abusive and unfaithful prats... my anger was more directed at the fact that he sullied a marriage with his behaviour, rather than at the marriage itself. I would like to one day have a functional and happy marriage. Possibly with my current partner. :) But I see no need to rush frantically towards that ideal. I... and perhaps we... will get there at my/our own pace.


And just because you've been married once, that doesn't mean you're not afraid of committment now.

True, one doesn't equal the other. But it's still not the case. And you insisting it, from your position of just above absolute zero knowledge of my situation, doesn't make it so.


Riiiight. Because it would inconvienience him, and he would despise you for it, right?:rolleyes:

You really don't get it, do you?


If he loves you as much as you say he does, he's going to be there for you whether you're married or not. So why does the paper matter?

Because a driver's license doesn't have someone else in it. If he loves you, he's not going to care.

That's my point exactly. I'm not worried that he'll "despise" me for it. I know that he won't care. I know that he'd stick around and care for me, even if he lost everything else in the process. I know that now, lighthouse. And I have enough respect and love for him that I will try my damndest to make sure he never has to be put in that situation before I will make him swear it on a legal document. He'll stay by me no matter what. He's proven that already.

The "illness" category on my list of "reasons I don't want to get married to my partner yet" has nothing to do with my fear of him running off if I get really ill again. It's about me wanting to be sure that, if I do marry him, the woman who says those vows will be giving him the healthiest and wholest self that she possibly can... not a legal commitment to servitude. He deserves that much.

See how much you don't know about him and our relationship dynamic?


If he loves you, as you say he does, and you love him, then you're not going to break it off. So why not get married? It's because you're afraid that he might leave you if you get sick, and you don't want to go through a divorce.

Again, having been married before, I know that a divorce really isn't too hard. It's the dissolution of a cherished relationship and bond that rips you apart. You insist that I don't really love my partner, so by your argument that problem wouldn't exist. There'd be no trauma of seperation. So, by lighthouse logic, I should be jumping to marry the man if I don't really care about him! But wait... then I'd be married, so that means I must love him at that point!

Jeebus. Trying to follow your logic is like trying to view a relationship through the eyes of a writer for the Bold and the Beatiful. Then, I guess TV is the closest you've come to experiencing these things you spout off about, isn't it?


You want to make it easy for you. But, like I said, if he loves you, he won't leave.

My point exactly. See above.


:blabla:

Sure it is.:rolleyes:

Let me guess, if you break up, one of you has to move out?

Move out, divide everything we own, deal with long term financial commitments for the next ten years or so that are being met jointly, deal with the emotional backlash from our combined families (they seem to think that our relationship is for the long haul... and they, at least, have seen it), change practically every legal record in existence of either of us since we're registered as a legal de facto couple, have my government benefits reassessed, get our various insurance policies re-evaluated... the list goes on and on. Two lives that are very much enmeshed don't come apart too easily. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia legal de facto couples have almost the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.


You already said you didn't want to get married. Which is it?

Do I need to post the definition of the word "yet" again?


Why not? Because it would be easier to break up?

If you honestly think that something this complex can be summarised in a few lines of text, you've been spending too much time online.

We are, and I am, not ready yet.


So, I'm arrogant?:rolleyes:

Prove it.

That's a pretty good example. :)


You don't have a clue.

I'm not the one insisting a rhombus and a diamond are two different things. :)


And it's because I don't see the point in a relationship that doesn't want to go anywhere.

And, again, I hope that works out for you. I, however, view the situation differently.


Once again, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

Then enlighten me, and point out where I've misinterpreted.


And you're an idiot. I didn't say anythign about them being married. I said they weren't even planning on it. They don't care that the relationship ended because they weren't planning on moving to the next level, anyway.:doh:

Do you even understand that "not planning to" is not the same as "planning not to"?


Because it distances you, right?

No. I've explained that the term "partner" is a significant one to me. Since my view on the terms I use to refer to my partner is one of only two that matter, I'm getting rather tired of trying repeatedly to explain it to you.

You know how people use different words to refer to their grandparents? For one person, "grandma" might be a term that refers to a very close and significant relative, whereas to another it's a distant person they see every third Christmas and when someone gets married. There's no universal implication as to what the label means outside of "person who is parent to one of your parents".

I took the time to do another dictionary.com search, this time for the word "partner". It gave me three relevant definitions:


[1]A spouse.
[2]A domestic partner.
[3]Either of two persons dancing together.

Most of the relevant entries were about "spouses" and "spousal equivelants". Nowhere did I see anything even vaguely indicative of "distance". Seems that that is a preconception that you're bringing to the table, not me.


Different word. And I never said anything about what you actually meant. I asked you what you meant.

Yep. You asked what I meant... and then proceeded to argue with me and accuse me alternately of lying, and of being wrong in my definition.

That's how I define that word. That's how I use it. Enough said. It's not a point of debate. It's personal syntax and idiom.


Apparently you can't see a future to the relationship, or you would move on. But you prefer to stay "partners" with no promise of spending the rest of your lives together.:nono:

I see a future. :) It's there when I look at tomorrow, because I know he'll be there. Right now, I don't need anything more than that. I don't need to force a promise on paper when the unwritten promises he gives me are so much stronger. One day, we might make that other promise. But it will be because we feel that we want it, not because we need to validate our relationship in the eyes of people like you. In those terms, doll, people like you are the least significant in the picture.


Then it stands that you performed sexual acts for money.

*shrug* Define sexual acts.

I've never claimed that my work is non-sexual. Quite the contrary. What I denied was that I have had sex with people for money.


Agreed. So, like I said, I can hang out with a female friend, without it being a date. And I can get to know her. Which is what would lead me to wanting to marry her in the first place. Then I can pursue a relationship. Why pursue a relationship to find out if we'd make a good couple? If we don't know that we would, then our relationship coudl sour quickly, and go nowhere. It's better to find out if there's an interest, beyond initial impressions.

I say again: I hope that model works for you.


Now that's being stupid. I thought you said you were intelligent.

*grin* No, doll, I don't need to tell people.


You're missing the point. I'm emphasizing to get the point across to you and granite. I never said anything about emphasizing it to the girl. If we don't see it as a date, it isn't a date.:doh:

Emphasis on we. If you think it's a date and she doesn't, what is it?


They don't have to be told. I know plenty of people who think granite is an idiot.

The question is why they think that. It takes all types. :)

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 07:00 AM
Mustard Seed: I might take advantage of the fact that you aren't going to be around to get back to your post a little later. Thanks again for the discussion.

Oh... and I don't think that being a "dyed in the wool born in the faith Mormon boy" is, at least in your case, anything negative. :)

Greywolf
February 7th, 2005, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse
It's not a date if neither of us sees it as a date. If just one of us sees it that way, it isn't one. We have to agree that it's a date. And it has to involve more than just hanging out.

Reading through the posts on this thread I've noticed that you've listed numerous criteria for what a date isn't, but what would make you consider it to be a date? You said that it would involve more than just hanging out. Can you provide a few examples of some of those things?

On another topic, I've noticed that you seem to be implying in your discussion with firechyld that her and her partner not getting married is a sign that they are not committed to their relationship in the long run. Is this an accurate assessment of your opinion?

Granite
February 7th, 2005, 08:05 AM
What Brandon doesn't know about women and relationships is a lot.

It's amusing to hear someone go on and on, when they're obviously sheltered and inexperienced, while somebody like firechyld has to deal with 'em. Ah well...

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 08:34 AM
Yeah, amusing for you. Emphasis on "firechyld has to deal with 'em". :rolleyes:

Greywolf
February 7th, 2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
Yeah, amusing for you. Emphasis on "firechyld has to deal with 'em". :rolleyes:

:chuckle:

You mean you don't need relationship guidance from a stranger who's never even so much as been on a date? :noway:


(Of course we're not sure if he's ever been on a date or not, as we can't seem to nail down what exactly constitutes a "date".)

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 09:23 AM
It's not the fact that he's never been on a date. Lots of people who don't date manage to avoid acting like absolute twerps.

But remember, he's not arrogant. Just secretly intelligent. Or so he tells us. :)

BillyBob
February 7th, 2005, 09:26 AM
Hey Firechyld, would you like to go out on a date? :freak:

BillyBob
February 7th, 2005, 09:34 AM
:BillyBob: :Slippery: :firechyld :wazzup:
:BillyBob: :blabla: :firechyld
:firechyld :blabla: :BillyBob:
:firechyld :cloud9:
:BillyBob: :car: :Australia:
:BillyBob: :firechyld :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
:straight:
:cloud9:
:BillyBob: :wave2: :firechyld
:BillyBob: :car: :sam:
:firechyld :em: :(

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 09:37 AM
Didja see that? Billybob just blatantly asked me to have sex with him!!

Unless he means that other kind of date. The OK kind. We just... er... don't know what that is.

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Ha! That's so cool, BB!

And, yes, I'm sure you'd charm me and break my fragile little heart. You womaniser, you! :kiss:

BillyBob
February 7th, 2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Didja see that? Billybob just blatantly asked me to have sex with him!!

:noway: Easy there, Firechyld, I'm just making a joke.




Unless he means that other kind of date. The OK kind. We just... er... don't know what that is.

I'm still waiting for that defintion, too.

How did you like my smilie story? :eek:

BillyBob
February 7th, 2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Ha! That's so cool, BB!

And, yes, I'm sure you'd charm me and break my fragile little heart. You womaniser, you! :kiss:

:kiss:

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 09:46 AM
Easy there, Firechyld, I'm just making a joke.


Me too. :) I should use more smileys.

I'm sure lighthouse will get his own back when I'm offline tomorrow... he just won't be funny. ;)

Greywolf
February 7th, 2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
Just secretly intelligent.

He's must be very good at keeping secrets. ;)

Greywolf
February 7th, 2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob
:BillyBob: :car: :Australia:


:think:

Granite
February 7th, 2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Greywolf

He's must be very good at keeping secrets. ;)

:D

BillyBob
February 7th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

:BillyBob: :car: :Australia:





Originally posted by Greywolf

:think:


We need an :airplane: smilie. :chuckle:

Lighthouse
February 7th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Greywolf

Reading through the posts on this thread I've noticed that you've listed numerous criteria for what a date isn't, but what would make you consider it to be a date? You said that it would involve more than just hanging out. Can you provide a few examples of some of those things?
To constitute as a date it has to be agreed to be a date, and the intent to be romantic must be involved. My beef, for lack of a better term, is with people who assume that dating is the only way to get to know if you want to be with someone, when getting to know them can be done by merely hanging out, and it is whne you know them that you decide you want to be more, then you pursue that.


On another topic, I've noticed that you seem to be implying in your discussion with firechyld that her and her partner not getting married is a sign that they are not committed to their relationship in the long run. Is this an accurate assessment of your opinion?
It's the not wanting to get married that communicates that it is not a lifetime commitment. They don't want to make a lifetime commitment, because that isn't what they want.

ebenz47037
February 7th, 2005, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

To constitute as a date it has to be agreed to be a date, and the intent to be romantic must be involved. My beef, for lack of a better term, is with people who assume that dating is the only way to get to know if you want to be with someone, when getting to know them can be done by merely hanging out, and it is whne you know them that you decide you want to be more, then you pursue that.

And, on this note, I agree with lighthouse. Nowadays, people think that the only way you can get to know someone is by "dating" them.

But, guys, if you're dating a young lady to get to know her, is your relationship starting off right if you never see her without her hair done up nice or her makeup on?

And, gals, if you're dating a young man to get to know him, is your relationship starting off right if you don't even know if you can talk to him about something that interests you both?

Mr. 5020
February 7th, 2005, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by ebenz47037

And, on this note, I agree with lighthouse. Nowadays, people think that the only way you can get to know someone is by "dating" them. Who thinks that? I would venture to say most people get to know eachother by "hanging out" before dating.

Originally posted by ebenz47037

But, guys, if you're dating a young lady to get to know her, is your relationship starting off right if you never see her without her hair done up nice or her makeup on? I'm dating a yound lady, and I've seen her without make-up and nice hair more than once.

Originally posted by ebenz47037

And, gals, if you're dating a young man to get to know him, is your relationship starting off right if you don't even know if you can talk to him about something that interests you both? Thus, the reason for the date, or "hanging out."

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 11:46 PM
Who thinks that? I would venture to say most people get to know eachother by "hanging out" before dating.


I have to say I agree. I don't think I know anyone who started their relationship with a date, without knowing anything about their partner.

I think this is too blurry an area to really define. One person's date is another's "hanging out". From what lighthouse has said, I'd label certain things "dates" that he wouldn't... and vice versa.

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 11:47 PM
It's the not wanting to get married that communicates that it is not a lifetime commitment. They don't want to make a lifetime commitment, because that isn't what they want.

That might be what it says to you, but not to us. And since we're the ones who matter here, it might be best to drop it.

Greywolf
February 7th, 2005, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
To constitute as a date it has to be agreed to be a date, and the intent to be romantic must be involved.

There's the key, romantic intent. Thanks for clarifying.


Originally posted by lighthouse
My beef, for lack of a better term, is with people who assume that dating is the only way to get to know if you want to be with someone, when getting to know them can be done by merely hanging out, and it is whne you know them that you decide you want to be more, then you pursue that.

Agreed.


Originally posted by lighthouse
It's the not wanting to get married that communicates that it is not a lifetime commitment. They don't want to make a lifetime commitment, because that isn't what they want.

Do you think that two people can commit their lives to each other independent of marriage?

Personally I think that it's the other way around. I think that they've already made a lifetime commitment, and consequently, they don't see any need to hurry up and marry.

ebenz47037
February 7th, 2005, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

Who thinks that? I would venture to say most people get to know eachother by "hanging out" before dating.
I'm dating a yound lady, and I've seen her without make-up and nice hair more than once.
Thus, the reason for the date, or "hanging out."

I didn't say that anyone here thinks that. At least, no one's said anything to me about that. :) I'm one of those weird people who believes that there are other reasons for marrying besides being "in love" with them. In fact, in some cases, I think it's better to get married because you have common goals and/or beliefs and a mutual respect for each other. The love will come in time. I know this from experience.

I kind of don't believe in "dating," as most people mean it. Family functions are all right. Some "group dates" are fine (if I know all the parties involved and their parents, I will allow my daughter to go on group dates). But, I don't think that it's necessary to have one-on-one dates.

I've been married twice. I went through both sides of this. I met my first husband while in tech school. We dated. I thought I knew him and that we shared similar beliefs. We were fine for the first few months of our marriage. Toward the end of our ten months of living together as husband and wife, I found out some things about him that I never knew. These things are why he's in prison right now, until :jessilu:'s 25 or older.

I met Steve through my mom. We didn't go on any dates. It might have more to do with our age than anything else. We both knew what we wanted from our relationship. We had celebrated our sixth anniversary a couple of months before he died. And, if he hadn't died, I could imagine us still being married now. We never argued about anything. Not many people believe that, but it's true. We got married because we respected each other and shared similar beliefs. I wanted a father for my daughter and he wanted a family of his own. I grew to love him. And, I miss him terribly. But, I know that I will see him again someday.

My point in telling you this is that Steve and I got to know each other by having family functions. We would meet at my mom's for dinner with her. If we ever went on a date, it was to take :jessilu: to a matinee and lunch when she was three years old. Steve never saw me with makeup and my hair done up until we got married, actually. He became a friend with my friends and I became a friend to his friends. He asked my mom for my hand in marriage. He introduced me to his parents at the pool at my mom's and his apartment complex.

firechyld
February 7th, 2005, 11:59 PM
Personally I think that it's the other way around. I think that they've already made a lifetime commitment, and consequently, they don't see any need to hurry up and marry.

Thanks, puppy. :) That's what I've been trying to get at.

firechyld
February 8th, 2005, 12:02 AM
Nori, I've "heard" you tell that story a number of times now, and I still think it's absolutely beautiful. Thank you, again, for sharing. :)

ebenz47037
February 8th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Nori, I've "heard" you tell that story a number of times now, and I still think it's absolutely beautiful. Thank you, again, for sharing. :)

Thank you, firechyld. But, sometimes, I feel like I'm playing a broken record. I'm just trying to make a point. :)

firechyld
February 8th, 2005, 12:12 AM
Thank you, firechyld. But, sometimes, I feel like I'm playing a broken record. I'm just trying to make a point.

Aren't we all? :)

ebenz47037
February 8th, 2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Aren't we all? :)

Yeah. I know. We don't all agree, especially on the issue of dating. :) And, sometimes, I feel that using my experiences with James and Steve is playing dirty pool. But, I have to go with what I have. :)

firechyld
February 8th, 2005, 12:34 AM
It's not playing dirty at all. You're using your experiences to try and convey a point. It's not your fault if people (sometimes me) take something from the story that isn't necessarily what you're trying to get across.

firechyld
February 8th, 2005, 09:13 AM
I can't believe I didn't even notice this one until it was pointed out to me....

Lighthouse said:


Because a driver's license doesn't have someone else in it.

Lighthouse, I do believe that you're profoundly stupid. My decision not to obtain a driver's license until I can be reasonably sure my symptoms are not going to pop up again is precisely because it does have someone else in it. A lot of someones. Everyone else on or near the road, in fact.

Nuff sed. These parts of this thread are already little more than irritating.

Granite
February 8th, 2005, 09:19 AM
:nono:

firechyld
February 8th, 2005, 09:38 AM
It's like trying to spot one zebra in a herd. The stupid comments just start blurring together....

Greywolf
February 8th, 2005, 09:26 PM
:bump:

firechyld
February 14th, 2005, 01:34 AM
I think this thread's been ditched...

Mr Jack
February 14th, 2005, 06:41 AM
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Ever seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Sure, it's a flick, but it makes a valid point. Men and women can't just be friends. Because there will always be sexual tension on at least the part of one of them. That's the way we're built, Brandon.

That's rubbish; I've had many close female friends over the years without the "sex thing" getting in the way. It is quite possible to 'just be friends' with someone of the opposite sex.

Granite
February 14th, 2005, 07:06 AM
I think in a situation like that, someone's lying.:chuckle: