Predators and Prey (warning: long, pointless)

[Guest regulation]

>(Oh, by the way, for the reading challenged, I am making

>jokes, and have admitted making a mistake. I am not as

>narcissistic as some; searching for perfection on a casual

>message board and suffering such grandiosity that I must

>parse every phrase of every post and even do research on

>past posts so I can feel special. But then I am not perfect.

>Several of my close readers are perfect. Only their mothers

>made mistakes in not aborting them.)

 

Resorting to childish name calling and insults like the above only serves to emphasize the weakness of your arguments. I think that's unnecessary, since their weakness is already apparent to anyone who reads them.

 

Here's some more research on past posts for you. You seem worried about the possibility that by using the term "chicken hawk" some posters will provoke an investigation of this website by federal agents on the lookout for pedophilia. But last year TruthTeller and ExFratBoy had a long and extremely pointed conversation on this message board in which not slang terms like "chicken hawk" but plain, clear and blatant accusations of pedophilia were hurled back and forth. Has this website been shut down? Have any of the participants been arrested? Apparently not. Apparently your worries are all for nothing. I do hope this will make you feel better.

[Guest regulation]

>Most families are still below the poverty level when the

>head of the household works for minimum wage.

 

And what is the relevance of that remark? Very few people would argue that the federal minimum wage is also a living wage. That is what is behind the "living wage" laws that so far have been adopted in 81 municipalities, including San Francisco.

 

 

>was I being

>"exploited" by my first employer because I accepted a job

>paying only $13K per year?

 

Are my posts appearing on your screen in Chinese? I've already answered this question in my previous post.

 

>A 19-year-old selling sex on the street has choices: He

>could charge more. He could save a little of his money, get

>listed on the internet, get a pager, and make 500% more. He

>could get a legal job that pays the going wage.

 

He can do these things IF he has had the education and upbringing necessary to make him aware that he can do them. But isn't the fact that a kid is selling himself on the street evidence that he has had no such education and upbringing? It seems so to me.

 

>Perhaps there have been so many emotional (rather than

>logical) responses in this thread because sex is involved.

>I'd love to hear the same call for compassion and help for

>everyone living a marginal existence.

 

If you aren't aware of the "living wage" movement in this country you must not be spending much of your time listening for such calls -- it has gotten a great deal of publicity, especially in your area.

 

Your posts are logical enough, but they are designed to reach the conclusions you favor by leaving out certain facts which make those conclusions untenable -- such as the fact that many street kids are on the street to begin with because they lack the education and training to get themselves or find those who would help them get themselves into a better situation. The fact that they have the legal rights of adults is irrelevant. Without the ability to exercise those rights, they have little meaning.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>He can do these things IF he has had the education and

>upbringing necessary to make him aware that he can do them.

>But isn't the fact that a kid is selling himself on the

>street evidence that he has had no such education and

>upbringing? It seems so to me.

 

Imagine that - the self-appointed vigilante of sweeping generizations

making a sweeping geralization! - which just so happens to be lacking in accuracy!

 

Thunderbuns

[guyinsf]

If I am making my arguments seem logical by avoiding certain "facts," then I suggest that your post is the ultimate in the pot calling the kettle black. Instead of thinking about the points I am making, you dismiss most of them and then rely on the fact that a small percentage of employees in the US are covered by a "living wage law" (without, I must say, indicating that this is far from a universal guarantee that workers are paid a reasonable wage).

 

And in case it hasn't been clear in my previous posts, I DO believe that everyone should be paid a reasonable (living) wage. This is not happening and I don't believe it is likely to happen on a widespread basis for quite a while. Meanwhile a prostitute on the street can make more than many people who work full time by having two 1-hour calls per day.

 

It is a choice. I'm not saying that I want to have sex with two strangers every day. I obviously chose otherwise. Someone selling sex on the street can do otherwise. I don't buy into the argument that they are unable to do anything other than sell sex on the street.

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

RE: freed at last!

 

It has to be Puerto Rico. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada. ;-)

 

Esc-Tracker

[Guest DCeBOY]

no, you were just kinda dim. why not grow some balls & admit a simple mistake?

[Guest albinorat]

>no, you were just kinda dim. why not grow some balls & admit

>a simple mistake? <

 

Well, D&C if that post is for me, I have admitted the mistake several times, both in so many words (>I made a mistake> is in my answer to you) and in a joking manner. If you are just farting here or masturbating like someone who has about 1000 responses of which I've read 2 or so, then fuck you.

 

I don't admit to being >dim>, >kinda< or otherwise. But since you have some trouble reading you sure are.

 

I've learned all the games on the 'Net: I made a post and a point, then re-made the point. I am not applying for the Pulitzer. I wrote quickly. I made mistakes in grammar, spelling and punctuation. So let the Great Editor in the Sky strike me dead! You know what? I don't give a fuck. The opinion and several posts supporting it (by me) are there. You can agree or not. Or you can skip me in the future entirely. I am sick of your type who has nothing to offer but an idiotic, sulky correction that had long been noticed before you added your two cents, and which I addressed.

 

And the difference between calling you a wart on the ass of god and calling you a chicken hawk or a whore is the first is my irritated opinion in the heat of the moment. The second two are criminal offenses and I am uninclined to accuse you or anyone of a crime. Got that, cunt head?

 

Get a life. Sheesh!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

SHORT and TOO THE POINT

 

I skimmed the balance of the posts after the tenth one down.

 

Please read -- or re-read, as the case may be -- my posts with reference to power dynamics and inbalance in human relationships and please also read Flower's post on essentially the same subject. The issue is not morality, legality, or name-calling -- not to say those are not issues to discuss -- but how indivudals treat one another and how society and the larger culture fosters behavior which neither nurtures nor strengthesn the individual.

 

In that regard, reading most of this particular thread will take too much of my time now that my teeth bleaching is finished and I am late for my emergency lipo appointment.

[Traveller]

>And the difference between calling you a wart on the ass of

>god and calling you a chicken hawk or a whore is the first

>is my irritated opinion in the heat of the moment. The

>second two are criminal offenses and I am uninclined to

>accuse you or anyone of a crime. Got that, cunt head?

>

>Get a life. Sheesh!

 

Dude,

 

This is a simple fact of life that I'm going to tell you. Self-described fat, ugly, old people cannot hurl epithets such as "cunt head." You are permitted to sing the praises of the rest of us and bascially remain as hidden from sight as possible. This means staying in your house most of the time and wearing a yurt whenever venturing out in public. As far as get a life, Jesus Christ, the long winded essays you're posting (which the rest of us read three words of - having lifes ourselves) illustrate your need to smash your computer immediately.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Later.

 

PS. Matty from Vancouver, you party dude, big fun last night as always.

[Guest paysforit]

RE: SHORT and TOO THE POINT

 

Just about every high priced escort I have met (and that's quite a few) has some kind of drug habit. Several of them have serious addictions. Not a one of them, as far as I know, uses income generated from escorting to pay for private medical insurance. I am sure there are some sensible escorts out there that do use their income in such a fashion, but I have not met any of them. I have alos used the services of many street hustlers. Unlike a lot of Johns, I tend to pay street hustlers around $150 to 200 per encounter, but I also expect them to spend the night with me for that kind of money. Almost without exception I have found my encounters with these poor exploited lads (usually around the age of 25) to be superior to encounters I have had with attitudinous, pretentious, clockwatching, high priced escorts. As a rule the street hustler is grateful for the attention being paid to him and thrilled to have a safe place to kick back and be appreciated. Is he likely to use the money I pay him to get his shit together??? Probably not, but he might get a new pair shoes or some clean clothes with some of the money before spending the rest on drugs. Similarly MOST high priced escorts aren't going to use the bucks I might spend on them for college tuition, health insurance, or much needed REHAB. More than likely it will go towards a plane ticket to the next major circuit party and/or designer drugs to consume with their over-buffed narcissistic sisters that they hookup with after rushing me out the door at the end of an overpriced encounter.