male4escort.com: I'm steaming mad!

[woodlawn]

>Anyone who reads your correct definitions and then

>my practical application should agree.

 

But I've read them and I don't agree. I don't think you made clear the distinction between the two concepts, and it's an important distinction in light of the genesis of this discussion. One refers to an act that is banned for moral reasons, and the other refers to an act that is banned for other reasons.

 

 

>But tell me this--in Nevada or on Native American Reservations

>where gambling is legal, is it immoral? Obviously some would

>say yes and some no, but the fact that it is illegal has

>NOTHING to do with MORALITY.

 

That is not so. Many who oppose gambling do so on moral grounds. If you read Saturday's New York Times you saw an article about the fact that William Bennett, the well-known author of bestselling books on morality, is an inveterate gambler. The article, which must be rather embarrassing to Mr. Bennett, contains quotes from speeches made by some of the most prominent leaders of the Christian Right in this country, some of them friends of Bennett, about the immorality of gambling.

 

> Many of the same problems

>associated with prostitution occur due to it's

>criminalization, so your arguments really dont' fly.

 

I don't know who you're talking to in this sentence, but it can't be me. I haven't said anything in this thread about problems associated with prostitution. What I've said is that in almost all communities in this country it's considered both illegal and immoral. That can't be disputed.

 

>Furthermore, there are a few examples where breaking a law can

>be Moral whereas obeying it would be immoral--can you think of

>any?

 

I don't see what that has to do with prostitution.

 

 

>Hotels complain based on lack of orderliness, decorum or

>dress, not that fact that the sex therein is paid for or

>not--and I'm not about to let Mr. Hilton determine what's

>moral or immoral for me, thank you.

 

Again, what you're saying simply is not true. If you look into it, you are going to find that any hotel in which you are a guest reserves the right to chuck you out if you use their property for any illegal activity. And it is their property, not yours. So if you don't want them putting restrictions on your behavior, don't stay there.

 

I think the Ask an Escort section has a thread discussing how escorts do business in hotels these days without running afoul of hotel security. According to the thread, they use fake names and resort to all manner of lies and deceptions to avoid having management find out what they are really doing. Why?

 

If an escort goes to see a client in a hotel, why doesn't he just go up to the front desk and tell the clerk that he's a prostitute and he is going to visit a client in room 506 and please tell security to let him through? If "orderliness" is the only issue, what is there in that behavior that offends "orderliness?" Obviously, "orderliness" is not the issue.

 

Or if he is visiting in town and is using a hotel room for appointments why doesn't he just tell the management what he's doing so that they will let his clients come up? Well?

 

PLEASE TELL US ALL, WHY PAID FOR SEX IS IMMORAL

 

 

I think that question would be better addressed to a clergyman. I'm simply pointing out the indisputable fact that people who engage in prostitution are doing something that violates moral and legal prohibitions that are generally accepted in our society. And when they complain about other people who violate different prohibitions, they're saying that they have a right to make up their own rules, but others don't have the same right.

 

>Prostitution, in and of itself IS victimless, and just because

>people complain does not make them a victim.

 

That is your opinion. It's beyond debate that lots and lots of people in this country have a very different opinion. That's why we have laws against prostitution.

 

>Again, don't paint fraud and theft with the same brush as

>prostitution--they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!. The law makes NO

>judgment as to whether prostitution is malum in se or

>prohibitum -- it just makes it illegal and most commentators

>would say it is malum prohibitum.

 

I'd be surprised if you could back that up.

 

> Tell me this, where is the

>moral issue

 

I think we are all too familiar with the moral objections to prostitution to make it necessary to repeat them.

 

 

>Dude--you just don't get it;( Fraud and theft is an act

>inherently wrong and hurts the person it's directed

>against--that's why they are called the victim! To say that

>an escort can't complain about being the victim of identity

>theft or fraud just because he is an escort, is the height of

>duplicity and such an unfair, unthinking and intellectually

>vacant argument, I'm surprised that you'd advance it even

>behind the annonymous mask you wear hear.

 

I wear an anonymous mask? When was the last time you posted your name and address here?

 

What you write in the above paragraph isn't an argument, it's just a series of conclusions. You can't deny that we live in a society that has adopted a legal code based on widespread opinion that prostitution is wrong. That is a fact. And since it is a fact, it's also a fact that someone who chooses to violate that code is opting out of the legal and moral framework of the society in which he lives. How then can he demand that others remain in that framework in their dealings with him?

 

You say fraud and theft are inherently wrong but prostitution isn't. You just don't seem capable of taking in the fact that vast numbers of people believe prostitution IS inherently wrong. It's a matter of opinion. But the issue here is, should people ignore laws because they have a different opinion on the moral issue involved than the people who support those laws? You are arguing that they should. Fine. So why shouldn't the same argument apply to any law? Well?

 

>but the reasoning power ain't there.

 

Your resort to another round of childish insults is typical of you. Why do you keep doing that?

[Flower]

>>but the reasoning power ain't there.

>

>Your resort to another round of childish insults is typical of

>you. Why do you keep doing that?

[font color={green

]

Hmmm--maybe you're right and the comment was a little immature, but it's frustrating when you just gloss over the issues and repeat yourself.

 

Rather than answer WHY --you just say prostitiution is immoral and thus "Malum in se" because other people say it is!!! Wow, good answer. You refer to the local clergy or say it's always been that way. I guess I just don't have the time nor the patience for people that that can't independantly THINK--if it's immoral, tell us why! It's that simple, but you can't so you gloss over it and try to justify by attaching labels and statements like " it has been.

 

I'm not interested in "what most communities consider immoral in you opinion or what the Christian Right has to say about immorality, or Hotel Managers or law enforcement--we all know what they say and it's irrelevant to me--I think for myself, so I simply asked you to demonstrate succinctly as possible, why you feel prostitution is immoral.

 

It is very easy to articulate why a murder, fraud or theft can be both crimes and immoral acts--not so with prostitution. Anyway, You just don't get it so lets move on.

[giovoni]

There are also many posts that I'd like to respond to so rather then respond to all of them I'm writing one longer response to the original post.

 

First of all I think that those of us who are not lawyers understand that by general public he meant those people who hire escorts and have an interest in whether or not he advertises honestly. No one really believes he was going to go take out billboard advertising so that the exact "general public" would be able to know that he didn't authorize and post the add to this new site. Pointing out some sort of mistake in his use of that phrase is, at the least, nitpicky.

 

Second as has been going on all through this tread I think it should be clear to everyone who uses this site that prostitution is different then outright fraud and theft. If that distinction wasn't clear then reviews of escorts who engage in fraud and theft against clients wouldn't exist or wouldnt' be tolerated. Should escorts be made fun of like this when we complain about fraud in our name, how about if someone robbed a bank and said it was one of us.. or even worse killed someone. Since we're prostitutes, and obviously by some arguments here, considered morally bankrupt do we have no room to denounce these actions?

 

Third I am also sure that he wasn't calling for a member of the clergy or someone outside of the population of escorts, and those who hire escorts or his friends that he speaks of who know him to attest to his moral character. What if he was able to tell you that Dr Robert Dobson (of Focus on the Family) gave him a clean bill of moral health.. well then he must be a GREAT escort; or Will Perkins (CO for Family Values), or any devout Christian. Does an escort want the endorsement of one of these people? If one of these people told me I was a great person I would SERIOUSLY rethink whatever I was doing with my lift.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[woodlawn]

>>Your resort to another round of childish insults is typical

>of

>>you. Why do you keep doing that?

 

>Hmmm--maybe you're right and the comment was a little

>immature,

 

There's no "maybe" about it. If you disagree with what I say why can't you simply say so and leave it at that?

 

>but it's frustrating when you just gloss over the

>issues and repeat yourself.

 

I'm not "glossing over" anything. I've focused on one issue from my first post in this thread and I've continued to focus on that issue. What you're complaining about is that I won't agree to put that issue aside and talk about what you want to talk about instead.

 

 

>Rather than answer WHY --you just say prostitiution is immoral

>and thus "Malum in se" because other people say it is!!! Wow,

>good answer.

 

If you practice law, I hope for your clients' sake that you read the cases and opposing counsel's papers a lot more carefully than you read this board. I've never said prostitution is immoral, merely that many people consider it so. A lawyer should certainly be able to understand the difference between those two statements.

 

Your statement indicates you don't really understand the concept of malum in se. Of course an act is malum in se "because other people say it is" -- that is what the concept means. Those acts are malum in se that have traditionally been prohibited by our laws because they are considered immoral by most people. A belief becomes traditional because a lot of people accept it over a long period of time. Are these concepts new to you?

 

 

>if

>it's immoral, tell us why! It's that simple, but you can't so

>you gloss over it and try to justify by attaching labels and

>statements like " it has been.

 

 

You keep prodding me to discuss an issue that is different from the one I want to discuss. I'm not interested in debating whether prostitution is immoral and that's why I haven't addressed that issue in any of my posts. That it is considered immoral by most of our fellow citizens is a fact, a fact we all have to deal with whether we like it or not. Among other things, it's the reason this website exists. If hiring a prostitute was considered an ordinary and legitimate activity by most people then Consumer Reports would probably have an issue every year devoted to selecting prostitutes and there'd be a section on prostitutes in epinions.com. You may have noticed that there isn't.

 

>I'm not interested in "what most communities consider immoral

>in you opinion or what the Christian Right has to say about

>immorality, or Hotel Managers or law enforcement--we all know

>what they say and it's irrelevant to me

 

If it's irrelevant to you then there's no need for you to use all sorts of subterfuge and deceit to conceal from others the fact that you are involved in prostitution. You can just march into any hotel and tell the manager that you've made a date with a prostitute and that he should send the guy up when he arrives. Right?

 

>It is very easy to articulate why a murder, fraud or theft can

>be both crimes and immoral acts--not so with prostitution.

 

Actually it's just as easy for lots of people -- Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists for example -- to articulate that. It's because they believe God says so. What could be easier?

 

>Anyway, You just don't get it so lets move on.

 

"You don't get it." Other than "you don't agree with me," does that phrase actually mean anything?