ot: prostitution

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
My sibling is a well decorated financial exec. Her husband is a great man. She never fell for a dumbass guy.
[/quote]

Does she really love and desire her husband or did she settle?

I think that, in life, most people settle for what they can get.

flu, you make fun of the Toyota Camry as a boring appliance of an automobile; but people buy it because it’s affordable, reliable and won’t give them any troubles.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Are you going to keep the gentle intellectual demeanor of harvey? If not, you should change back to pri. Harvey is such a gentle old-fashioned name. It would be a shame to tarnish it.[/quote]

It’s a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing, except that it is triggered by nonsense rather than darkness.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=harvey]Libertarian logic is often so hopelessly shallow.

I don’t understand why private citizens cannot own nuclear weapons.

Why is does the government take away my freedom to own a nuclear weapon?

Of course if someone a nuclear weapon to harm others they should go to jail.

Just because I own one doesn’t make me a criminal.[/quote]
What you wrote is very good, as a joke. Owning nuclear weapons would be criminal because of the risk imposed on your neighbors. Even if you don’t kill anybody, the fact that you put them under such extreme risk, would make them victims. Your example certainly does not apply to prostitution or cocaine trade/use, where there are no victims.[/quote]

The point is that we sometimes must limit freedoms because they impose risks to society. Of course my nuclear weapons example is extreme, but it does illustrate the point: There is a tradeoff between giving freedom to everyone and creating situations with unacceptable risk of few people doing great harm to many others.

Do prostitution and drug use meet the threshold where we should limit freedom to protect society from risks? The answer is not as simple as some would make it out to be. Anyone who claims that prostitution involves nothing more than independent adults conducting business is either hopelessly naive or extremely disingenuous. There’s a lot of bad stuff that comes along with these so-called “victimless” crimes. The “freedom” is not separable from the crimes and exploitation in the real world.

Many libertarians are enamored with a ridiculously simple and clean model of society where we can all do whatever we want and only deal with problems after the fact. Everything goes until someone commits a crime, and then we just punish the criminals and reconcile the harm through restitution. There’s no need for prevention – only cures – as the cures will act as a deterrent. It’s a ridiculous notion and history provides overwhelming proof.

Personally I’m OK with legalization of prostitution and legalization of many recreational drugs given certain regulations. But I don’t believe we should ignore the tradeoffs on all issues.

I’m a strong believe in civil liberties, but I’m willing to give up my “freedom” to own military explosives or experiment with biological weapons in my home.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey]

Wow.

Please tell me that you don’t have children.

[/quote]

You got that right. And the vasclip should keep things that way.

[quote=harvey]

So a few weak examples proves that parents can have no influence on the outcome of their children’s lives?
[/quote]

Although these examples are “few” (sorry I didn’t have time to list into the hundreds), I’ll assume you deem them “weak” because they conflict with how you want the world to work.

This is not to suggest that “parents can have no influence on the outcome of their children’s lives.” That’s a straw man argument – you said it, not me.

[quote=harvey]
I’ll bet I could find a few examples of people that received incompetent medical care in Mexico. More than a few.[/quote]

I’m sure you could. And I’m equally sure it would have no bearing on the prior point I made.

Think about things in two different ways. First, think of all of the “dumbass guys” out there (to use flu’s words) and the women that are attracted to them. Are they all women that didn’t come from a background surrounded by high achievers, etc etc? Of course not. Second, look at these “high achieving” women and the guys they date and marry. Face it… a lot of them are “dumbass guys” (as described).

This notion that, “If I raise my daughter ‘correctly’ and she’s a high achiever then she won’t end up with a ‘dumbass guy'” defies real world observation. That doesn’t, however, mean that one shouldn’t strive to raise one’s daughter “correctly” (whatever that means). Just don’t get your hopes too high when it comes to their choosing mates.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]Personally I’m OK with legalization of prostitution and legalization of many recreational drugs given certain regulations. But I don’t believe we should ignore the tradeoffs on all issues.[/quote]Most libertarians would agree with you. Legalizing something doesn’t mean “free-for-all, do-what-you-want.” For instance, if cars were invented today, some people may want to make them illegal like cocaine or prostitution. Their argument would be “wait, if cars were legal, what’s to stop an 8-year old from driving clumsily and killing pedestrians?”

In most of Europe and Latin America prostitution is legal, yet you don’t see hookers walking down the streets soliciting business from minors. In fact, they work out of brothels located in designated zones (think industrial areas), must have health certificates, etc. There are of course, street hookers, but they are a minority, they risk being arrested, and they are not more prevalent than in the US (where the business is “illegal” but still takes place one way or another).

[Anonymous]

I won’t bother commenting on your attitude towards women and parenting.

I think your words say it all already.

You do have an interesting definition of “dirtbag” though.

Bill Clinton?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Diego Mamani]Most libertarians would agree with you. Legalizing something doesn’t mean “free-for-all, do-what-you-want.”[/quote]

You are probably right. It’s probably the more vocal ones that tend to make the “free-for-all” arguments.

[quote]In most of Europe and Latin America prostitution is legal, yet you don’t see hookers walking down the streets soliciting business from minors. […][/quote]

I agree that legalization reduces some of the problems, but probably not the human trafficking and slavery. I know at one time it this was a big problem in Amsterdam – maybe it has improved. We all know we cannot eliminate prostitution, but making it legal probably will make it more common and thus may make some of the problems that come with it more common.

[davelj]

[quote=harvey]I won’t bother commenting on your attitude towards women and parenting.

I think your words say it all already.
[/quote]

That’s a cop out. Tell me what my “attitude” is towards women. All I’ve said is that a lot of women are attracted to what FLU (and apparently YOU) define as “dumbass guys”. There are innumerable books and articles on the subject – “Why Women like Bad Boys,” etc etc etc. So, I’m curious as to what providing a blinding glimpse of the obvious says about my “attitude” towards women. So, go ask the (largely female) authors of all of those articles and books what their “attitude” is towards women and then get back to me.

[quote=harvey]
You do have an interesting definition of “dirtbag” though.

Bill Clinton?[/quote]

Again, “dirtbag”, “dumbass”, etc… these are apparently how you define a certain group of men. Personally, I don’t define “dirtbags” in terms of how they might treat women (exception noted below) – different strokes for different folks, and all – but rather how they perform in a business context. But that’s just me.

Although, an exception. DSK is a dirtbag from what I can tell. If you’re forcing yourself on women or harming them physically – I don’t care if you’re paying them – you are a dirtbag, plain and simple.

[scaredyclassic]

my favorite poem about women falling for jerks:

A Little Tooth
by Thomas Lux

Your baby grows a tooth, then two,
and four, and five, then she wants some meat
directly from the bone. It’s all

over: she’ll learn some words, she’ll fall
in love with cretins, dolts, a sweet
talker on his way to jail. And you,

your wife, get old, flyblown, and rue
nothing. You did, you loved, your feet
are sore. It’s dusk. Your daughter’s tall.

[fat_lazy_union]

[quote=davelj][quote=harvey]I won’t bother commenting on your attitude towards women and parenting.

I think your words say it all already.
[/quote]

That’s a cop out. Tell me what my “attitude” is towards women. All I’ve said is that a lot of women are attracted to what FLU (and apparently YOU) define as “dumbass guys”. There are innumerable books and articles on the subject – “Why Women like Bad Boys,” etc etc etc. So, I’m curious as to what providing a blinding glimpse of the obvious says about my “attitude” towards women. So, go ask the (largely female) authors of all of those articles and books what their “attitude” is towards women and then get back to me.

[quote=harvey]
You do have an interesting definition of “dirtbag” though.

Bill Clinton?[/quote]

Again, “dirtbag”, “dumbass”, etc… these are apparently how you define a certain group of men. Personally, I don’t define “dirtbags” in terms of how they might treat women (exception noted below) – different strokes for different folks, and all – but rather how they perform in a business context. But that’s just me.

Although, an exception. DSK is a dirtbag from what I can tell. If you’re forcing yourself on women or harming them physically – I don’t care if you’re paying them – you are a dirtbag, plain and simple.[/quote]

Let me make a huge distinction., I don’t have a problem at all with the non-commital type of relatonships at all… As long as there is not deceit/or con in the process. I know plenty of men who have mutual “open” relationships with women. And everyone men/women have what they want.. The men want something physical, the women wants something physical and or something other than a committed relationship. Fine. Great…Perfect lifestyle for some folks, and that’s great.. (Not for me, but it works for some people.) I don’t even have problems with failed relationships or extra-marital affairs…You know, personal issues…whatever…

My big problems are the those types types who con their way to getting under a false pretense…. basically lie, cheat, steal to get some and because it’s one big joke/game to them. That, imho, is pretty shitty if you ask me…Not just because it’s women/men thing..It’s a human integrity thing.. no different to me than sitting across the tables negotiating T&C , flat out lying without any intent of doing otherwise, and then laughing all the way to the bank…Kinda like enron execs…

[Anonymous]

[quote=davelj]There are innumerable books and articles on the subject – “Why Women like Bad Boys,” etc etc etc. [/quote]

Yes, that is very strong evidence. There are a lot of books on the subject, so it must be true. There are also a lot of books about vampires these days.

Please re-read my posts and note that I haven’t attempted to define “dumbass guys” anywhere.

I’m really just not following your point, or understanding what prompted such harsh – and almost personal – words directed at flu.

It’s pretty clear that all flu was saying that if you raise your daughter with certain values they will have more wisdom in their choice of men. Of course he wasn’t claiming that there are absolute guarantees when it comes to raising children.

There is definitely a correlation between good/bad parenting and women who find themselves in good/bad relationships. Not a perfect correlation, but a strong one. You seem to be arguing fairly passionately – and cynically to the point of bitterness – that there is not.

[fat_lazy_union]

[quote=davelj][quote=flu]

My sibling is a well decorated financial exec. Her husband is a great man. She never fell for a dumbass guy.
[/quote]

There are no great men; only great reputations waiting to be tarnished. The evidence is voluminous.

[quote=flu]

Growing up, it had a lot to do with the peers and surroundings…Needless to say, being surrounded by high achieving people had a lot to do with it. It all has to do with self-esteem and self-respect. As my sibling put it, she didn’t need to hang out with “dumb people”.

My observation was the girls/women that ended up being screwed up and looking to marry dirtbags early were the ones that were missing a father figures, had serious trama somepoint in their life with a male figure, or ones that were alone with no siblings, and or were living in a unbearable-ultimately repressive/strict environment (ones with a lot of rules, formalities,etc)……Those girls/women had serious self-esteem/emotional issues…Easy prey for piggish men. But that how this world works…In just about everything….So, make sure don’t fvckup your daugther’s life.
[/quote]

This is magical thinking of the highest order.

Did the following women grow up with a lack of high achievers in their midst (or self-esteem issues):

Maria Shriver
Hillary Clinton
Ann Sinclair (DSK’s wife)
Silda Wall (Spitzer’s wife)
And so on and so on…

You seem to believe that you can create an environment in which your daughter will be unlikely to hook up with “dirtbags”… and this environment doesn’t exist. You’re suffering from endowment effect… you think your daughter’s life will be “special” because she’s your daughter, but the reality is… that women – of all walks of life and backgrounds – like dirtbags. Your attempt to convince yourself otherwise is nothing more than a coping mechanism.[/quote]

No, I don’t think anyone is special…As a parent I do my best…

[quote]

Maria Shriver
Hillary Clinton
Ann Sinclair (DSK’s wife)
Silda Wall (Spitzer’s wife)
[/quote]

But like I said, I think there’s a huge difference between a failed marriage versus men (or women) who intentionally mispresent their intentions from the get go… I’m not someone here who thinks Bill Clinton is a dirtbag. I would say Clinton’s marriage probably started out as a truthful commitment, and somewhere along the line shit happened…Oh well… that’s life… But come on, can anyone really say that Clinton’s…. I do have issues with folks that say they are “commited” when they aren’t.

And no it’s not a coping mechanism at all. It’s doing the best you can, despite how the rest of the world works…

[davelj]

[quote=harvey][quote=davelj]There are innumerable books and articles on the subject – “Why Women like Bad Boys,” etc etc etc. [/quote]

Yes, that is very strong evidence. There are a lot of books on the subject, so it must be true. There are also a lot of books about vampires these days.

Please re-read my posts and note that I haven’t attempted to define “dumbass guys” anywhere.

I’m really just not following your point, or understanding what prompted such harsh – and almost personal – words directed at flu.

It’s pretty clear that all flu was saying that if you raise your daughter with certain values they will have more wisdom in their choice of men. Of course he wasn’t claiming that there are absolute guarantees when it comes to raising children.
[/quote]
Allow me to quote flu’s post:

“It all has to do with self-esteem and self-respect. As my sibling put it, she didn’t need to hang out with ‘dumb people’.” (“dumbass guys” was referenced elsewhere.)

That message seems pretty absolute to me. But perhaps use of the word “all” was an oversimplification on his part.

[quote=harvey]

There is definitely a correlation between good/bad parenting and women who find themselves in good/bad relationships. Not a perfect correlation, but a strong one. You seem to be arguing fairly passionately – and cynically to the point of bitterness – that there is not.[/quote]

You use the word “definitely” and I’m not sure where your proof lies. This might be the case. And it might not. Frankly, I would like to think that it is. I just haven’t seen much evidence of it. I think “attraction” to a large extent lies outside of good/bad parenting. (But I’m happy to be proven wrong here – I have no children and no dog in this fight.)

This is slightly off-topic, but related. My understanding is that if one spouse comes from parents who divorced, the couple is twice as likely to divorce than if both spouses came from in-tact households. So, one could argue that parenting (and remaining married) impacts divorce statistics. But… how do we know that these people staying married are any happier than those that got divorced? Maybe they’re just staying together because of “parenting” and the notion that they’re “supposed” to stay together.

Again, perhaps parenting does positively impact “affairs of the heart”. I just haven’t seen much evidence of it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not the case.

But I don’t think that using words like “definitely” and “all” bolster anyone’s case without proof to back up use of these absolutes.

[fat_lazy_union]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
My sibling is a well decorated financial exec. Her husband is a great man. She never fell for a dumbass guy.
[/quote]

Does she really love and desire her husband or did she settle?

I think that, in life, most people settle for what they can get.

flu, you make fun of the Toyota Camry as a boring appliance of an automobile; but people buy it because it’s affordable, reliable and won’t give them any troubles.[/quote]

Actually she’s really happy.She spent probably 20 years, dozens of “relationships”, passed on a lot of men who were over the head “loaded”…. Great man…Really well rounded guy..Really outdoors skiing/running,wining/dining/sports fan…They pretty much do everything together…As an added bonus, she gets a kick because some folks say he looks kinda like George Clooney..

Then again, she’s not exactly “easy”…I think most men hate her… I think one time she really pissed of someone, and someone called her out and said “what a b*tch”..And all she did was smile and say thank you. (Sad part is, she’s really not). Well, I know she scared off most of the asian men that once were interested in her. Come to think about it, I think most asian parents growing up were like
“WTF?”…lol…And it works well. Because most men would just move on, because there’s easier people to go after…Then again, when she’s home completely different person… meh… whatever…

[fat_lazy_union]

Fair enough.. Consider I stand corrected. I will remove my emphasis on “definitely” and “all”…Some men are dirtbags…Some men aren’t. Some men got out there their way to intentionally lie and deceit…The same sort of men that sounds like what neeta said…

Some men who just want to have an open relationship with no intent of getting married and who are more or less clear about it are peechy clean.. And women who go for that and later cry me a river and say why not, well it’s their problem for being dumb..

You can correct me all you want. I really don’t mind..Perhaps, neeta just rubbed me the wrong way because “I just string women along all day along, yada yada yada”….

Anyway, meh. I don’t care. Who knows, I might get lucky and my kid my grow up and be a lesbian…

[quote]
This is slightly off-topic, but related. My understanding is that if one spouse comes from parents who divorced, the couple is twice as likely to divorce than if both spouses came from in-tact households. So, one could argue that parenting (and remaining married) impacts divorce statistics. But… how do we know that these people staying married are any happier than those that got divorced? Maybe they’re just staying together because of “parenting” and the notion that they’re “supposed” to stay together.
[/quote]

And that would be the most ridiculous thing to do. staying married when there is no love or worse when two people hate each other.

[Author]

Posts