Posted on 11/13/2005 9:16:31 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Ah! I get it. Right. Being a slut is cool. Bratz dolls etc.
Sorry for being a tad rude! I guess I was ready for people arguing with me.
'night!
Not much. I'm just not big on the whole judging other people thing. And the way you phrased those questions doesn't leave a whole lot of room for redemption, etc.
No I don't remember the good old days, for better or worse.
What is the difference between a lady that tells the guy up front what sex will cost him and a woman living with a man she can't stand, but will stay there and sleep with him for the house, the cars, the money and social standing?
In my opinion, screwing for money is srewing for money. Put it in a legal setting and let 'em go. You can't legislate morality, especially when most legislators have little or no morality themselves.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
It's difficult not to defend prostitution. I can't think of anything else, anything at all, no service, no product, no nothing that you can give away freely, but you cannot sell. There is a logical incongruenty that a coed can legally have sex with as many men as she wants provided they buy her drinks and dinner, but she can't legally accept the cash in place of the food and drink. I've yet to hear a cogent explanation for this from anyone.
What's your point? Rationalization? Saying since some do it why not all?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Exactly. There are some scary but at least logically consistent fundamentalists who would throw the coed in jail regardless of whether money changed hands.
Could you explain the part about the sword and the scar?
Also, I know that people can commit great wrongs, repent, change their hearts, and become new. That said, it is not an easy path, and not possible for everyone (because so many don't want to). Especially for those who prostitute themselves, use them, or make money from them. From what I've read and using my natural insight, not having run a string of girls, nor used any.
Note my comment to Running Wolf, and his to me.
Like a couple of generations ago or so. Ever read any books written a hundred years ago?
Thats good...
"Housewife Charged In Sex-For-Security Scam"
little jeremiah: "a prostitute is a ruined woman."
You forget the healing powers of Christ. Yes, prostitution is dehumanizing, and the prostitutes no doubt know it. They probably rationalize it, like the author of the article, but down deep they must know how degrading it really is. Many prostitutes (not all) end up hooked on drugs. They also have a much higher likelihood of being killed (by a john) or catching a disease, like AIDS.
God is the only hope of any sinner, including prostitutes. Fortunately, He can completely restore and forgive anyone who repents AND turns from sin. I see Him in action all the time, and I can tell you miracles, like people being set free from terrible addictions to porn, sex, or drugs, ARE possible. Thank God!
babygene wrote: " Is a woman less of a prostitute if she accepts nice things or security instead of cash? I think not..."
Well, if her motivation is exclusively for the "nice things" then she is indeed a prostitute. It would be legal to marry someone just for their money, for example, but it wouldn't be moral. But what's you point? Are you trying to say a lot of women are prostitutes? If so, I disagree. Sure. Some women might have sex for security, but the vast majority are certainly motivated by other factors, like love or lust.
durasell wrote: "I'm just not big on the whole judging other people thing."
Please consider what you've written. Do you think a murderer is wrong? How about a robber? It's OK, you can say people who murder or steal are wrong. It's OK to "judge" them.
Judge not lest you be judged is very misunderstood. It doesn't mean you shouldn't differentiate between evil and good. It means you should judge by the same standards you would like yourself to be judged. For example, it's OK to judge murderers harshly if you would expect others to treat you the same way if you murdered someone.
Forgive me for saying so, but your post sounded very liberal. Liberals worship tolerance and diversity, but it's impossible not to have some sort of standards. A civilization without standards, isn't a civilization--it's anarchy. If everyone was "not big on the whole judging other people thing," America would deconstruct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.