babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
No, he could have paid beforehand or someone else could have done so for him.
We have gone around this a-contract-is-a-contract thing at length when "surrogate" mothers' right to change their mind and keep their child was discussed during the "Baby M" controversy among feminists - radicals v. liberals (1986). I recall that the issue turned on whether any human interaction could be reduced to enforceable contracts.
I still think it's significant that so many men want to not only manufacture consent, but ensure it if need be, through blatant economic advantage/constraint. Do they need our help?
martin: do you think prostitution should remain legal?
Why not? Are you mad that you got overcharged like Eliot Spitzer?
Much like any other profession, if you want to improve conditions, you regulate it and/or unionize it. Questioning why it exists is interesting but it doesn't result in immediate improvement.
Lots of reasons. Males might be evolved (whether in the cultural or biological sense is a big tough question itself) to trade resources for sex and females vice-versa. This is a feature of a lot of human sexual relationships whether we'd call them prostitution or not. Sometimes it's the freedom from social obligation prostitutes provide - such as in the old saying about how you really aren't paying a prostitute for sex, you're paying her to go away after. It guarantees the sex without the relationship that might otherwise be required. Sometimes it's for variety of women for those bored with monogamy or for variety of sex acts the woman they're with can't or won't agree to provide. Other times it's just for access to women they couldn't normally get based on their looks, social position or ability. No question there's a big whack of entitlement involved too.
So, ya, I've done it. What can we learn? Doug summed it up good for me in #35.(about the freedom from obligation) I only post this to learn.
I've found the cost of chasing women (and I never had a problem before I went left-wing) is astronomical. It's easy to get laid if you buy into capitalist thought. Not so easy if you want to respect women and try to downsize. Just some char for the grill.
If it's not clear, I feel I'm being more honest about my intentions. And I'm sure I could get a reference letter for my respect. ;)
I miss M. Spector.
Hey, dialogue! Good on ya', laddies!
Hmm,
I was thinking that maybe I'd get a maid
Find a place nearby for her to stay.
Just someone to keep my house clean,
Fix my meals and go away.
A maid. A man needs a maid.
A maid.
It's hard to make that change
When life and love turns strange.
And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love.
To live a love, you gotta be "part of"
When will I see you again?
I didn't really get that jas, what if you have a healthy relationship with 3 sisters and their kids? My family has love. My place is plenty clean without a maid, I don't get your prose?
It's a Neil Young song. Just pointing out the parallel of that kind of emotional response to life to Doug's astute observation.
I don't think Doug's observations led to anything close to that kind of a comparison. It's kind of repugnant to compare it.
If you knew the song, you'd understand. It absolutely is a parallel, and I make that observation non-judgmentally.
I'll look it up. Thanks for the link. Neil Young can't be that bad.
Any hints on the name of the song?
Haven't found it but Neil can be great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0t0EW6z8a0&feature=related
"A man needs a maid"
Like I said, a horrible comparison.
Neil was very emotional. Perhaps, this is one of his better tracks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh44QPT1mPE&feature=related
Guess he found it, his music stopped.
I also think the relationship with housework in Neil's song is significant. Calling "horrible" some men's diffidence at commitment to equalitarian relationships keeps a reality at bay.
(I'll be glad to PM the original version of this post to anyone here who wants to address it in detail, but am pulling it now to make life a bit harder for the political foes who would exploit my candidness...)
Martin, you don't need to hide from your past. It helps bolster your positions rather than weaken them.
Xx xxx xxxxx x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx x xxx. Big deal. Being more open about that stuff can only help to de-stigmatize the discussion of prostitution by the men who use them.
Well, I can't pull your pathetic recasting of what I shared... I think I showed I did everything but "hide from my past." (groan!)
I am merely concerned about how my words can be misrepresented - which you just proved. I am sorry that you misread them this badly and hope this is unwitting on your part.
I think it may be unintentional Martin. It took a lot of guts to post that. I was truly in awe last night when I read it of your courage, especially given your dogmatic opposition to it.
The prostitution challenges we face in Canada won't even begin to be addressed unless the users are willing to talk openly about it.
Well thanks for the half-compliment. I think my post may show how non-dogmatic I actually am in trying to suss out what makes men and prostitution tick and why progressives should be concerned and in solidarity with critical feminists.
(Since you say the the smear may be unintentional, I would be really grateful if you pulled the third sentence of post #52; it doesn't at all correspond to what I think and wrote.)
Martin, it is a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. You received xxxxxxxx with a xxxxx xxxxxx. The xxxxxxx alone is enough to, in some circles, be considered xxxxxxxxxxxx. Xxxx xx, xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xx x xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx. With the xxxxx xxxxxx though, it really does clinch it.
If you think I'm mis-characterizing what you said, then put your post back so that it can be decided. No-one called you out for being a bad person or being a hypocrite when you posted it. In fact, no-one commented at all. That alone should tell you that it at least got people thinking. Removing the post is the problem, as it just re-enforces the attitude that the use of prosititution can't be talked about in public.
It took a lot of guts to post that, Martin, and for the first time I was willing to consider that maybe you weren't the person that I thought you were. It was a very thought provoking and honest post. One that could stimulate some much needed discussion.
Ah..., I thought you were being disingenuous and this confirms it. You won't let me decide whether to leave or not a post here for the antifeminists to gloat over. By misrepresenting it, you're trying to force my hand. Par for the patriarchal course, I guess. You're quite something, "HeywoodFloyd". No wonder people are careful not to disclose anything here.
My whole point was that sex in exchange of money made, in my experience for unhappy endings and destructive interactions.
I'm not trying to misrepresent anything Martin and I would like an apology for that. I don't have a copy of your post with which to judge what I remember of it against.
I don't see how sex for money could ever end up in a truly happy ending for either party. Unfortunately, now no one else here will.
You win Martin. I'll edit the offending posts. Perhaps we can all forget that this ever happened.
Do posts # 51 onwards answer the thread title question?
Thank you, and no, I didn't think you were trying to misrepresent what I wrote, only that this was the result, which I wrote. So I apologize if this seemed like a trial of intent.