Hey, We Are Not Hookers!!

[sketchball82]

Originally Posted by emptywallet

Nope. Grandpa and Grandma are maintaining the home as partners. Where she works is not the issue. They are having sex as equals. Neither is paying for it.

Hmm. You did not even remotely respond to my argument. Your trying to attack my conclusion directly with irrelevant facts (i.e., they are having sex as equals... wtf does that even mean?). No offense but your response was illogical and unrelated to my comments.

1. Did I ask if they were "partners"? No, I asked if grandma was bringing home the bacon.

2. Where grandma worked, or more importantly if she "worked" at all, is EXACTLY the point. She DID NOT work, at least not insofar as to bring home a paycheck. The fact that she was grandpa's "partner" is sweet but ultimately completely irrelevant. You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but even if you refuse to say it because you know it gives my argument credibility, grandma didn't make a dime: that was the culture. Yet grandma still managed to get to the store and buy that Tupperware that she wanted.

I challenged you to explain how that does not fit into your definition of prositution. She puts out. She gets her Tupperware. How long would your great grandpa wait around for his wife that refused to put out before he divorced her? Do you REALLY think that grandma wasn't expected to put out to keep getting more Tupperware?

I understand if you find this argument offensive. Who wouldn't? I just called your great grandmother a whore.

But when you define prostitution as any getting money from the same person with whom you have sex, she was.

Originally Posted by emptywallet

Nope. That would probably count about the same as a dollar store card. We can nit-pick over details, but your point is it's a back-and-forth thing. My point is that if the SD part is disproportionately money (or costs money) and the SB part is disproportionately sex, it's p4p.

No, you've missed my point. Both parties putting in similar amount of money may be evidence of there being no prostitution, but that's not the only evidence. My point is that you're defining prostitution even more broadly that legislatures do, so broad in fact that its easily reduced to absurd proportions as I've done. I'm trying to illustrate how ridiculous the scope of your understanding of prostitution is so you'll quit insisting that all you need for prostitution is to be paid by someone with whom you have sex. I'll give you the answer and explain why your grandmother isn't really a whore to help you out and so you see where you erred. Virginia defines prostitution in the following manner:

Originally Posted by Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-346. Prostitution; commercial sexual conduct; commercial exploitation of a minor; penalties.

A. Any person who, for money or its equivalent, (i) commits adultery, fornication, or any act in violation of § 18.2-361, performs cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus upon or by another person, or engages in anal intercourse or (ii) offers to commit adultery, fornication, or any act in violation of § 18.2-361, perform cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus upon or by another person, or engage in anal intercourse and thereafter does any substantial act in furtherance thereof is guilty of prostitution, which is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I'm discussing Virginia, because I know the law there, unlike in other jurisdictions. Anyway, this statute sets up a three prong test that must be met for prostitution:

1. "for"
2. money or its equivalent,
3. commits or offers to commit inter alia a adultery or fornication.

You're concentrating on prongs 2 and 3, but you're ignoring prong 1. Prong 1 is critical. "For." Such a simple word, but VERY important. Effectively, that word means that sex and money are not enough. The sex act has to be performed in an attempt to earn the money. In other words, there has to be a direct link between the money and the sex (i.e., tit-for-tat, quid pro quo, in exchange for). Technically, this CAN happen with a married couple, and probably does a lot. A wife offering to give her husband the ride of his life for a beautiful necklace legally IS prostitution, at least in Virginia. Note that the statute makes no exceptions for married couples. That being said, this would never actually be prosecuted due to a public backlash. But I digress.

In the case of a hooker, that link is clearly there. It's clearly money FOR sex as that is really all that's going on in the hotel room: paying her and fucking her.

But who are you to say that this is the case with sugar babies? Sex happens. That happens in a marriage too. Giving money and gifts happens as well. That also happens in a marriage. A sugar arrangement, or at least my sugar arrangement, is very intimate. We got out to dinner and to movies. We cuddle, and make out like teenagers. We go bowling and laugh together. We've met each others friends and family. We're going to Chicago next week, Vegas in May, and Europe this summer. Europe is a summer internship she's doing during her junior year in college. She asked me to come stay with her. Am I paying her for that privilege? No. Do I spoil her and give her a small stipend to help her survive her college years? Absolutely. Would she get the exactly same amount whether I came to Europe or not: no. She is getting less because I have to buy tickets to come see her, and she still wants me to come see her. This mirrors a "real" relationship.

Yes, we do have sex too. And honestly just like your great grandpa, I would not be a happy camper if the sex stopped. I might want out. But that is no different than any traditional relationship. ANYONE would quickly become unhappy in a sexless relationship. Nevertheless when she's on her period, do I still see her? Of course. When she's upset and doesn't want to have sex, do I still see her? Yes. Do I treat her any different or stop spoiling her? Absolutely not.

So if I treat her the same when we're having sex as when we're not having sex; and when she chooses to spend time with me without getting anything in return (or even losing money); or when she introduces me to her friends as her boyfriend, how can you logically try to link the sex and the money? With our entire relationship, why do you choose to focus on sex and money being linked like that?

[MiaMills]

Well said. A woman can fuck all day and not get a crumb and its legal. But if so much as one red cent is exchanged, it is... But women can legally fuck a guy from a bar after he buys her a few drinks... Im not a prostitute, Im so much more... From a counselor to a companion... Sex is not mandatory. We have choices in all we do

[Guest110516]

Originally Posted by sketchball82

Hmm. You did not even remotely respond to my argument. Your trying to attack my conclusion directly with irrelevant facts (i.e., they are having sex as equals... wtf does that even mean?). No offense but your response was illogical and unrelated to my comments.

1. Did I ask if they were "partners"? No, I asked if grandma was bringing home the bacon.

2. Where grandma worked, or more importantly if she "worked" at all, is EXACTLY the point. She DID NOT work, at least not insofar as to bring home a paycheck. The fact that she was grandpa's "partner" is sweet but ultimately completely irrelevant. You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but even if you refuse to say it because you know it gives my argument credibility, grandma didn't make a dime: that was the culture. Yet grandma still managed to get to the store and buy that Tupperware that she wanted.

I challenged you to explain how that does not fit into your definition of prositution. She puts out. She gets her Tupperware. How long would your great grandpa wait around for his wife that refused to put out before he divorced her? Do you REALLY think that grandma wasn't expected to put out to keep getting more Tupperware?

I understand if you find this argument offensive. Who wouldn't? I just called your great grandmother a whore.

But when you define prostitution as any getting money from the same person with whom you have sex, she was.



No, you've missed my point. Both parties putting in similar amount of money may be evidence of there being no prostitution, but that's not the only evidence. My point is that you're defining prostitution even more broadly that legislatures do, so broad in fact that its easily reduced to absurd proportions as I've done. I'm trying to illustrate how ridiculous the scope of your understanding of prostitution is so you'll quit insisting that all you need for prostitution is to be paid by someone with whom you have sex. I'll give you the answer and explain why your grandmother isn't really a whore to help you out and so you see where you erred. Virginia defines prostitution in the following manner:



I'm discussing Virginia, because I know the law there, unlike in other jurisdictions. Anyway, this statute sets up a three prong test that must be met for prostitution:

1. "for"
2. money or its equivalent,
3. commits or offers to commit inter alia a adultery or fornication.

You're concentrating on prongs 2 and 3, but you're ignoring prong 1. Prong 1 is critical. "For." Such a simple word, but VERY important. Effectively, that word means that sex and money are not enough. The sex act has to be performed in an attempt to earn the money. In other words, there has to be a direct link between the money and the sex (i.e., tit-for-tat, quid pro quo, in exchange for). Technically, this CAN happen with a married couple, and probably does a lot. A wife offering to give her husband the ride of his life for a beautiful necklace legally IS prostitution, at least in Virginia. Note that the statute makes no exceptions for married couples. That being said, this would never actually be prosecuted due to a public backlash. But I digress.

In the case of a hooker, that link is clearly there. It's clearly money FOR sex as that is really all that's going on in the hotel room: paying her and fucking her.

But who are you to say that this is the case with sugar babies? Sex happens. That happens in a marriage too. Giving money and gifts happens as well. That also happens in a marriage. A sugar arrangement, or at least my sugar arrangement, is very intimate. We got out to dinner and to movies. We cuddle, and make out like teenagers. We go bowling and laugh together. We've met each others friends and family. We're going to Chicago next week, Vegas in May, and Europe this summer. Europe is a summer internship she's doing during her junior year in college. She asked me to come stay with her. Am I paying her for that privilege? No. Do I spoil her and give her a small stipend to help her survive her college years? Absolutely. Would she get the exactly same amount whether I came to Europe or not: no. She is getting less because I have to buy tickets to come see her, and she still wants me to come see her. This mirrors a "real" relationship.

Yes, we do have sex too. And honestly just like your great grandpa, I would not be a happy camper if the sex stopped. I might want out. But that is no different than any traditional relationship. ANYONE would quickly become unhappy in a sexless relationship. Nevertheless when she's on her period, do I still see her? Of course. When she's upset and doesn't want to have sex, do I still see her? Yes. Do I treat her any different or stop spoiling her? Absolutely not.

So if I treat her the same when we're having sex as when we're not having sex; and when she chooses to spend time with me without getting anything in return (or even losing money); or when she introduces me to her friends as her boyfriend, how can you logically try to link the sex and the money? With our entire relationship, why do you choose to focus on sex and money being linked like that?

My point about equal partners relates to the point you are trying to make about stay-at-home wives. You're basically saying that women who work at home do not work. My point is that they do. So, no, Grandma is not just there to provide sex. She contributes to the household, and when she and Grandpa want to get freaky, it's not because he is paying her to do so. You not understanding my point does not make my point illogical. You can call Grandma what you like. I won't be offended because your opinion of her doesn't matter to me.

I did switch from prostitution to p4p. So, I'll skip the trip to the law library and my point stands: if the SD part is disproportionately money (or costs money) and the SB part is disproportionately sex, it's p4p. If you want to read that as me conceding to your points about legal prostitution, feel free.

So, is it a real relationship or does it mirror a real relationship? Is it a standard mirror or one of those funhouse mirrors? Is the mirror above the bed (sorry, couldn't resist)? You admit that if the sex stopped, you might want out. What would happen if the money stopped? You're not going to spend any money on her in Europe? Am I linking money and sex or are you? Are sex and money so intertwined in your relationship that you don't see it? She thinks of you as her BF. Is she your GF or your SB? If she is your SB (and not your GF), does she know? If she is your GF, why are you making this thread about you and your GF? These are rhetorical questions, but if you want to bring up some more case law, feel free.

Is your mirror-relationship the exception or the rule in terms of the SB/SD thing? Are you in a real SB/SD relationship and those other SB/SD "relationships" not the real thing? Maybe those in real SB/SD relationships need to make their own web site, screen out the fake SDs and fake SBs, create true SB/SD matches, and of course, make some money. Otherwise, the current SB/SD sites are peddling p4p and ruining it for the true SDs/SBs.

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by sketchball82

Second, your definition of prostitute is so broad that it includes the vast majority of all traditional relationships and is de facto reduced to being meaningless because everyone in a relationship is a whore. There are generally always gifts going back and forth in any relationship, sugar or otherwise. As professor Ogden of UVa's French Department is well known for saying, "Housewives are just hookers for appliances." If you really believe that money and gifts are what make a prostitute, then start turning away your SO's birthday gifts, and don't buy him one either, lest you turn him into a man-whore! Then you can split the rent right down the middle and not share bank accounts to avoid spending your SO's money. The line is NOT gifts. You have accepted several gifts from you SO I bet. I'm sure you fucked his brains out for particularly good gifts as well. Does that make you a whore?

It's not black and white, or at least if it is black and white, money is not the sole defining characteristic.

That is exactly what we are saying, and YES money IS the sole defining characteristic.

Every law, in every state makes money the defining characteristic. Some states broaden it to "money, or some other benefit". Gifts, including but not limiting to an engagement ring, would be "some other benefit". Marriage is simply sex on a retainer. Majority of "irreconcilable differences" in divorce are over a sex and/or money 'breech of contract'. Particularly judeo-christian forms of marital agreements and dissolutions.

The grey area you speak of only exists because of hypocrisy. Some of us are just more honest about it than others. If we are going to carry some pejorative label, it needs to be applied equitably, across the board, or not at all. I prefer not at all. But I also don't accept another woman thinking her status is higher on the whorearchy ladder than mine. If I am a whore, then so is she. However, I'd rather just carry and perpetuate the belief that we are all just normal women, interacting with men, in the most equitable way possible.

[algrace]

Originally Posted by SA Angel

Yeah...I have a feeling once that article was published her SD dropped her like a hot coal...Most SD prefer being your only one.

The thing that struck me the most about that article is that these girls seem to have no idea how.....involved a provider can get with a client. I have a friend I'm constantly in contact with and our sleepovers are less about sex and more about how well we catch Z's together. I have a friend whose company I just enjoy and we sometimes we just sit and talk until we are too tired to play and no money is exchanged even though he offers. Another that most of our time together we sit and watch TV and comment on whatever is on.......etc. etc.

I'm sure all the other ladies have similar relationships with clients. It's my responsibility to take care of your body, heart, and mind while we are together.

It's a case of blurred lines. The article says that a prostitute cares only about her time & her money.
There are "SBs" thinking about the same things.

There's obviously providers, like you, who also think of how to make the most of the shared time while not engaged in a sexual act. The stigma that remains associated with prostitution revolves around the misconception that hookers only participate in the illicit acts described in statute.

Wasn't Pretty Woman more than what she had done to make ends meet?