A letter to the providers....

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by Buonas

... legalize it. i am actually amazed that that is not even discussed here.

Don't be amazed. Certain things, I think, no matter how worthy the point of view, are sufficiently "pie in the sky" as to not evoke much interest.

It is also a very complex issue with a variety of competing interests involved. Probably worthy of its own thread if you'd like to start it.

[Buonas]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Don't be amazed. Certain things, I think, no matter how worthy the point of view, are sufficiently "pie in the sky" as to not evoke much interest.

It is also a very complex issue with a variety of competing interests involved. Probably worthy of its own thread if you'd like to start it.

We had that discussion already in another thread - in which i guess i earned the reputation of derailing the thread. i can live with it as i do like trains :-).

i do not understand "pie in the sky". probably not taught in English language courses.

i come from a country where the issues about legality simply do not exist. in my opinion it works better - especially regarding protection of providers. my country goes as far as having this stuff reflected in zoning laws, which is good regarding school zones and residential zones more generally.

legal grey zones and illegality nurture exactly what the intent of prohibition was: to block exploitation and human trafficking.

[China Doll]

So because this should be legal, let's all pretend it is and not protect ourselves accordingly. That sounds like a plan to me.

[Laurentius]

Even if it were legal, China Doll, I would expect providers to exercise the same due diligence that any other woman could be expected to exercise prior to meeting a previously unknown man.

Obviously, most men, just like most women, are basically good and decent.

But due diligence is needed to assure safety at a minimum.

So there would still be screening.

At least, I'd hope so.

[China Doll]

I'm glad you care about our safety, Laurentius. I think you're right that most men and women are "good and decent." It's still frustrating to hear from those who only worry about themselves. Thanks for being one of the good ones. I think myself lucky to have met so many of you! xoxoxo!

[Guest091010-2]

Ha, thanks for the reply Laurentius...if it's only $12.00 a session I THINK I can swing that all on my own without passing down the cost to my clients.

[Buonas]

Originally Posted by China Doll

So because this should be legal, let's all pretend it is and not protect ourselves accordingly. That sounds like a plan to me.

maybe you should read first. i have not said anything like pretend.

go back to your tea party to exercise word twisting.

HAVE I EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE DON"T PROTECT YOURSELF?

so ein bloedsinn.

[China Doll]

You don't have to say anything about pretending to make it clear that it is how you think. You have made it pretty clear that providers exercise too much judgment in regards to their own safety. Your words:

1) statements like in one showcase:

If you decide that the GFE that I provide is right for you, then by all means, let me know! Please send the information of at least two well-known providers whom I can contact for references as well as your phone number so that they can properly verify you. The more references of recently seen ladies you provide, the more quickly we can meet!

are frankly chillers and killers. it is NOT of the provider's business to know whom i was with before. Same as it is NOT my business, with whom and how many clients she was before."

Ok, so it is not "permissible" for us to ask for references.

(PS: Thanks for the free advertising!!! )

2) again: why would you want to know:

place of employment/business
real recidency
real name
financial background info

and have such an agency (e.g. p411) call you at your place of employement?

to put it drastically:

vip providers do end up dead precisely because they do keep client lists.

We also can't ask for any identifying information, either. You keep saying, "It should be legalized! Just legalize it! That's the problem here!"

Ha ha, ok, buddy. I'll get right on that.

[Buonas]

Originally Posted by China Doll

You don't have to say anything about pretending to make it clear that it is how you think. You have made it pretty clear that providers exercise too much judgment in regards to their own safety.

I said the exact opposite of your statement:

Originally Posted by Buonas

...where the issues about legality simply do not exist. in my opinion it works better - especially regarding protection of providers. my country goes as far as having this stuff reflected in zoning laws, which is good regarding school zones and residential zones more generally.

Originally Posted by China Doll

Ok, so it is not "permissible" for us to ask for references.

I never said not permissible.

Originally Posted by China Doll

2) again: why would you want to know:

place of employment/business
real recidency
real name
financial background info

and have such an agency (e.g. p411) call you at your place of employement?

We also can't ask for any identifying information, either.

my list was copy/paste from P411.

Originally Posted by China Doll

You keep saying, "It should be legalized! Just legalize it! That's the problem here!"

Ha ha, ok, buddy. I'll get right on that.

so what is your problem with the proposal for legalization? since that is what you mock about?

because it probably won't happen here, thanks to the fucked up lifestyle fascists running public opinion?
because you as others have an interest in keeping it illegal?
because references keep you informed about the competition?
because it is a way to execute power over the client? as you said you got the pussy, not me. which of course leads to a whole wrap sheet of explanations stemming from militant feminism, state feminism and post structural - postmodern feminism. or feminaziism (tm) for short.

argumentationes ad hominem do not work.

Es handelt sich um einen Fall von Stutenbissigkeit.

[China Doll]

I would never say that I have the "p*ssy," because I do not like that word. There are so many directions I could take this in, but it is so painfully obvious that you have no idea how you come across to others that it would be a lost cause. One thing I can tell you is that you need to step back and think about how it is possible for people to draw logical conclusions from what you say without you actually using those words. I believe that this would serve you greatly. Responding to everyone's posts with, "I did not use that word! I did not use that word!" makes it look like you can't actually argue their real points. I mean, let's face it....you missed the entire point of my post!
The point is that you keep talking about how we should legalize this business. I agree with you. However, you bring it up in conjunction with screening procedures. You say that if it were legal, then everything would be ok. Well, it's not legal, and we can't do anything about that. Besides, it still wouldn't solve everything. We'd need to know identifying information in case a guy decided to hurt one of us.
With the way you are talking, you are making it seem as though you think that we should act like this business is legal even though it isn't. You have serious problems with screening procedures, after all. I'm not going to pick apart your post as I have done in my brain already, but please understand that you are making yourself look ridiculous.

[Buonas]

Originally Posted by China Doll

...

google ad hominem argumentation.

the p-word was some else. sorry.

I have never said that I think you should act as if etc.
Read the sh.. I wrote. but maybe it is too complicated. should i switch to Neo-English also known as Simple English.

naww. we'll try Klingon.
How do you say he said she said in Klingon?

making it seem etc. is a problem on your side of the communication channel.
selective perception. preconceived judgments.
problems with screening procedures...not according to pm's i receive on this subject.

you don't even answer questions i asked.
the way you come across makes it seem that you grew up in a place called zurich.

usque ad nauseam in regards to who has the last word.

Kindergarten. Passt doch genau zu China Puppe.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Buonas

Originally Posted by China Doll
You don't have to say anything about pretending to make it clear that it is how you think. You have made it pretty clear that providers exercise too much judgment in regards to their own safety.

I said the exact opposite of your statement:

Where?

Originally Posted by China Doll
Ok, so it is not "permissible" for us to ask for references.


I never said not permissible.

So this doesn't count?

it is NOT of the provider's business to know whom i was with before

It would seem, Buonas, that your only defense with that one is to claim that while the providers have no right to know who you've seen before, nothing prevents them from asking. Or maybe you just don't read what you write - while also saying this:

Read the sh.. I wrote. but maybe it is too complicated. should i switch to Neo-English also known as Simple English.

naww. we'll try Klingon.
How do you say he said she said in Klingon?

No irony there. Funny you should criticize someone for supposedly twisting your words, when the one guilty of twisting your words is you.

so what is your problem with the proposal for legalization? since that is what you mock about?

What's being mocked is the suggestion that legalization would even be part of the discussion in this Taliban-ish controlled country. Which you even concede:

because it probably won't happen here, thanks to the fucked up lifestyle fascists running public opinion?

argumentationes ad hominem do not work.

Then stop employing it as a tactic.

[Buonas]

Where?

it is in the quoted comment.

what line of argument do you have against ad hominem other than ad hominem?

Taliban-ish..... so you admit this place is returning to the dark ages on the expressway.

what is your interest in this silly thread anyway?

[charlestudor2005]

I have read the last couple pages of this thread to try and find out what the two of you are arguing about.

I've decided your disagreements have their genesis in the fact that you come from different countries, and the way the hobby is handled in these two countries differ substantially from one another. As long as the two of you start from such different places, I doubt you will ever agree. Maybe you should agree to disagree and move on.

Just my .02.

[offshoredrilling]

[quote=China Doll;254914]I would never say that I have the "p*ssy," because I do not like that word. There are so many directions I could take this in, but it is so painfully obvious that you have no idea how you come across to others that it would be a lost cause. One thing I can tell you is that you need to step back and think about how it is possible for people to draw logical conclusions from what you say without you actually using those words. I believe that this would serve you greatly. Responding to everyone's posts with, "I did not use that word! I did not use that word!" makes it look like you can't actually argue their real points. I mean, let's face it....you missed the entire point of my post!
The point is that you keep talking about how we should legalize this business. I agree with you. However, you bring it up in conjunction with screening procedures. You say that if it were legal, then everything would be ok. Well, it's not legal, and we can't do anything about that. Besides, it still wouldn't solve everything. We'd need to know identifying information in case a guy decided to hurt one of us.
With the way you are talking, you are making it seem as though you think that we should act like this business is legal even though it isn't. You have serious problems with screening procedures, after all. I'm not going to pick apart your post as I have done in my brain already, but please understand that you are making yourself look ridiculous.[/quote]

Even with screening it is good to know something about each other. Seeing someone new to you is not safe for both sides. And one dos not know how two will react with each other. I have been in a few close calls myself. But the providers I would say met more hobbyist, then hobbyist met providers. Puts the provider more at risk.

I know a provider that met a guy many times with no problem. She is buddies with a provider I know very well. The provider I know well asks the other provider about the guy. And says he is ok. So she mets the guy but at the other provides incall. The provider that knew the guy ended up saving the life of the other.

Both sides need to do what is needed to stay safe.