Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Women are Prostitutes

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:43:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

... mind blown! You just made me think from a whole new perspective. ...
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:44:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

Disagree. When you pay a prostitute, she is contractually obligated to sleep with you (assuming you could enforce such a contract, which you can't in states where prostitution is illegal). But theoretically, she is agreeing to sleep with you in exchange for the money. Paying for your date's dinner is not the same. She has no obligation to sleep with you just because you bought her something.

Also, if your purpose in paying for a date's things is solely sex, you are not going to do very well in that relationship. I doubt someone in a loving marriage views the engagement ring he bought his wife as having been in exchange for sex. It is a symbol of their loving commitment.

I know some women who refuse to let men pay for anything for them on dates. They split everything. Precisely because of the expectation that some men have that they are literally paying for the future prospect of sex.

Maybe you're paying for her time, but this is no different than buying dinner for a potential client. You are buying time for the client to hear your pitch. If the client doesn't like your pitch, she leaves. Likewise, if your date doesn't like your pitch about why you are good boyfriend/dating material, she'll leave. She has no obligation to do anything. So I fail to see how the money is in exchange for the sex. Yes, "you pay" for sex in some way, even if it's only the gas to drive to the date and back to your house. But you pay only in the same sense that doing *anything* in this world costs money, including living (rent, food, clothing, etc).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I kind of agree, not all women are like that, but for the ones who are, it applies. If she gives it to you after dinner or whatever, i would consider her a prostitute. I would disagree that the best sex is the free sex and i think we ought to settle it in a debate.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:08:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:06:36 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I kind of agree, not all women are like that, but for the ones who are, it applies. If she gives it to you after dinner or whatever, i would consider her a prostitute. I would disagree that the best sex is the free sex and i think we ought to settle it in a debate.

How would you define a prostitute, truth?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:08:21 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:06:36 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I kind of agree, not all women are like that, but for the ones who are, it applies. If she gives it to you after dinner or whatever, i would consider her a prostitute. I would disagree that the best sex is the free sex and i think we ought to settle it in a debate.

How would you define a prostitute, truth?

"Women he detests", obvi
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:44:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

Disagree. When you pay a prostitute, she is contractually obligated to sleep with you (assuming you could enforce such a contract, which you can't in states where prostitution is illegal). But theoretically, she is agreeing to sleep with you in exchange for the money. Paying for your date's dinner is not the same. She has no obligation to sleep with you just because you bought her something.

You wouldn't say that it's a social norm for dates to lead to sex, or that it isn't one of the desired outcomes of paying for such things? I think the social norm of it all would have some weight considering that most men usually don't pay for women's dinners and movie tickets just for the sake of it. Do you? I mean, would you honestly waste money on a fruitless pursuit like that? I know we are discussing this publicly so you might have some reservations, but comon man - I'd have thought it general knowledge that men pay for such things to eventually either lock the woman in for marriage or at-least have sex with her.

Also, if your purpose in paying for a date's things is solely sex, you are not going to do very well in that relationship. I doubt someone in a loving marriage views the engagement ring he bought his wife as having been in exchange for sex. It is a symbol of their loving commitment.

This is aside the point. I am not talking about intentions here. I'm talking about the reality that a man is paying for a woman's time and affection. How many broke bums do you see strolling down the street with beautiful women? The ring symbolizes their union and is also a symbol of love, sure I can easily grant that. But it doesn't negate the fact that he is still paying for that ring and the only gift he'll get in return is sex. Rarely are women the one's who afford such pleasantries to men. This is also why I didn't title it "All women are prostitutes". Because sometimes women are the ones paying for a man's affections be it directly money-in-hand or indirectly with dinners, gifts like rings, or even houses.

I know some women who refuse to let men pay for anything for them on dates. They split everything. Precisely because of the expectation that some men have that they are literally paying for the future prospect of sex.

Exactly!! This is, again, why I didn't throw the word "all" in the title. But look at what you said, even women know that sex is what men expect after paying for such things. This really just strengths my point in regards to men indirectly paying for sex.

Maybe you're paying for her time, but this is no different than buying dinner for a potential client. You are buying time for the client to hear your pitch. If the client doesn't like your pitch, she leaves. Likewise, if your date doesn't like your pitch about why you are good boyfriend/dating material, she'll leave. She has no obligation to do anything. So I fail to see how the money is in exchange for the sex. Yes, "you pay" for sex in some way, even if it's only the gas to drive to the date and back to your house. But you pay only in the same sense that doing *anything* in this world costs money, including living (rent, food, clothing, etc).

I see what you're saying, but I think this is where the whole "directly" and "indirectly" terms come into play, with "indirectly" now having to be used in two different ways. One is the former use which is pretty clear already like buying her dinner instead of putting cash in her hand, and the second being that a purchase of her time did lead to sex. If that's the case, your purchases of the meals or time still led to you having sex with her. It is reasonable to say that had you not purchased her time you would not be getting it in.

For instance, I'd say the only cases where it's not about sex is in situations like the one you shared, but even then the possibility that you would want to sleep with your client (should she meet your standards for attraction and is a realistic pursuit) exists. If that desire came to fruition then you indirectly paid for sex, just not in the sense that you bought the meal with the intention of sex, but rather that it was a happy chance that came from you paying for her time.

Regardless of which manner we use "indirectly" in, you still paid for her time which then led to sex.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:26:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:06:36 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I kind of agree, not all women are like that, but for the ones who are, it applies. If she gives it to you after dinner or whatever, i would consider her a prostitute. I would disagree that the best sex is the free sex and i think we ought to settle it in a debate.

LOL, what position would you take?! That actual direct pay-to-play prostitutes are better sexual partners or would give you more pleasure? You're tripping. The best sex is free sex because you aren't paying for false emotions from someone. If a girl is willing to give it to you without at-least a dinner date or something, it's probably because she has strong feelings for you. Stronger feelings = better sex. You can't be a virgin and debate against me in this. It's something you'll just need to experience for yourself in order to see the accuracy of my claim.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:32:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:20:10 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:44:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

Disagree. When you pay a prostitute, she is contractually obligated to sleep with you (assuming you could enforce such a contract, which you can't in states where prostitution is illegal). But theoretically, she is agreeing to sleep with you in exchange for the money. Paying for your date's dinner is not the same. She has no obligation to sleep with you just because you bought her something.

You wouldn't say that it's a social norm for dates to lead to sex, or that it isn't one of the desired outcomes of paying for such things? I think the social norm of it all would have some weight considering that most men usually don't pay for women's dinners and movie tickets just for the sake of it. Do you? I mean, would you honestly waste money on a fruitless pursuit like that? I know we are discussing this publicly so you might have some reservations, but comon man - I'd have thought it general knowledge that men pay for such things to eventually either lock the woman in for marriage or at-least have sex with her.

Well if I'm dating someone, that does mean I want to have sex with her. I wouldn't date someone I'm sexually attracted to. But no, I have no expectation when I pay for specific things that she sleep with me. I know that if we're compatible, it'll happen when it happens. I'd prefer sooner rather than later, but whatever happens happens.


Also, if your purpose in paying for a date's things is solely sex, you are not going to do very well in that relationship. I doubt someone in a loving marriage views the engagement ring he bought his wife as having been in exchange for sex. It is a symbol of their loving commitment.

This is aside the point. I am not talking about intentions here. I'm talking about the reality that a man is paying for a woman's time and affection. How many broke bums do you see strolling down the street with beautiful women? The ring symbolizes their union and is also a symbol of love, sure I can easily grant that. But it doesn't negate the fact that he is still paying for that ring and the only gift he'll get in return is sex. Rarely are women the one's who afford such pleasantries to men. This is also why I didn't title it "All women are prostitutes". Because sometimes women are the ones paying for a man's affections be it directly money-in-hand or indirectly with dinners, gifts like rings, or even houses.

I just strongly disagree with the underlined portion. I think in the relationship you described, the man is getting a lot more than sex. He is getting requited love. A partner to share his struggles and dreams with. And possibly someone to bear and help raise his children. Are those not "gifts"? If they aren't, then sex isn't a "gift" that he receives in return either. It's just a normal part of a healthy relationship.


I know some women who refuse to let men pay for anything for them on dates. They split everything. Precisely because of the expectation that some men have that they are literally paying for the future prospect of sex.

Exactly!! This is, again, why I didn't throw the word "all" in the title. But look at what you said, even women know that sex is what men expect after paying for such things. This really just strengths my point in regards to men indirectly paying for sex.

What I meant was that some men *think* they are paying for sex [a subjective viewpoint]. Your topic seems to be saying that from an objective viewpoint, buying dinner for your date is paying for sex.

I was saying the subjective viewpoint is wrong, and it makes some women so uncomfortable to know that some men think that buying dinner is a transaction in exchange for sex that these women choose *not* to let their dates pay for anything to avoid the discomfort of his expectations.


Maybe you're paying for her time, but this is no different than buying dinner for a potential client. You are buying time for the client to hear your pitch. If the client doesn't like your pitch, she leaves. Likewise, if your date doesn't like your pitch about why you are good boyfriend/dating material, she'll leave. She has no obligation to do anything. So I fail to see how the money is in exchange for the sex. Yes, "you pay" for sex in some way, even if it's only the gas to drive to the date and back to your house. But you pay only in the same sense that doing *anything* in this world costs money, including living (rent, food, clothing, etc).

I see what you're saying, but I think this is where the whole "directly" and "indirectly" terms come into play, with "indirectly" now having to be used in two different ways. One is the former use which is pretty clear already like buying her dinner instead of putting cash in her hand, and the second being that a purchase of her time did lead to sex. If that's the case, your purchases of the meals or time still led to you having sex with her. It is reasonable to say that had you not purchased her time you would not be getting it in.

For instance, I'd say the only cases where it's not about sex is in situations like the one you shared, but even then the possibility that you would want to sleep with your client (should she meet your standards for attraction and is a realistic pursuit) exists. If that desire came to fruition then you indirectly paid for sex, just not in the sense that you bought the meal with the intention of sex, but rather that it was a happy chance that came from you paying for her time.

Regardless of which manner we use "indirectly" in, you still paid for her time which then led to sex.

I mean, yeah I agree that under your second use of "indirectly," you did indirectly pay for sex. But the definition you're using is so indirect as to be meaningless. The only way in which "women are prostitutes" is if men pay indirectly with the *intention* of getting sex and if women accept this tacit transaction. I was arguing that it's improper fro men to expect sex from this transaction and that nearly all women do not accept this as a tacit transaction.

I mean, you claim when you just call up your ex, it's "free" sex, but under your second (broad) definition of indirect, you're indirectly paying for sex because you pay your phone bill. Even if you split the tab, you're paying for sex because you would not have otherwise eaten at that restaurant. It doesn't matter that you need food to survive.

When you pay for a client's time, that doesn't make your client a prostitute. It's that simple. It proves that your client has something that you want and you are paying for the opportunity to *pitch* the client to try to get what you want (their business). It's the same with dating. You're paying for the *opportunity* to pitch the woman on sleeping with you, assuming that's your intention. That doesn't make her a prostitute. If anything, she's like the "client" in the aforementioned example and the male is the prostitute trying to pitch her on his sexual services.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 5:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
((O_o))
.
.
.
wtf
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:03:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 5:32:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:20:10 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Well if I'm dating someone, that does mean I want to have sex with her. I wouldn't date someone I'm sexually attracted to. But no, I have no expectation when I pay for specific things that she sleep with me. I know that if we're compatible, it'll happen when it happens. I'd prefer sooner rather than later, but whatever happens happens.

I get what you are saying. Of course any man who is dating someone aims for the bed eventually - unless they realize they aren't compatible which is also an equally likely outcome whenever dating a new person. Did you say you wouldn't date someone you're sexually attracted to? Or was that a error? Because those are the only kind of girls I date - the ones I'm sexually attracted to. I'd say the whole point of the date is to determine if you are emotionally/intellectually compatible as well as sexually attracted which I would say is the driving force for me to ask someone out anyways (unless she's a classmate and I ask her out because her comments in class impress me, but still there would need to be a sexual attraction for me to put in the effort to ask).

This is aside the point. I am not talking about intentions here. I'm talking about the reality that a man is paying for a woman's time and affection. How many broke bums do you see strolling down the street with beautiful women? The ring symbolizes their union and is also a symbol of love, sure I can easily grant that. But it doesn't negate the fact that he is still paying for that ring and the only gift he'll get in return is sex. Rarely are women the one's who afford such pleasantries to men. This is also why I didn't title it "All women are prostitutes". Because sometimes women are the ones paying for a man's affections be it directly money-in-hand or indirectly with dinners, gifts like rings, or even houses.

I just strongly disagree with the underlined portion. I think in the relationship you described, the man is getting a lot more than sex. He is getting requited love. A partner to share his struggles and dreams with. And possibly someone to bear and help raise his children. Are those not "gifts"? If they aren't, then sex isn't a "gift" that he receives in return either. It's just a normal part of a healthy relationship.

Okay, I see what you are saying. I suppose I should amend my previous statement from he's only getting sex to something more like: he's also paying for her love and everything that comes with it (kids, dreams, emotional support)

I know some women who refuse to let men pay for anything for them on dates. They split everything. Precisely because of the expectation that some men have that they are literally paying for the future prospect of sex.

Exactly!! This is, again, why I didn't throw the word "all" in the title. But look at what you said, even women know that sex is what men expect after paying for such things. This really just strengths my point in regards to men indirectly paying for sex.

What I meant was that some men *think* they are paying for sex [a subjective viewpoint]. Your topic seems to be saying that from an objective viewpoint, buying dinner for your date is paying for sex.

Yeah, your analysis is correct and that was my bad for misunderstanding your point. I am definitely approaching this from an objective viewpoint in the sense of your latter statement vs. the former subjective viewpoint you stated.

I was saying the subjective viewpoint is wrong, and it makes some women so uncomfortable to know that some men think that buying dinner is a transaction in exchange for sex that these women choose *not* to let their dates pay for anything to avoid the discomfort of his expectations.

I appreciate the clarification and totally agree.

I see what you're saying, but I think this is where the whole "directly" and "indirectly" terms come into play, with "indirectly" now having to be used in two different ways. One is the former use which is pretty clear already like buying her dinner instead of putting cash in her hand, and the second being that a purchase of her time did lead to sex. If that's the case, your purchases of the meals or time still led to you having sex with her. It is reasonable to say that had you not purchased her time you would not be getting it in.

For instance, I'd say the only cases where it's not about sex is in situations like the one you shared, but even then the possibility that you would want to sleep with your client (should she meet your standards for attraction and is a realistic pursuit) exists. If that desire came to fruition then you indirectly paid for sex, just not in the sense that you bought the meal with the intention of sex, but rather that it was a happy chance that came from you paying for her time.

Regardless of which manner we use "indirectly" in, you still paid for her time which then led to sex.

I mean, yeah I agree that under your second use of "indirectly," you did indirectly pay for sex. But the definition you're using is so indirect as to be meaningless. The only way in which "women are prostitutes" is if men pay indirectly with the *intention* of getting sex and if women accept this tacit transaction. I was arguing that it's improper fro men to expect sex from this transaction and that nearly all women do not accept this as a tacit transaction.

I'd agree except for that last sentence because it's not like men are saying openly, "I'm paying for dinner and movies, you'll return the favor with sex later tonight." It's more of an unspoken game played whenever dating is involved. He expects that his spending efforts will eventually lead to sex, and as long as he plays it cool, the girls (at-least in my experience) always do end up having sex. Maybe not after the first date, but that's the whole name of the game which is also probably where the 3 date rule came from that people commonly use. (3rd date = he's earned sex). They'd only accept the tacit transaction if it isn't something being openly discussed but rather practiced through social norms of dating. Like one of those "unspoken" rules.

I mean, you claim when you just call up your ex, it's "free" sex, but under your second (broad) definition of indirect, you're indirectly paying for sex because you pay your phone bill. Even if you split the tab, you're paying for sex because you would not have otherwise eaten at that restaurant. It doesn't matter that you need food to survive.

Yeah, I actually thought about that right after posting. Technically I'm paying the electric bills that light the room where my bed is for her. Is there such thing as free sex then under the definitions I've used? Idk... maybe if I walked to the park and met her there and we had sex under a tree, lol. Does the extreme scope of the definitions then make the theory invalid or wrong... Or is it just that, realistically, we are always paying for sex either by direct or indirect means?

When you pay for a client's time, that doesn't make your client a prostitute. It's that simple. It proves that your client has something that you want and you are paying for the opportunity to *pitch* the client to try to get what you want (their business). It's the same with dating. You're paying for the *opportunity* to pitch the woman on sleeping with you, assuming that's your intention. That doesn't make her a prostitute. If anything, she's like the "client" in the aforementioned example and the male is the prostitute trying to pitch her on his sexual services.

That's an interesting perspective. But wouldn't that last sentence fail though since then it's just a reversal of roles, with one party still ultimately paying for the sex either directly or indirectly? I think we are steering too far off course, because I'm talking about dating/cou
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:05:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:03:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

That's an interesting perspective. But wouldn't that last sentence fail though since then it's just a reversal of roles, with one party still ultimately paying for the sex either directly or indirectly? I think we are straying too far off course though because I am speaking really only about dating/courting scenarios, not necessarily business meetings with clients. I feel like it's two different things, although sex could still result from a meeting with a client... but that's beside the point.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:06:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:03:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:32:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:20:10 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Well if I'm dating someone, that does mean I want to have sex with her. I wouldn't date someone I'm sexually attracted to. But no, I have no expectation when I pay for specific things that she sleep with me. I know that if we're compatible, it'll happen when it happens. I'd prefer sooner rather than later, but whatever happens happens.

I get what you are saying. Of course any man who is dating someone aims for the bed eventually - unless they realize they aren't compatible which is also an equally likely outcome whenever dating a new person. Did you say you wouldn't date someone you're sexually attracted to? Or was that a error?

Oops, lol. I wouldn't date a girl I'm *not* sexually attracted to. Double negatives are tricky.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:11:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:06:15 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:03:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:32:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 8/20/2014 5:20:10 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Well if I'm dating someone, that does mean I want to have sex with her. I wouldn't date someone I'm sexually attracted to. But no, I have no expectation when I pay for specific things that she sleep with me. I know that if we're compatible, it'll happen when it happens. I'd prefer sooner rather than later, but whatever happens happens.

I get what you are saying. Of course any man who is dating someone aims for the bed eventually - unless they realize they aren't compatible which is also an equally likely outcome whenever dating a new person. Did you say you wouldn't date someone you're sexually attracted to? Or was that a error?

Oops, lol. I wouldn't date a girl I'm *not* sexually attracted to. Double negatives are tricky.

Lol, it's all good - that's what I thought you meant :)
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:22:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I completely disagree and saddened that this is how you view women.

Since neither my wife nor myself had sex before marriage, I never paid for sex. The ring is a physical sign of a promise to her. If you cannot go without sex before you marry the woman you'll never know if you actually love her or are simply using her (or is she using you?). What will you do if she can no longer have sex with you? Will you dump her? Will you have dalliances on the side?

The problem is that you are turning women into objects whose purpose is to have sex with you. It is a fundamental flaw in thinking that places sex as a purpose instead of an outcome. What you describe is possibly the worst form of sex in that it denies both natural purposes of sex. It denies the procreative nature of sex and it also denies the unitive nature of sex. It is a complete abuse of the act, the other person, and ultimately yourself.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:49:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:22:20 PM, Geogeer wrote:
I completely disagree and saddened that this is how you view women.

Lol, don't be saddened. I'm not viewing all women as literal pay-to-play prostitutes, after all, some wait until after you spend tens of thousands throughout the dating process, diamond ring, and getting her name on your bank account before they actually put out.

Since neither my wife nor myself had sex before marriage, I never paid for sex. The ring is a physical sign of a promise to her. If you cannot go without sex before you marry the woman you'll never know if you actually love her or are simply using her (or is she using you?). What will you do if she can no longer have sex with you? Will you dump her? Will you have dalliances on the side?

What happens if you wait until after marriage and find out her pussyy smells like rotten fish? Or looks like stretched roast beef slices? This is besides the point but I'd have to at-least see what I'm getting before committing for life.

As for the waiting until marriage - my first answer adequately covers that one. You still paid for the wedding ring, house, cars, wedding itself, and everything that comes with it. In your case, you justify it as acts of love, but at the end of the day - you still paid for the goods which in your case would be a woman who is hopefully faithful, loving, and one that is sexually satisfying. I never said paying for those things with the intent or desire of sex was good or proper, but you paid for all those things did you not? We all pay for sex my friend. You just paid alot more than most guys and got yourself a new car instead of a used one.

The problem is that you are turning women into objects whose purpose is to have sex with you. It is a fundamental flaw in thinking that places sex as a purpose instead of an outcome. What you describe is possibly the worst form of sex in that it denies both natural purposes of sex. It denies the procreative nature of sex and it also denies the unitive nature of sex. It is a complete abuse of the act, the other person, and ultimately yourself.

Lol, it's the sad truth Geo. You paid for your wife. Face the facts. You paid with time, money and effort in order to get a return of her time, comfort, and companionship. This is no different than me saying that every date costs someone time. Every hook-up costs someone money, it's just whether they gave them money directly or indirectly by paying for dates, diamond rings, ect.

Also, just for the record, I never said it was a good thing. It's just the realistic view on dating that is actually valid. You paid for your wife. I pay for my girlfriends. What you mean to say is that you paid for your wife because you loved her, not because you wanted to have sex with her. Which is fine, but you still paid for her affections regardless of if it was out of love or a desire for sex.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:51:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

Wow, its stuff like this is why I never take anything from guys because I can never trust they're intentions. In which should explain why I often say no to guys who offer me things or gifts or whatever. Its hard to trust whether its from a genuine intent or because they have a hidden motive. So if I say no, that's why. For the most part, I almost ALWAYS say no, unless I've known a guy for more than a year (such as my friend from college who is a guy I've known for 3yrs and I'd trust him enough to take something of a gift from him and know he means well in the end). If I get a vibe of distrust, I more than likely will not trust a guy do to analysis and brief convos. A girl who takes time to do this can learn more about a guy and he not even realize it which is a win for the girl.

Also another issue I wanted to point out, "women" are prositutes is such a stereotypical thing to state because I'm sorry I'm definitely not a prositute and I am a woman. So this is a bit offensive, but don't get me wrong, I can understand the intent in which your getting at regardless, but maybe rephrasing it to something like "Most" or "Some" women ...etc... Because this statement is not true at all... Not all women would "prostitute" themselves because of deceit given from a guy. But it would fall on both ends... The guy doing the deceiving for personal gain and the girl for being too naive into the trap...

Hope you understand where I'm coming from. With that, I will await your reply. :)
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:52:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:22:20 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I completely disagree and saddened that this is how you view women.

Since neither my wife nor myself had sex before marriage, I never paid for sex. The ring is a physical sign of a promise to her. If you cannot go without sex before you marry the woman you'll never know if you actually love her or are simply using her (or is she using you?). What will you do if she can no longer have sex with you? Will you dump her? Will you have dalliances on the side?

The problem is that you are turning women into objects whose purpose is to have sex with you. It is a fundamental flaw in thinking that places sex as a purpose instead of an outcome. What you describe is possibly the worst form of sex in that it denies both natural purposes of sex. It denies the procreative nature of sex and it also denies the unitive nature of sex. It is a complete abuse of the act, the other person, and ultimately yourself.

And sorry - I forgot to answer one part. If she could no longer have sex with me - she'd be gone. It would be stupid to subject myself to a sexless life if I am still capable only because my partner is unable. You must keep in mind, I don't believe in fairytale love. If she isn't capable of taking care of my needs, then I should take it upon myself to find someone who can, rather than subject myself to someone who can't.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 7:00:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 6:51:55 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Wow, its stuff like this is why I never take anything from guys because I can never trust they're intentions. In which should explain why I often say no to guys who offer me things or gifts or whatever. Its hard to trust whether its from a genuine intent or because they have a hidden motive. So if I say no, that's why. For the most part, I almost ALWAYS say no, unless I've known a guy for more than a year (such as my friend from college who is a guy I've known for 3yrs and I'd trust him enough to take something of a gift from him and know he means well in the end). If I get a vibe of distrust, I more than likely will not trust a guy do to analysis and brief convos. A girl who takes time to do this can learn more about a guy and he not even realize it which is a win for the girl.

Wise observations and comments. I greatly respect the woman who can see through a guy's intentions.

Also another issue I wanted to point out, "women" are prositutes is such a stereotypical thing to state because I'm sorry I'm definitely not a prositute and I am a woman.

In your case, it would depend how you define a woman and the fact that I didn't say *all* women.

So this is a bit offensive, but don't get me wrong, I can understand the intent in which your getting at regardless, but maybe rephrasing it to something like "Most" or "Some" women ...etc...

Great point. I perhaps should have done so. Although, I will again point out as a response to both this and the next statement of yours - that I didn't say *all* women. I was meaning it in a general sense, and it would even apply to you should you ever put out for a man that has paid for anything for you. You've taken his money and returned it with sex. Sure, you've also returned it with love, emotional support, etc., but if you have sex with him, then you have returned his purchases or investments in you with sex and are then ultimately a prostitute. You'd just be his private prostitute which nowadays is called a girlfriend, fiance, or wife.

Because this statement is not true at all... Not all women would "prostitute" themselves because of deceit given from a guy. But it would fall on both ends... The guy doing the deceiving for personal gain and the girl for being too naive into the trap...

Hope you understand where I'm coming from. With that, I will await your reply. :)

Of course I do :)
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
mrsatan
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I partially agree. In some cases, the women could be accurately referred to as a prostitute. However, as to the reason, I'd say it's dependent on the intentions of both people more than anything else. If the man is just looking for sex, and the woman is looking to use sex to get those dinners, gifts, and what-have-yous, then she is simply a prostitute and he is patron.

Instead, say the two meet for a first date, he buys her dinner, and then they have sex, but they have matching intentions from the start. She likes sex as much as the next guy (who happens to be him). Hell, she'd be content skipping dinner entirely, but whatever, a girls gotta eat, right? In this case, she's not a prostitute, the two of them are just a couple of sluts. Yes/No?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:34:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 7:00:30 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:51:55 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Wow, its stuff like this is why I never take anything from guys because I can never trust they're intentions. In which should explain why I often say no to guys who offer me things or gifts or whatever. Its hard to trust whether its from a genuine intent or because they have a hidden motive. So if I say no, that's why. For the most part, I almost ALWAYS say no, unless I've known a guy for more than a year (such as my friend from college who is a guy I've known for 3yrs and I'd trust him enough to take something of a gift from him and know he means well in the end). If I get a vibe of distrust, I more than likely will not trust a guy do to analysis and brief convos. A girl who takes time to do this can learn more about a guy and he not even realize it which is a win for the girl.

Wise observations and comments. I greatly respect the woman who can see through a guy's intentions.
Have to or id be manipulated.

Also another issue I wanted to point out, "women" are prositutes is such a stereotypical thing to state because I'm sorry I'm definitely not a prositute and I am a woman.

In your case, it would depend how you define a woman and the fact that I didn't say *all* women.
Lol, really Addison? You said women though? Women is plural not singular in the English. So you technically were speaking of *all* women even if you said it or not. It would apply to all even if you didn't intend for it to be for all.

So this is a bit offensive, but don't get me wrong, I can understand the intent in which your getting at regardless, but maybe rephrasing it to something like "Most" or "Some" women ...etc...

Great point. I perhaps should have done so. Although, I will again point out as a response to both this and the next statement of yours - that I didn't say *all* women. I was meaning it in a general sense, and it would even apply to you should you ever put out for a man that has paid for anything for you. You've taken his money and returned it with sex. Sure, you've also returned it with love, emotional support, etc., but if you have sex with him, then you have returned his purchases or investments in you with sex and are then ultimately a prostitute. You'd just be his private prostitute which nowadays is called a girlfriend, fiance, or wife.
Umm, I don't even know how to take this exactly? If I ever decided that I wanted to date again or was married and if my bf and/or husband were to buy me things jus for sex would justifiably be wrong and selfish. That's not an obligation she would have to do because I mean women who are in relationship go out of they're way to do something nice or they're "man" too like buy stuff or cool or clean or support a position they do at work or something but if a man buys something for a woman she's obligated to give him sex? If I ever even think my husband or bf did that or thought this way is just a dog and deserves no respect. Not in the sense of trashing him but would be justifiable for me not to owe him anything. If a man just treats a woman like that then he doesn't really know what love is or know the meaning of a true relationship. Yes, in marriage sex is good but to just base marriage only on tht is no marriage at all. If a man referred to his wife as a "private prostitute" than he is not a real husband IMHO. He doesn't deserve a woman at all if that all he cares about. Even in a bf/gf relationship it's wrong. I mean true love comes from the heart of intentions not personal gain. I really have no respect for men who are manipulative this way whatsoever either. Women are humans and should be treated like one, not treated like an object or a piece of meat or trash that's take and used up and then tossed when satisfied. I do bear in mind that it's possible for some women they don't care and prefer this, but women who do this sorry for being blunt but they have no respect for themselves and guys will take advantage of that. Intimacy is not sex it's more than that. So with that said, guys shouldn't expect anything when they're wasting they're money only for sex in return and women shouldn't give sex just because.
She feels obligated.

Because this statement is not true at all... Not all women would "prostitute" themselves because of deceit given from a guy. But it would fall on both ends... The guy doing the deceiving for personal gain and the girl for being too naive into the trap...

Hope you understand where I'm coming from. With that, I will await your reply. :)

Of course I do :)

I'm being blunt ha. If you didn't notice.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 8:51:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

1. Heteronormative. Not all women are in relationships with men or want to be.

2. Not all women want a man to pay for their stuff.

3. There are very important differences between paying for dates and paying for sex. There is a stereotype that I think is unfair that men only date on the pretense of caring about the other person, when in fact he only wants sex. Date are of course not the same as sex.

4. Paying for meals comes from the long tradition of women not being allowed to work. It is a patronizing tradition--one that is a bad example of how hard it is to be a man.

5. What is your problem with prostitutes?

6. "...nothing more than a whore..." Sure, obviously she can't also be a person. Even "whores" are not "nothing more than a whore."

7. If you don't want to pay for these things, you do not have to. Same for her.

8. Considering that the relationships you describe seem to be only about sex and saving money, I'd say that we should see that caring about money and sex is not something limited to "whores," and definitely not women.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:00:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:16:09 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I partially agree. In some cases, the women could be accurately referred to as a prostitute. However, as to the reason, I'd say it's dependent on the intentions of both people more than anything else. If the man is just looking for sex, and the woman is looking to use sex to get those dinners, gifts, and what-have-yous, then she is simply a prostitute and he is patron.

Instead, say the two meet for a first date, he buys her dinner, and then they have sex, but they have matching intentions from the start. She likes sex as much as the next guy (who happens to be him). Hell, she'd be content skipping dinner entirely, but whatever, a girls gotta eat, right? In this case, she's not a prostitute, the two of them are just a couple of sluts. Yes/No?

Did he pay for her meal? Or pay for any of the activities of the evening while she didn't? If so, then yes, she's a prostitute that he paid for indirectly. Keep in mind, she's still a women, your love, whatever title you want to give her, but she's also your prostitute for the night (or for the rest of your life if you lock her down) if she returns your dinner and movie tickets with sex. You're just not giving her money directly for the sex.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:34:05 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 8/20/2014 7:00:30 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 6:51:55 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Wow, its stuff like this is why I never take anything from guys because I can never trust they're intentions. In which should explain why I often say no to guys who offer me things or gifts or whatever. Its hard to trust whether its from a genuine intent or because they have a hidden motive. So if I say no, that's why. For the most part, I almost ALWAYS say no, unless I've known a guy for more than a year (such as my friend from college who is a guy I've known for 3yrs and I'd trust him enough to take something of a gift from him and know he means well in the end). If I get a vibe of distrust, I more than likely will not trust a guy do to analysis and brief convos. A girl who takes time to do this can learn more about a guy and he not even realize it which is a win for the girl.

Wise observations and comments. I greatly respect the woman who can see through a guy's intentions.
Have to or id be manipulated.

Also another issue I wanted to point out, "women" are prositutes is such a stereotypical thing to state because I'm sorry I'm definitely not a prositute and I am a woman.

In your case, it would depend how you define a woman and the fact that I didn't say *all* women.
Lol, really Addison? You said women though? Women is plural not singular in the English. So you technically were speaking of *all* women even if you said it or not. It would apply to all even if you didn't intend for it to be for all.

Lol no Marie. If I had said, "All women are prostitutes", then it'd mean all women. I said women plurally because it's more sensible than saying, "Woman are Prostitutes".

If I said, "Dogs are fun" am I saying that all dogs are fun? No, I'm not. But I'm still using dog in the plural form - dogs. There is a difference between making an absolute claim and using a term in the plural form to encompass the sentiment that it is more than just one woman.

So this is a bit offensive, but don't get me wrong, I can understand the intent in which your getting at regardless, but maybe rephrasing it to something like "Most" or "Some" women ...etc...

Great point. I perhaps should have done so. Although, I will again point out as a response to both this and the next statement of yours - that I didn't say *all* women. I was meaning it in a general sense, and it would even apply to you should you ever put out for a man that has paid for anything for you. You've taken his money and returned it with sex. Sure, you've also returned it with love, emotional support, etc., but if you have sex with him, then you have returned his purchases or investments in you with sex and are then ultimately a prostitute. You'd just be his private prostitute which nowadays is called a girlfriend, fiance, or wife.

Umm, I don't even know how to take this exactly? If I ever decided that I wanted to date again or was married and if my bf and/or husband were to buy me things jus for sex would justifiably be wrong and selfish. That's not an obligation she would have to do because I mean women who are in relationship go out of they're way to do something nice or they're "man" too like buy stuff or cool or clean or support a position they do at work or something but if a man buys something for a woman she's obligated to give him sex?

-_- You are missing the entire point. If you paid her and she was obligated to give you sex, then she would be a strait-up prostitute. When people date, they are usually sexually attracted to each other. When a guy is dating a girl, obviously the end game is to have sex (or "make love") either after the date or later on after marriage. So, by paying for meals, movies, diamond rings, etc., you are indirectly paying for sex with that person.

If I ever even think my husband or bf did that or thought this way is just a dog and deserves no respect. Not in the sense of trashing him but would be justifiable for me not to owe him anything. If a man just treats a woman like that then he doesn't really know what love is or know the meaning of a true relationship. Yes, in marriage sex is good but to just base marriage only on tht is no marriage at all. If a man referred to his wife as a "private prostitute" than he is not a real husband IMHO. He doesn't deserve a woman at all if that all he cares about. Even in a bf/gf relationship it's wrong. I mean true love comes from the heart of intentions not personal gain. I really have no respect for men who are manipulative this way whatsoever either. Women are humans and should be treated like one, not treated like an object or a piece of meat or trash that's take and used up and then tossed when satisfied.

Lol, idk why everyone has such a hard time accepting the reality of this statement. It's clear as crystal and yet people continue to say noooo, I paid for dinners because I love her, blah blah blah. I have no desire to debate against emotional appeals. Let's practice some rational thought here. Maybe re-read my initial post because not once did I say men "view" women as prostitutes to pay for indirectly. I am saying that the act of paying for dinners and such, that eventually leads to sex, is essentially a man paying for sex. Get it? If not, then I'm sorry. But saying how horrible those men are and how you would never date them or whatever is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

For the record, only an idiot would actually say, "hey I'm buying you dinner, now have sex with me - it's your obligation." That's stupid. It's simply the fact that a man who pays for dinners, movies, diamond rings, etc., is essentially paying to have sex with that girl - be it before or after marriage - doesn't matter. Hopefully you can see what I'm saying.

I do bear in mind that it's possible for some women they don't care and prefer this, but women who do this sorry for being blunt but they have no respect for themselves and guys will take advantage of that. Intimacy is not sex it's more than that. So with that said, guys shouldn't expect anything when they're wasting they're money only for sex in return and women shouldn't give sex just because.
She feels obligated.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are ranting about what is a proper relationship, lol. Guys who date girls are always expecting something, be it sex, to marry her, to defeat loneliness, or whatever - regardless of the reason - the man is still paying for the woman's time, affections, and hopefully sex, thereby rendering her as a prostitute. Since a prostitute also exchanges such things for money, although in a more direct manner.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:46:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I disagree.

Women are considered whores if they give it away for free without having the guy work for it via dinners, movies, etc. They're considered whores if they have sex when the guy worked for it.

Double-edged sword.

The whole thing is bullsh1t. Whateva, whateva, I do what I want.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:46:30 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I disagree.

Women are considered sluts if they give it away for free without having the guy work for it via dinners, movies, etc. They're considered whores if they have sex when the guy worked for it.

Double-edged sword.

The whole thing is bullsh1t. Whateva, whateva, I do what I want.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

My bad. They're considered sluts if they have sex without receiving gifts or making the guy work for it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:55:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 8:51:22 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

1. Heteronormative. Not all women are in relationships with men or want to be.

The payment plans can go both ways, simply reverse the roles and there ya go. Or throw another man into the mix instead of a woman. Does nothing to affect the premise.

2. Not all women want a man to pay for their stuff.

Can you prove that there has been a meaningful/successful relationship where neither person involved spent money at one point or another on the other person? I think not, but please, go for it.

3. There are very important differences between paying for dates and paying for sex. There is a stereotype that I think is unfair that men only date on the pretense of caring about the other person, when in fact he only wants sex. Date are of course not the same as sex.

What are the differences, the expectations? You need to expand on this. I never said men only date for sex, lol. There is also a difference between paying for sex directly or indirectly. The basic premise is stating that women are prostitutes because they are paid for sex indirectly through dinners, movies, diamond rings, shared bank accounts, etc. If a woman bought a man dinners, movie tickets, diamond stuff or whatever, then had sex with him, you can just as easily say the man was the prostitute who was paid for sex indirectly.

4. Paying for meals comes from the long tradition of women not being allowed to work. It is a patronizing tradition--one that is a bad example of how hard it is to be a man.

This is but one, tiny example of how women can be paid for sex indirectly. What does attacking this do with the actual premise?

5. What is your problem with prostitutes?

What makes you think I have a problem with prostitutes? I am doing nothing more than pointing out that women are prostitutes who are paid for sex either directly or indirectly.

6. "...nothing more than a whore..." Sure, obviously she can't also be a person. Even "whores" are not "nothing more than a whore."

Well, when I use the term "whore" I automatically assumed that being a person was a condition of that. I can't just call empty space a "whore" and expect it to be sensible.

Whore: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money. [1]
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Now, let's look at husbands and wives. Say a man is the breadwinner of the family while the woman is the homemaker. She stays at home cooking, cleaning, raising the kids, all that fun 1950's American stuff. Sunday comes around, the family hits the outlet mall and she spots a pair of shoes she wants. Husband buys em for her because she is just the best homemaker in the world mkay? How can she repay him? With love, affection, faithfulness, companionship, sex, ect., since they are married it's safe to say that sex will be one of the many pleasures she provides her husband. The husband puts it in and bam the wife just returned his gift with sex. Whore. The only difference is that it was paid for indirectly through the shoes, or one might say even by the fact that he pays for the roof over her head. It's really not that hard to grasp. If the woman is the breadwinner, then the roles are merely reversed. My whole point was about the indirect nature and how it can still apply.

7. If you don't want to pay for these things, you do not have to. Same for her.

Yes, watch how long that relationship lasts when neither desire to pay for things. Lol, that gave me a laugh.

8. Considering that the relationships you describe seem to be only about sex and saving money, I'd say that we should see that caring about money and sex is not something limited to "whores," and definitely not women.

Saving money? No. Sex? Yes. I would actually say that paying indirectly would be more expensive than simply paying directly if one is merely seeking sex. You've done nothing but give cause for me to expand the premise to be more accurate. For that, you have my thanks.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:46:30 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I disagree.

Women are considered whores if they give it away for free without having the guy work for it via dinners, movies, etc. They're considered whores if they have sex when the guy worked for it.

Double-edged sword.

The whole thing is bullsh1t. Whateva, whateva, I do what I want.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

I love you. <3
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:59:05 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/20/2014 9:46:30 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 8/20/2014 4:23:23 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
If you aren't paying for the sex directly, you're paying for it indirectly with dinners, movies, and don't forget that expensive diamond ring eventually.

The best sex, is free sex.
Ex- You call her up, she drives over to your place, get it in, then she leaves to carry on with her life. No cost to you in any regard be it money, food, gifts, etc.

Other than that, she's nothing more than your whore for however long you continue to pay for her time.

Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, why?

I disagree.

Women are considered whores if they give it away for free without having the guy work for it via dinners, movies, etc. They're considered whores if they have sex when the guy worked for it.

Double-edged sword.

The whole thing is bullsh1t. Whateva, whateva, I do what I want.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

I love you. <3

lol

Whateva
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.