cmotherofpirl Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1762810' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:13 PM']The difference is that one is a purely factual description, the other is a vulgar term used for centuries as a degrading insult. "Loose woman" and "silly sally" mean the same thing but there is an obvious difference. Edit: As evidenced by the fact that the latter word was censored... -Katie[/quote] I go by actual definitions of words, not emotional reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionseeker Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1762340' date='Jan 26 2009, 01:29 PM']+J.M.J.+ i've seen some tv specials (i think it was MSNBC?) on the sex slave trade in America. i was practically crying by the time this (only an hour long) show was over [/quote] I'm singing at a fund raiser for the ... forget the name... slave trade commision in Immokalee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1762832' date='Jan 26 2009, 07:31 PM']I go by actual definitions of words, not emotional reaction.[/quote] And how do you define all the men who are bidding on her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1762836' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:35 PM']And how do you define all the men who are bidding on her?[/quote] A john or a trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1762839' date='Jan 26 2009, 07:37 PM']A john or a trick.[/quote] Which mean "a prostitute's customer." Hardly as degrading as "whore" yet they are equally culpable for degrading dignity and the marital act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1762843' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:42 PM']Which mean "a prostitute's customer." Hardly as degrading as "whore" yet they are equally culpable for degrading dignity and the marital act.[/quote] Prostitute and whore have been interchangable terms for about 700 years. If you are offended by the dictionary or calling things what they are, I can't help it. She fulfills the meaning of the term by her action, particularly since she is publicly selling herself to the highest bidder. Contrast her to this woman: [url="http://www.sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/"]http://www.sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1762872' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:02 PM']Prostitute and whore have been interchangable terms for about 700 years. If you are offended by the dictionary or calling things what they are, I can't help it. She fulfills the meaning of the term by her action, particularly since she is publicly selling herself to the highest bidder. Contrast her to this woman: [url="http://www.sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/"]http://www.sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/[/url][/quote] But why does she get belittled more than the man? (I am not saying you are doing this, I mean in general.) Why the double standard? Why is their no degrading term for the man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1762880' date='Jan 26 2009, 09:03 PM']But why does she get belittled more than the man? (I am not saying you are doing this, I mean in general.) Why the double standard? Why is their no degrading term for the man?[/quote] whatever. I don't see the double standard, since the term john also refers to a toilet, and has been used as long as the female version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1762898' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:11 PM']whatever. I don't see the double standard, since the term john also refers to a toilet, and has been used as long as the female version.[/quote] There is a [u]blatant[/u] sexual double standard - which goes beyond defining terms. The following is not in direct relation to prostitution but it clearly outlines this double standard - which easily applies to prostitutes. [b] Social learning theory has also been used to explain the double standard. According to social learning theory, women are punished for behaving in sexually permissive ways by being stigmatized or isolated, whereas men are rewarded by achieving popularity or admiration for the identical behaviors (Oliver & Shibley Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, Regan, McKinney, Maxwell, & Wazienski, 1997). Under the rubric of social learning theory, sexual script theory has emerged to explain patterns of sexual behavior. In following traditional scripts, men are socialized to desire and engage in frequent casual sexual activity with multiple partners, whereas women are encouraged to limit their sexual experiences to encounters within committed, monogamous relationships (Sprecher et al., 1997). [/b] Source: [url="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_36/ai_58459537/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1"]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m237...ag=artBody;col1[/url] Another example (New Zealand): [b] a) Section 26 of the Summary Offences Act 1991 (soliciting) It is an offence for a sex worker to offer sex for money in a public place, but it is not an offence to pay or to offer to pay for sex. This means that a sex worker can be convicted of soliciting, but the client has committed no offence. Case law has interpreted locked massage rooms to be ‘public places’ where sex workers ‘solicit’ their clients. [/b] Later followed by: [b] It Promotes a Double Standard A double standard of morality operates which allows a sex worker to be arrested for soliciting a man for the purposes of prostitution, but protects him from the law should he be the one to approach her. [/b] Source: [url="http://www.timbarnett.org.nz/?page_id=505"]http://www.timbarnett.org.nz/?page_id=505[/url] As well as: [b] The larger society provides the pimps with a very powerful weapon. It makes prostitution an identity, not an occupation. Once you have taken money for sex, you are a prostitute. Society does not allow an expiration date on that identity, nor a way to be publicly accepted as something else. Society offers help to people in trouble largely based on the value set on that person. It is much easier to get help for a married, middle class, domestic violence victim, than for a refugee from the sex industry trying to escape from a pimp. Many people prefer to view prostitution as a "lifestyle choice," or even an "addiction" to a lifestyle. They think most people in the sex industry are there to support their drug habits, when actually the drugs are used to cope with what is happening to their lives. Society assumes that nothing can be done to help them, so there is no need to try. The pimps count on it. [/b] Source: [url="http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/how_prostitution_works/000012.html"]http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/how_pr...rks/000012.html[/url] Don't forget (Council of Europe): [b] 8. The prohibitionist and abolitionist approaches furthermore have the disadvantage of enshrining a certain double standard. In many countries applying these approaches, for example, having paid sex itself is not prohibited, but offering paid sex is. The height of hypocrisy is that even where prostitutes are sanctioned, clients often are not. [/b] Source: [url="http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1579.htm"]http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Doc...07/ERES1579.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweens8403 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1762836' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:35 PM']And how do you define all the men who are bidding on her?[/quote] I'd call them charlatans. They aren't real men, they don't act like a real man does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Yes, nothing's more liberating and elevating for womanhood than being a whore! Gotta love modern feminism. Edited January 27, 2009 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1762482' date='Jan 26 2009, 03:48 PM']For those of you who call this poor girl a "whore."[/quote] Why is she a "poor girl"? That seems a bit condescending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' post='1761569' date='Jan 25 2009, 06:16 PM']I still maintain that in destroying one of the main purposes of the transcendent-to bring meaning to the human condition, especially by giving a purpose to suffering- through science and the way we think of truth being the solely determined by science is the reason for the decline of the conviction of people's ideas concerning the transcendent. By ignoring a certain part of life, there is no need to worry about the end and purpose of it and thus no need to think about the transcendent and one can do as Bacon does and just ignore it. Whether the intellectuals' hearts were more swayed by the "corrosive effect of darwinism" it seems more likely that for the common man, it was science and the removal of pain that has "killed God," as Nietzsche puts it, within the hearts of men.[/quote] Sure, perhaps with the rise of naturalism and scientific methodology individuals have lost a sense of the redemptive nature of suffering. I think you are incorrect in isolating this one factor, one must also ask why the sense of the transcendent has evaporated. I would suggest one reason is because with the rise of science we have ceased to view these afflictions as the will of a divine agent. The Bubonic plague is not longer the vengeance on an angry God on a sinful Europe, or rather an unfathomable event rooted in the depths of providence's mysterious sill. Modern science has shown it to be nothing more than a bacterial affliction transmitted by fleas (I believe that is correct). The sense of transcendent through the mystery of suffering seems to be to have evaporated along with the mysterious nature of the suffering. [quote]And mine is that the loss of the transcendent in the heart, whether acknowledged or not, is the root cause that allows one to place the material as the sole arbiter of value and allows for the rejection of universals as well as the selling of the body as a form of liberation.[/quote] So the "shrinking of the heavens" was just some correlative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1763010' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:29 PM']Why is she a "poor girl"? That seems a bit condescending.[/quote] And inaccurate, since the bidding was up to 3.8 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1763020' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:41 PM']And inaccurate, since the bidding was up to 3.8 million.[/quote] lol. I'll say it again. I doubt that's real. She's just not that attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now