Porn Star reads to Elementary School Kids

[squishyg]

Aspiring to be a porn star is similar to aspiring to be a heroin user. It's dangerous, enticing, thrilling, and ultimately bad for your health.

Very few women begin doing porn out of a life-long desire to shown their taint on camera.

[natty dread]

Aspiring to be a porn star is similar to aspiring to be a heroin user. It's dangerous, enticing, thrilling, and ultimately bad for your health.

Very few women begin doing porn out of a life-long desire to shown their taint on camera.

Not necessarily. You can star in ethically produced porn.

[Aradhus]

Do you not believe that parents should have a say regarding who visits and teaches in their children's school (regardless of how you view their moral opposition)?

40% of the parents don't want a former porn star reading to their kids, and of course the school should kowtow to all parental demands. We shouldn't just discriminate based on current occupation. 25% of parents think bankers are immoral greedy assholes, and parents are worried if they find out how much money bankers make the kids might want to be bankers too. 20% of parents think black people are violent and criminal, and if they interact with their children, the kids might pick up criminal violent ideas. 15% think muslims are terrorists and Islam is evil, so no muslims allowed to read to the children. And as we are discriminating on past occupation, so too must we discriminate based on past religious affiliation, so no former muslims either. 80% think politicians are corrupting selfish assholes.(the other 20% were undecided)


If parent Ab is unhappy with a particular visitor interacting with their kid in school, they can have their kid opt out of that session. Or move him to another school. Do I think the school should operate based on the specific criteria proposed by each individual parent? No.

[jimboston]

Alright. Es once paid me to have sex with her because saxi's dick is too small.

Does that make me a prostitute?

Yes... If it was a cash payment.

If the 'payment' was a trade or favor... like a dinner or washing your car... then no.

Ok maybe you were just joking around, but I have to ask just in case... what's the difference?

A payment is a payment... if you have sex with someone in exchange of any kind of payment, you're a prostitute by definition... Or let's just say, you're engaging in prostitution, at the very least.

Then by that definition, every sexual relationship ever is really just a business exchange similar to that of a prostitute and a john.

[natty dread]

Yes... If it was a cash payment.

If the 'payment' was a trade or favor... like a dinner or washing your car... then no.

Ok maybe you were just joking around, but I have to ask just in case... what's the difference?

A payment is a payment... if you have sex with someone in exchange of any kind of payment, you're a prostitute by definition... Or let's just say, you're engaging in prostitution, at the very least.

Then by that definition, every sexual relationship ever is really just a business exchange similar to that of a prostitute and a john.

Really? Do you always give some kind of payment for sex?

Is it impossible to just have sex because both parties want to have sex with each other?

If so, I feel really sorry for your sex life.

[BigBallinStalin]

Alright. Es once paid me to have sex with her because saxi's dick is too small.

Does that make me a prostitute?

Yes... If it was a cash payment.

If the 'payment' was a trade or favor... like a dinner or washing your car... then no.

Ok maybe you were just joking around, but I have to ask just in case... what's the difference?

A payment is a payment... if you have sex with someone in exchange of any kind of payment, you're a prostitute by definition... Or let's just say, you're engaging in prostitution, at the very least.

Then by that definition, every sexual relationship ever is really just a business exchange similar to that of a prostitute and a john.

There are certainly exchanges occurring, but it doesn't mean that the women is a prostitute--in the strictest sense.

[natty dread]

There are certainly exchanges occurring, but it doesn't mean that the women is a prostitute--in the strictest sense.

No, but if you're exchanging sex for some kind of payment, you're engaging in prostitution. That's pretty much the definition of the word "prostitution" - exchanging sex for payment.

[jimboston]

Yes... If it was a cash payment.

If the 'payment' was a trade or favor... like a dinner or washing your car... then no.

Ok maybe you were just joking around, but I have to ask just in case... what's the difference?

A payment is a payment... if you have sex with someone in exchange of any kind of payment, you're a prostitute by definition... Or let's just say, you're engaging in prostitution, at the very least.

Then by that definition, every sexual relationship ever is really just a business exchange similar to that of a prostitute and a john.

Really? Do you always give some kind of payment for sex?

Is it impossible to just have sex because both parties want to have sex with each other?

If so, I feel really sorry for your sex life.

Not what I would call a payment... But I certainly do favors for many of my partners. Maybe not past one-nighter gals... but certainly any girl I have been in a relationship with I did favors for... Would these not be considered payment under AOG's statements.

[natty dread]

Yes... If it was a cash payment.

If the 'payment' was a trade or favor... like a dinner or washing your car... then no.

Ok maybe you were just joking around, but I have to ask just in case... what's the difference?

A payment is a payment... if you have sex with someone in exchange of any kind of payment, you're a prostitute by definition... Or let's just say, you're engaging in prostitution, at the very least.

Then by that definition, every sexual relationship ever is really just a business exchange similar to that of a prostitute and a john.

Really? Do you always give some kind of payment for sex?

Is it impossible to just have sex because both parties want to have sex with each other?

If so, I feel really sorry for your sex life.

Not what I would call a payment... But I certainly do favors for many of my partners. Maybe not past one-nighter gals... but certainly any girl I have been in a relationship with I did favors for... Would these not be considered payment under AOG's statements.

Well, if you did those favors in exchange for sex, then it was prostitution, ie. you were paying for sex.

To clarify: if you enter a relationship with your only motive being to receive sex from your partner, and consider having to do favors to them a price you need to pay to receive that sex, then yes, that is prostitution.

If, on the other hand, you enter a relationship where both parties have sex because they want to have sex with each other, and both parties do favors to each other because they care about each other, then that would be a perfectly healthy sexual relationship.

[BigBallinStalin]

There are certainly exchanges occurring, but it doesn't mean that the women is a prostitute--in the strictest sense.

No, but if you're exchanging sex for some kind of payment, you're engaging in prostitution. That's pretty much the definition of the word "prostitution" - exchanging sex for payment.

Context matters though. It's about directness.

"I pay you $X for a blowjob." ... [Receive blowjob].

Whereas, flirting and other signaling involves an exchange with others to express one's interest in the other person. Customs involving dating, getting coffee, etc., are an exchange--I give you X, if you come hang out with me. Eventually, this can lead to good 'ol fucking, and you could say that is "prostitution," but you're still removing the word from its original context.

Yes, logically, the same exchange is occurring, but the contexts are different, which then changes the meaning of the word.


PS: I think you were agreeing with me, but I'm wondering if you agree with the above as well...

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, if you did those favors in exchange for sex, then it was prostitution, ie. you were paying for sex.

To clarify: if you enter a relationship with your only motive being to receive sex from your partner, and consider having to do favors to them a price you need to pay to receive that sex, then yes, that is prostitution.

If, on the other hand, you enter a relationship where both parties have sex because they want to have sex with each other, and both parties do favors to each other because they care about each other, then that would be a perfectly healthy sexual relationship.

So if you love the prostitute and want to have sex with her, then it isn't prostitution? Having sex isn't the only motive...

[jimboston]

Then by that definition, every sexual relationship ever is really just a business exchange similar to that of a prostitute and a john.

Really? Do you always give some kind of payment for sex?

Is it impossible to just have sex because both parties want to have sex with each other?

If so, I feel really sorry for your sex life.

Not what I would call a payment... But I certainly do favors for many of my partners. Maybe not past one-nighter gals... but certainly any girl I have been in a relationship with I did favors for... Would these not be considered payment under AOG's statements.

Well, if you did those favors in exchange for sex, then it was prostitution, ie. you were paying for sex.

To clarify: if you enter a relationship with your only motive being to receive sex from your partner, and consider having to do favors to them a price you need to pay to receive that sex, then yes, that is prostitution.

If, on the other hand, you enter a relationship where both parties have sex because they want to have sex with each other, and both parties do favors to each other because they care about each other, then that would be a perfectly healthy sexual relationship.

The emotions and feelings matter... But the results are the same... No? And since you can only truly KNOW your own motivation... Yu can't really really know what your partners thinks... Then what is the difference?

(btw... Just play devil's advocate role here.)

[natty dread]

Whereas, flirting and other signaling involves an exchange with others to express one's interest in the other person.

That's more a communication rather than an actual exchange.

Customs involving dating, getting coffee, etc., are an exchange--I give you X, if you come hang out with me.

Or alternatively, you can just go on a date with someone, then you each pay for everything equally, so that neither party has to bribe each other to "hang out" with them.

I don't really get the idea that you have to pay someone to get them to even consider you as a possible sexual partner. Just because you say it's an "exchange" doesn't make it any less a transaction.

Eventually, this can lead to good 'ol fucking, and you could say that is "prostitution," but you're still removing the word from its original context.

No, it's still prostitution, you're just giving the payment in a more roundabout way. At least the actual street workers are honest about it.

Yes, logically, the same exchange is occurring, but the contexts are different, which then changes the meaning of the word.

Look, I don't really have anything against prostitution. I think it should be fully legalized, and if prostitution is your thing, you're welcome to enjoy it. But it's just not for me. I have never bought anyone anything in the hopes of receiving sex from them, nor have I ever paid anyone to receive sex. Why should I? There are plenty of people willing to have sex with me, luckily I've found one who I also want to have sex with, so neither of us has any need to trade any commodities for sex.

[natty dread]

So if you love the prostitute and want to have sex with her, then it isn't prostitution? Having sex isn't the only motive...

No... if you pay the prostitute to receive sex, it's still prostitution, even if you love her.

If you and the prostitute both love each other, and you have sex with the prostitute without paying for it, then you're having non-prostitution sex with a prostitute, who nevertheless engages in prostitution with other people, on account of being a prostitute.

[natty dread]

The emotions and feelings matter... But the results are the same... No? And since you can only truly KNOW your own motivation... Yu can't really really know what your partners thinks... Then what is the difference?

(btw... Just play devil's advocate role here.)

Well, if you don't trust your partner enough to be sure of her motivations, then you probably shouldn't invest too much in the relationship in the first place, right?

[ViperOverLord]

Do you not believe that parents should have a say regarding who visits and teaches in their children's school (regardless of how you view their moral opposition)?

40% of the parents don't want a former porn star reading to their kids, and of course the school should kowtow to all parental demands. We shouldn't just discriminate based on current occupation. 25% of parents think bankers are immoral greedy assholes, and parents are worried if they find out how much money bankers make the kids might want to be bankers too. 20% of parents think black people are violent and criminal, and if they interact with their children, the kids might pick up criminal violent ideas. 15% think muslims are terrorists and Islam is evil, so no muslims allowed to read to the children. And as we are discriminating on past occupation, so too must we discriminate based on past religious affiliation, so no former muslims either. 80% think politicians are corrupting selfish assholes.(the other 20% were undecided)


If parent Ab is unhappy with a particular visitor interacting with their kid in school, they can have their kid opt out of that session. Or move him to another school. Do I think the school should operate based on the specific criteria proposed by each individual parent? No.

So to recap. B/C you perceive that parents are greedy racist dogs, parental rights and oversight of their children's education are out the window? That's the pretense of morality.

[natty dread]

Do you not believe that parents should have a say regarding who visits and teaches in their children's school (regardless of how you view their moral opposition)?

40% of the parents don't want a former porn star reading to their kids, and of course the school should kowtow to all parental demands. We shouldn't just discriminate based on current occupation. 25% of parents think bankers are immoral greedy assholes, and parents are worried if they find out how much money bankers make the kids might want to be bankers too. 20% of parents think black people are violent and criminal, and if they interact with their children, the kids might pick up criminal violent ideas. 15% think muslims are terrorists and Islam is evil, so no muslims allowed to read to the children. And as we are discriminating on past occupation, so too must we discriminate based on past religious affiliation, so no former muslims either. 80% think politicians are corrupting selfish assholes.(the other 20% were undecided)


If parent Ab is unhappy with a particular visitor interacting with their kid in school, they can have their kid opt out of that session. Or move him to another school. Do I think the school should operate based on the specific criteria proposed by each individual parent? No.

So to recap. B/C you perceive that parents are greedy racist dogs, parental rights and oversight of their children's education are out the window? That's the pretense of morality.

That's not what he said.

[ViperOverLord]

Do you not believe that parents should have a say regarding who visits and teaches in their children's school (regardless of how you view their moral opposition)?

40% of the parents don't want a former porn star reading to their kids, and of course the school should kowtow to all parental demands. We shouldn't just discriminate based on current occupation. 25% of parents think bankers are immoral greedy assholes, and parents are worried if they find out how much money bankers make the kids might want to be bankers too. 20% of parents think black people are violent and criminal, and if they interact with their children, the kids might pick up criminal violent ideas. 15% think muslims are terrorists and Islam is evil, so no muslims allowed to read to the children. And as we are discriminating on past occupation, so too must we discriminate based on past religious affiliation, so no former muslims either. 80% think politicians are corrupting selfish assholes.(the other 20% were undecided)


If parent Ab is unhappy with a particular visitor interacting with their kid in school, they can have their kid opt out of that session. Or move him to another school. Do I think the school should operate based on the specific criteria proposed by each individual parent? No.

So to recap. B/C you perceive that parents are greedy racist dogs, parental rights and oversight of their children's education are out the window? That's the pretense of morality.

That's not what he said.

Perhaps I overstated my recap. However, he certainly uses a lot of sanctimonious jibberish to attempt to justify his misguided concept that parents should not collectively have significant control concerning their children's curriculum. If a parent's options are limited to 'send your kid to another (unaccountable) school' or 'Don't send your kid to school,' then the system is morally bankrupt.

[jimboston]

The emotions and feelings matter... But the results are the same... No? And since you can only truly KNOW your own motivation... Yu can't really really know what your partners thinks... Then what is the difference?

(btw... Just play devil's advocate role here.)

Well, if you don't trust your partner enough to be sure of her motivations, then you probably shouldn't invest too much in the relationship in the first place, right?

It's not a matter of trust.

The simple FACT is that you can NEVER know with 100% certain what your partner's motivations may or may not be. Period.

You can believe something... and can believe it for good reason... but you can never KNOW.

[natty dread]

The emotions and feelings matter... But the results are the same... No? And since you can only truly KNOW your own motivation... Yu can't really really know what your partners thinks... Then what is the difference?

(btw... Just play devil's advocate role here.)

Well, if you don't trust your partner enough to be sure of her motivations, then you probably shouldn't invest too much in the relationship in the first place, right?

It's not a matter of trust.

The simple FACT is that you can NEVER know with 100% certain what your partner's motivations may or may not be. Period.

You can believe something... and can believe it for good reason... but you can never KNOW.

We can't know anything with a 100% certainty, so the point is moot. If you have reasonable enough evidence about your partner's motivations, it's enough to work on the reasonable assumption that those motivations are legitimate.

[BigBallinStalin]

So if you love the prostitute and want to have sex with her, then it isn't prostitution? Having sex isn't the only motive...

No... if you pay the prostitute to receive sex, it's still prostitution, even if you love her.

If you and the prostitute both love each other, and you have sex with the prostitute without paying for it, then you're having non-prostitution sex with a prostitute, who nevertheless engages in prostitution with other people, on account of being a prostitute.

And if you don't equally split the tab with your ladyfriend, and later on sex happens, then she's a prostitute, right?

[natty dread]

So if you love the prostitute and want to have sex with her, then it isn't prostitution? Having sex isn't the only motive...

No... if you pay the prostitute to receive sex, it's still prostitution, even if you love her.

If you and the prostitute both love each other, and you have sex with the prostitute without paying for it, then you're having non-prostitution sex with a prostitute, who nevertheless engages in prostitution with other people, on account of being a prostitute.

And if you don't equally split the tab with your ladyfriend, and later on sex happens, then she's a prostitute, right?

I wouldn't necessarily define her as a prostitute, but if she only has sex with you if you agree to pay her dinner, then she's engaging in the act of prostitution.

Haven't we been over this already?