Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's wrong or absurd about my position, really? The only differences between a golddigger and a prostitute are matters of:
A. Business Model - The prostitute fucks in volume at a lower per unit cost; and
B. Transparency - The prostitute transaction is admitted to be exactly what it is. I do recognize, however, that the economic basis of the golddigger scenario is similarly obvious, but one would have to prove willful ignorance on the part of the "John" there.
If you marry someone for money you're a golddigger, and if you're a golddigger you're just an odd variety of whore. But if we can prosecute women for one variety of that business model, why not the other? Again, I can't seem to understand how this isn't a situation like the crack cocaine v. powder difference in the senetencing guidelines. The guy who can only afford two hours with a hooker risks arrest and embarrassment. The guy who can afford to keep one around for constant use at a whim, as you might a horse, is allowed to take her out and display her in the society pages.
Prostitution needs to be legalized.
|
Agree 100%. I'll also take it a step further. The whole traditional whooing process is a form of the same transaction. It used to make sense and was more of a bargained for exchange when there was actually a dowry at the end of the line. But somewhere along the way our forefathers fucked that one up.
