Why don't you post on UG anymore?

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking
I don't mean to slander you guys, who I don't know personally and whom I like very much insofar as I "know" you as board personas. So let me make a general statement instead.

I appreciate your concern and courtesy, but just so there is not so much worry about this sort of thing at least in my own case, let me assure you that I will not be offended even slightly by anyone's disapproval or criticism of my conduct or views here.

For example, you wrote "But I'm not gonna say more about that here." That sounds extremely interesting to me, and I hope that you are not holding back for fear of giving offense (I can imagine other reasons). Anyone with a thick enough skin to endure the general cultural stigmatization of prostitution enough to participate in the first place can probably take the polite and abstract critiques of total and anonymous strangers!

-Ww

 

[justlooking]

In that last case, yes, it's to avoid giving offense, but no, not to you.

 

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
I appreciate your concern and courtesy, but just so there is not so much worry about this sort of thing at least in my own case, let me assure you that I will not be offended even slightly by anyone's disapproval or criticism of my conduct or views here.

Ditto.

 

[h. von bingen]

all the guys do it to feel young. the difference in pov is that

j.b.'s, e.g., young man and jl's, e.g., young man, are 2 different places in time, ergo the diff.

 

[justlooking]

That's a really good point.

 

[John Blackthorne]

Originally posted by justlooking
But again, as JB implicitly notes, I'm not interested in having a good time.

(Here's something that'll make JB go ballistic. [Or at least make him say he no longer has to even think about this issue.] You know who used to write about this topic, from my point of view, better than I'll ever be able to? Aristotle.)

Its a real stretch no argue that my wanting to do things my way, and have my kind of fun implies anything at all about you.

I don't go ballistic about anything on this or any other board.

JB

 

[justlooking]

I know. "Ballistic" was a stupid word to use. Sorry.

 

[h. von bingen]

it's beyond retarded to go ballistic about anything asserted in a place like this. what does that even look like?

i think j.b., ww, pj et al should be commended for discussing this issue on an open board like this, btw.

 

[justlooking]

Originally posted by h. von bingen
what does that even look like?

I think you know, actually.

 

[h. von bingen]

not from personal experience i can assure you.

 

[justlooking]

As a recipient.

 

[h. von bingen]

o perhaps, but that's baby stuff -- especially what people have said on the board.

all i learned about going ballistic i learned from alexander the great. now that's the way you do it.

 

[justlooking]

Of course it's baby stuff. Going ballistic on a discussion board is baby stuff.

(That's why it was so completely inappropriate for me to use it in connection with JB, for which I apologize again.)

 

[h. von bingen]

in my essay entitled "toward a unified theory of whoring" i have identified pj. j.b. & ww's group as "the old guard."

i'd like to here more about the hojo parties. does everyone bring a date or do people come alone or in groups?

 

[justlooking]

And Xerxes (does he post anymore?) is "the rear guard".

 

[alterego]

Originally posted by h. von bingen
i have identified pj. j.b. & ww's group as "the old guard."

Is there a radical avant garde of whoring?

æ

 

[h. von bingen]

nope. just old, middle and young.

 

[h. von bingen]

Originally posted by alterego
Is there a radical avant garde of whoring?

æ

although, i suppose i might be, if there are legions of my sex that follow. (but, i suspect you may be right. then i'd just be a free radical, right?)

 

[Wwanderer]

The hole in the heart of the argument

Imo, jl and many others (who are not being particularly vocal today) appear to regard any attempt to make prostitution more normal, unproblematic and/or non-exploitative (or to see it in such ways) as basically dishonest or delusional or, perhaps at best, rationalization. I do not see how such a position can be supported without somehow also claiming that it is actually, in reality, an abnormal, problematic and/or exploitative (or just "bad") activity. However, and here is the problem, jl and others seem reluctant to be very explicit or precise about how and why it is "bad" or how/why they are so certain that they know it "real" nature. I get the impression that commercial sex's "badness" is supposed to be simply self-evident to any reasonable person, or something like that. Imo, the lack of any specific and explicitly stated evidence or argument or even basis (even if it were a matter of religious faith, say) for this underlying normative position is one of the main things that makes these discussions ultimately inconclusive and endless...well, they'd probably be endless anyway I guess.

-Ww

 

[alterego]

Originally posted by h. von bingen
then i'd just be a free radical, right?

Or just a freak.

æ