[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]I must be missing something here. They had consensual sex with women over 16. They have fallen foul of a rediculous antiquated French law. In this country nothing they did would be considered illigal. If I wanted to have sex with a 16 year old prostitute I would not expect to be judged and condemned by anyone other than religious freaks.
If you're 26 (Ribery) or 30 (Govou) and wanted to have sex with 16 year old prostitues I would feel I'm perfectly entitled to judge and condemn you.
On what grounds? You disapprove of the 10 year age gap? Or do you think prostitution is immoral?
I disapprove on the age gap if she was 16/17 when they were ragging her.
I'm 26, and have an 18 year old sister, her mates are all sexually active, have been since they were 15, but I look at her mates and they are all still girls. In my eyes anyway. At 16/17, compared to women who are 19+, there is a big difference. And at my age, to be sleeping with a 16 year old is just wrong. Just doesn't sit well with me at all. But that's my own opinion.
That's the main point im driving at. Big difference with a 16 year old and 15 year old sleeping together compared to a man in his mid twenties and a girl of 16/ 17.
Maybe I am old fashioned but i think (even if they are active in that department) at 16/17 girls are still a lot less savvy than women of more senior years.
And yes RedSE8 I do think it is a sad state of affairs that a 17 year old girl in her short time has seen that selling her body to scumbags is an opportunity that her life has lead her to as we arent talking about high class Julia Roberts type hookers in their 30s in this case.
I worked in McDonalds at 16-17 which seemed bad enough so cant imagine what it must be like doing that at her age good money or not.
Absolute wrong uns and they are nonces as far as i see it.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]I must be missing something here. They had consensual sex with women over 16. They have fallen foul of a rediculous antiquated French law. In this country nothing they did would be considered illigal. If I wanted to have sex with a 16 year old prostitute I would not expect to be judged and condemned by anyone other than religious freaks.
So - just to summarise - you think it's OK to have sex with prostitutes? Something that is (technically) illegal, exploitative and immoral. Tell you what, why don't you spend a few days in the company of women who have been forced into prostitution to feed their families, or their drug habits, or through fear of being beaten to death by their pimps. Christ almighty there's been a lot of old bollocks written on this forum in its time (plenty by myself included), but this takes the cake.
I'm glad you wouldn't expect to be condemned by anyone except 'religious freaks'. You might be ever so slightly surprised to hear, however, that not everyone shares your moral compass... and think you'll find most people think that prostitution is very, very wrong. As well as very, very sad.
What you are talking about is not consensual and is exploitative. But you are very naive if you think that all prostitution can be described in those terms. If a woman wanted to pay me £1,000 to have consensual sex with her what right do you have to judge her or me? Are there any other personal/religious morals you would like imposed on other people?
WTF has anything I'm saying to to do with 'religious' morals? Why have you even mentioned religion in this thread? No-one else has. How naive have you got to be to think that ANY form of prostitution is not exploitative - irrespective of whether you pay the brass concerned 25 quid or 5 grand? Prostitution - in any form - is morally reprehensible. Just because these tools have 2 grand to spunk (no pun intended) in one sitting, and can therefore 'afford' a bit 'better' class of hooker than the average punter doesn't make what they're doing any better or worse!
Setting aside the legal questions completely about their age (personally I think it's odd that prostitution in France isn't illegal, but that the age of consent for both non-consensual and consensual sex is different), just think about your argument for a minute. What you're saying is that, if a woman charges you enough money for sex, and you're willing to pay it, that makes it OK? So - basically - the more money you have, the less you have to adhere to the consensus 'rules' of society? The very definition of amoral rigth there.
Leroy, although I agree with 90% of what you said (especially about the rich), perhaps with prostitution being legal in France the criminal aspects aren't as bad as they are here? I don't know the answer to that but there other professions like strippers and porn stars who mainly do it because the money is so good and unlike the majority of people most of them enjoy their job. I read that the dancers in Stringfellows actually pay £30 a night to dance there because they earn so much in tips.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite] WTF has anything I'm saying to to do with 'religious' morals? Why have you even mentioned religion in this thread? No-one else has. How naive have you got to be to think that ANY form of prostitution is not exploitative - irrespective of whether you pay the brass concerned 25 quid or 5 grand? Prostitution - in any form - is morally reprehensible. Just because these tools have 2 grand to spunk (no pun intended) in one sitting, and can therefore 'afford' a bit 'better' class of hooker than the average punter doesn't make what they're doing any better or worse!
Setting aside the legal questions completely about their age (personally I think it's odd that prostitution in France isn't illegal, but that the age of consent for both non-consensual and consensual sex is different), just think about your argument for a minute. What you're saying is that, if a woman charges you enough money for sex, and you're willing to pay it, that makes it OK? So - basically - the more money you have, the less you have to adhere to the consensus 'rules' of society? The very definition of amoral rigth there.
Away from my desk yesterday so I am a bit late in responding to this point.
The reason I bought religion into this thread is that it is my experience that it is only people with strong religious beliefs (and maybe supporters of the fascist/communist systems from the last century) who believe they, and society in general, have the right to judge and control what consenting adults do, watch, read and think in private. Up until 50 or 60 years ago, in many advanced civilisations, it was illegal for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes. It was considered immoral. In those days it was considered appropriate to impose codes of conduct informed by religious principles. Thankfully we have moved on. The only valid ‘mores’ in a civilised society are those that are designed to ensure that the actions of individual members do not cause harm or distress to other members. You can disapprove of people using prostitutes, watching pornographic movies, going to pole dancing clubs. But you cannot claim it is amoral unless your morals are derived from religious beliefs.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]WTF has anything I'm saying to to do with 'religious' morals? Why have you even mentioned religion in this thread? No-one else has. How naive have you got to be to think that ANY form of prostitution is not exploitative - irrespective of whether you pay the brass concerned 25 quid or 5 grand? Prostitution - in any form - is morally reprehensible. Just because these tools have 2 grand to spunk (no pun intended) in one sitting, and can therefore 'afford' a bit 'better' class of hooker than the average punter doesn't make what they're doing any better or worse!
Setting aside the legal questions completely about their age (personally I think it's odd that prostitution in France isn't illegal, but that the age of consent for both non-consensual and consensual sex is different), just think about your argument for a minute. What you're saying is that, if a woman charges you enough money for sex, and you're willing to pay it, that makes it OK? So - basically - the more money you have, the less you have to adhere to the consensus 'rules' of society? The very definition of amoral rigth there.
Away from my desk yesterday so I am a bit late in responding to this point.
The reason I bought religion into this thread is that it is my experience that it is only people with strong religious beliefs (and maybe supporters of the fascist/communist systems from the last century) who believe they, and society in general, have the right to judge and control what consenting adults do, watch, read and think in private. Up until 50 or 60 years ago, in many advanced civilisations, it was illegal for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes. It was considered immoral. In those days it was considered appropriate to impose codes of conduct informed by religious principles. Thankfully we have moved on. The only valid ‘mores’ in a civilised society are those that are designed to ensure that the actions of individual members do not cause harm or distress to other members. You can disapprove of people using prostitutes, watching pornographic movies, going to pole dancing clubs. But you cannot claim it is amoral unless your morals are derived from religious beliefs.
What absolute, utter drivel. I am completely non-religious. For you to claim that I can't find prostitution amoral is ridiculous. Unless myself and every single other one of my friends (who are also non-religious - I travel in some pretty heathen circles) is a totally isolated case. Prostitution is wrong - absolutely wrong - and it has f***-all to do with any belief or non-belief in the teachings in any particular religious book. It's the exploitation, degradation and humiliation of women that makes it wrong. If you can't, or won't see that, I pity you.
A number of people who post on here (myself included) have visited 'Gentlemens Clubs' and pole dancing clubs and pubs where women take off their clothes. I think one of the Charlton Life away day specials involved a visit to such an establishment. Does your non-religious set of ethics deem the woman who provide the entertainment in these places to be the subject of exploitation, humiliation and degradation and the Charlton Lifers who visit these places worthy objects of your pity?
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]
If you want to bring religous morals into it apparently Ribery converted to Islam so not only is he a nonce he is a hypocrite.
He only shagged her, it's not like he ate a bacon sandwich off her. I wish I was a footballer. I'd make a night out with John Terry and Frank McAvennie look like a Sunday School trip to a Deacon Blue concert
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]
If you want to bring religous morals into it apparently Ribery converted to Islam so not only is he a nonce he is a hypocrite.
He only shagged her, it's not like he ate a bacon sandwich off her.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]A number of people who post on here (myself included) have visited 'Gentlemens Clubs' and pole dancing clubs and pubs where women take off their clothes. I think one of the Charlton Life away day specials involved a visit to such an establishment. Does your non-religious set of ethics deem the woman who provide the entertainment in these places to be the subject of exploitation, humiliation and degradation and the Charlton Lifers who visit these places worthy objects of your pity?
Did they f*** any of them? If they did, then the answer is quite clearly 'yes'. otherwise I just think it's a bit sad.
[cite]Posted By: The_hallster[/cite]this country has gone to the dogs. Thanks a lot Brown
[cite]Posted By: Mark[/cite]she's 18 now so I better get planning my trip to Paris
[cite]Posted By: Nickyboy[/cite]Shame for that volcanic ash cloud disrupting travel, I'd have been to Paris in a shot
[cite]Posted By: Bronwen, Eastbourne[/cite]OBVIOUSLY WELL PAID. THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF YOUNG MINDS/SOCIAL ENGINEERING AT WORK AIDED & ALBIETED BY MEDIA FASHION ARE EMPOWERING PAEDOPHILES BY EXPLOITING THE YOUNG MIND.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]I think we should have a poll on here... since it is anonymous to see how many of you would or have paid?[/quote]
I've paid for sex,thirty years of marriage, if that is not patying for it, I don't know what is.
Comments
That's the main point im driving at. Big difference with a 16 year old and 15 year old sleeping together compared to a man in his mid twenties and a girl of 16/ 17.
Maybe I am old fashioned but i think (even if they are active in that department) at 16/17 girls are still a lot less savvy than women of more senior years.
And yes RedSE8 I do think it is a sad state of affairs that a 17 year old girl in her short time has seen that selling her body to scumbags is an opportunity that her life has lead her to as we arent talking about high class Julia Roberts type hookers in their 30s in this case.
I worked in McDonalds at 16-17 which seemed bad enough so cant imagine what it must be like doing that at her age good money or not.
Absolute wrong uns and they are nonces as far as i see it.
Setting aside the legal questions completely about their age (personally I think it's odd that prostitution in France isn't illegal, but that the age of consent for both non-consensual and consensual sex is different), just think about your argument for a minute. What you're saying is that, if a woman charges you enough money for sex, and you're willing to pay it, that makes it OK? So - basically - the more money you have, the less you have to adhere to the consensus 'rules' of society? The very definition of amoral rigth there.
Ha Ha Admin would have a field day
MO?
Away from my desk yesterday so I am a bit late in responding to this point.
The reason I bought religion into this thread is that it is my experience that it is only people with strong religious beliefs (and maybe supporters of the fascist/communist systems from the last century) who believe they, and society in general, have the right to judge and control what consenting adults do, watch, read and think in private. Up until 50 or 60 years ago, in many advanced civilisations, it was illegal for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes. It was considered immoral. In those days it was considered appropriate to impose codes of conduct informed by religious principles. Thankfully we have moved on. The only valid ‘mores’ in a civilised society are those that are designed to ensure that the actions of individual members do not cause harm or distress to other members. You can disapprove of people using prostitutes, watching pornographic movies, going to pole dancing clubs. But you cannot claim it is amoral unless your morals are derived from religious beliefs.
LOL - Quality.
I've paid for sex,thirty years of marriage, if that is not patying for it, I don't know what is.
So judges the obemlary rose
From a game of terror
His mental state arose
Where is this thread? Link please.