What's in a name?

[Rexroth]

Dont you guys think that the word prostitute could be problematized ? .... I think the difference is that we Sex Workers, fille de joie, prostitutes, whores, whatever you want to call it...

Juliana

Yes I do think that “prostitute” can be problematized. Indeed, it has been many times over.

There is, on the one hand, the field of application of the term, as you point out. We commonly use the expression “to prostitute oneself” in a variety of contexts which have little to do with sex. But it is always used in a derogatory way. It is not just selling yourself (which I do every single day when I go to work – I rent out my presence, my energy and, to a certain extent, my soul), it is selling one's abilities, talent, or name for an “unworthy” purpose, a good example of which would be most politicians. And, yes, there are women who use sexual favours as a means of attaining things. But all of this merely reinforces the fact that if the word “prostitute” is part of your job description, then you are generally frowned upon.

We can also problematize “prostitute” in another direction: “I think the difference is that we Sex Workers, fille de joie, prostitutes, whores, whatever you want to call it…” This is where the whole range of the politics of the matter emerges. It is not just “whatever you want to call it.” There is, it seems to me a world of connotative difference between “sex worker” and “whore,” notwithstanding the fact that both terms denote essentially the same activity. The issue is about normative values (it is also about the status of women, but I will leave that issue aside for the moment). “Sex worker” is a neutral term, which by itself very use is an attempt to normalize (or at the very least de-stigmatize) the workers themselves and the work they do. “Whore,” on the other hand signifies something quite different and, generally speaking, quite negative.

Interestingly, “whore” apparently derives “from the Old English word hōra (from the Indo-European root kā meaning "desire"; cf. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Prostitute). This would make it another fascinating example of how we constantly police desire. What better way to achieve this end than by making the very word a signifier of something venal and unwholesome.

Another direction we might want to take the discussions concerns the “you” in “whatever you want to call it.” That is, who is doing the naming, who controls the naming process, and what is their agenda? The flip slide of these questions is of course: “who is being named.” In the URL for the list of prostituted-related terms I posted the other day, it is interesting to note that there is an almost complete absence of terms for service users (now it is my time to struggle with terms). The vast majority of terms for men are variations on “pimp.” There are next to no cognates for “hobbyist.”

Speaking of “hobbyist,” it is interesting note that this term, like its cognate “monger (as in “whoremonger”),” is apparently a by-product on online forums and was coined by men (I’m guessing here). With guidance and interesting input from the good Dr Louis, I have already discussed the connotations of this term. The only thing I might want to add is that it strikes me it serves as a discursive means of establishing a confrerery or genteel club.

Rexroth

 

[louisisgreat]

Difference Between A Prostitute And A Wife!!!

My question is how do you rationalize when the women in your life is with you because you can provide certain network /confort/status/ luxurious trips etc.. ?

Sure that are lots of difference between an sp and the wife.

There really are relationships which are not based on "prostitution" (as you are looking to broadly define it). There really are people who offer what they have--money, time, affection, devotion, support, encouragement...mind, body, and soul--to another, not as an exchange for gain, and not on the condition of being repaid, but as a gift freely given. Among these people, those who are truly fortunate and blessed will find someone similar, and build a life together on a foundation of mutual love and sacrifice and devotion to one another. (Not a perfect or easy life together, of course...but one which at least has the necessary foundation.)

In her post, Juliana essentially wondered what is the difference between an SP and the wife. Tmgol in his discussion offered an answer which I think is very enlightening and I like to systematically dwell on it by using the concept of ‘Synthesis’ as the foundation for a long lasting marital relationship. From there I would think anybody can tell the difference between the relationship based on prostitution and the one based on a good marital relation.

The modern meaning of ‘synthesis’ is the putting of things together. Interestingly enough, ‘Synthesis’ or σύνθεσις is a Greek term you can find in antiquity. It has three major aspects of meanings: mutuality, togetherness, and unity. I shall apply them as a foundation to a good marital relation where marriage, love, and romanticism can flourish:

1) Mutuality: This refers to the ‘sharedness’ or all things mutually shared by the husband and wife, such as love, respect, desires/feelings, sacrifices, devotion, resources, children, and so on. Mutuality brings the spouses closer and closer together.

2) Togetherness: This refers not just the physical behavior or passion such as holding hands or holding onto each other or cuddling or being intimate. It also means the spouses spiritually being together although the wife and the husband may be physically thousands of miles apart.

3) Unity: The ultimate manifestation of togetherness is unity or being united into one. The ‘two in one’ so to speak. Obviously this refers to the ‘one-ness’ of the husband and wife being in unison and harmony in their souls, minds, and bodies.

In its simplest form, prostitution is essentially a commercial or trading relationship between a sex worker and a client (the most common form of exchange is sex for money). While in a good marital relationship it cannot be described as a commercial or trading relationship by any means. Granted there is a broader concept of prostitution, still I do not believe you can find a prostitute or SP who can provide all these relational elements to you. Primarily all these relationships take time, love, and commitment to develop. If a SP does all these (in which I sincerely doubt), perhaps you should marry her as your wife. On the other hand, please make sure you have lots of money in your bank even if she charges you on a monthly basis. LORL!!!

Dr. Louis,

Professor of Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism

 

[Rexroth]

In her post, Juliana essentially wondered what is the difference between an SP and the wife. Tmgol in his discussion offered an answer which I think is very enlightening and I like to systematically dwell on it by using the concept of ‘Synthesis’ as the foundation for a long lasting marital relationship. From there I would think anybody can tell the difference between the relationship based on prostitution and the one based on a good marital relation...

...In its simplest form, prostitution is essentially a commercial or trading relationship between a sex worker and a client (the most common form of exchange is sex for money). While in a good marital relationship it cannot be described as a commercial or trading relationship by any means. Granted there is a broader concept of prostitution, still I do not believe you can find a prostitute or SP who can provide all these relational elements to you.

Dr. Louis,

Professor of Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism

Dear Dr Louis

As always, I find your gloss on this subject quite insightful. I wonder, though, whether there is not a danger here of creating a false dichotomy (SP vs. spouse) based on a single commonality (sex). It seems to me that each belongs to his or her own realm and not situated at different points of the same spectrum (unless of course that spectrum is defined so broadly that it is no longer meaningful). If we were to replace SP with, for example, cleaning lady or therapist in your post as well as in the related preceding ones, then the present discussion would not even get off the ground. Yet “Therapist” is a legitimate substitute for “SP” inasmuch as both offer / provide a service as part of a commercial exchange. Despite the fact these same “services” are often be provided by spouses, it is wrongheaded to lump them in the same basket. “Service,” as you rightly note, is an economic commodity whereas in its domestic version it is not so much a service as something which is part of an affective, and in many respects much more complex relationship. True, many spouses are quite mercenary in that they feign conjugal affection in order to gain wealth, status, etc. But they are only pretending to be spouses. As well, some spouses use sex as leverage (see your good friend Aristophanes’ play the Lysistrata), but here again it would be misguided to point to a similarity between them and SPs.

And, of course, there are cases of men marrying their cleaning lady or eloping with their favourite SP (as you know, many of your colleagues, for example, have run off with flute girls). But the fact that this is so commonplace does not entitle us to put them (SPs, therapists and spouses) in the same boat and then compare them with regard to their respective merits.

So, yes, I do agree with you (once again) that there are differences between SPs and spouses (just as there are differences between SPs and rocks and between spouses and trees), but from there to placing them on the same spectrum, well… So when you say “I do not believe you can find a prostitute or SP who can provide all these relational elements to you,” do be careful since you are verging on a non sequitar. As much as they are fun, interesting, stimulating, sensual, erotic and so on for the time we are with them, I don’t think anyone should expect them to provide these relational elements or to make comparisons based on their capacity qua SP for doing so.


Your humble servant

Rexroth

 

[joeblow]

Juliana,

Many of the men here are not blind to the implicit sex-for-x type exchange on which many marriages are established, where x can represent money or status or another commodity. I am even tempted to modelize the male-female relationships with respect to the degree of transparency of the exchange. At one end of the axis you have the clear-cut SP/john (business) relationship; at the other, you have the practically unperceivable (to the untrained eye) exchange, that takes place at a psychological level, where spouses rely on each other to, say, mend a chilhood wound or bolster each other's self-confidence. In between these two polar cases, there can be an infinite number of viable deals, including those where one of the parties is deluded, such as in the SP/"special friend" relationship.

tmgol,

The only relationship I have experienced, so far, where I freely give without expecting anything in return (or symbolically acquitting myself of an obligation incurred for services received) is with my children. Perhaps I am cynical or just lucid, haven't figured that one out yet. I would love to believe you are correct, that there indeed exist relationships or marriages free from any type of exchange, even implicit. However, I believe you speak more of an ideal than of a reality, as far as I can see from observing in my social environment.

 

[tmgol]

I would love to believe you are correct, that there indeed exist relationships or marriages free from any type of exchange, even implicit. However, I believe you speak more of an ideal than of a reality, as far as I can see from observing in my social environment.

I understand where you are coming from...especially since despite my own belief in the ideal, I must confess I have practically no faith that I will ever see anything like it realized in my own life. Perhaps as more time goes by, more of the edge will be taken off this entirely personal pessimism.

Also, as an ideal, perhaps it is better that we regard it as a Platonic Form: something that exists and that is real; but that, in our world and in our own lives, appears not directly in its perfection, but only indirectly in the shape of our more- or less-imperfect efforts to reflect it.

Finally, I would add that the perfect Form of self-giving love is not even directly or fully realized in its parental variety, which you do well to raise for comparison. It is probably true that more people are able to more closely reflect the Form in their vocation as parents than as spouses; but even with the very best of parents there are imperfections, and sadly there is also no shortage of contrary examples running from cold transactional calculation to shocking exploitation.

Whew. I think the only thing this thread is missing now to become a true Symposium is copious amounts of wine...

 

[Rexroth]

Whew. I think the only thing this thread is missing now to become a true Symposium is copious amounts of wine...

Not to mention the charming presence of flute girls and hetaera.....

 

[hobby11]

the game

there is only one game: the game
there r only 2 players : the pimp and the ho
u can play or be played
the game is the game of life
if u want more info send me pm...

 

[louisisgreat]

Further Elucidation On My Concept of Synthesis (σύνθεσις)

Rexroth my scholarly friend:

I am still keeping my professorship of Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism toasty warm in hope of someone as intelligent and as capable as you will take over soon. As my previous post is really an introduction of the concept 'synthesis', let me make the following points so we have a better understanding here:

1. My Greek concept of ‘Synthesis’ or σύνθεσις (mutuality, togetherness, and unity) is meant to be a defense and anti-thesis against many people’s tendency of drifting to a 'too broad a definition' of prostitution as it intrudes into marital relations; as you see from Juliana, anon-vlad, and my good friend Sporty Sportif’s postings. For sure there are a lot of exploitations and manipulations in marital relations, such as the example of a husband cannot get a BJ unless he buys the wife a diamond ring, a car, or what not. I can also think of cases when hot, sexy young chicks married flail, old, ready to kick the bucket multi-millionaires. In the latter cases, I have no objection of labeling those marriages as cases of prostitution, albeit legal and shameful.

But in a good marital relationship with a solid foundation, I do not think the wife needs to threaten the husband in order to get him to buy a diamond ring or what not. As shall I say, they have the ‘meeting of their minds’. The husband may voluntarily buy it without demanding a BJ or any other favor but get a passionate one and many times over anyway because they are so into each other.

2. I espouse the concept of ‘Synthesis’ in support of the claim that there are such things as good marital relations, true love and romance, when they are based on good solid foundations. In my lifetime, I have witnessed a lot of those instances of heart warming love stories and good long lasting marriages. It surely brings back good old memories. Alas, that is not to say, good marriages and sweet, pure romances are not minorities of the minorities. Or that they are becoming rarer and rarer in our modern technological societies. The point is we should have more and more of good marital relations as they are good for us, good for society from the point of view of stability and overall good. Perhaps to elucidate a good, solid foundation in terms of how to secure a healthy and happy marital life is the first step. (You may ask me then what to do with all these SPs? Well, bring them over, this Philosopher King is rebuilding my Pan Hellenistic Empire with the world's oldest profession. LORL!!!)

I also have witnessed a lot of ‘marriages of convenience’ and others that couples gradually work themselves into or out of more meaningful marital relations. It is also awfully true that a lot of people marry for the sake of their sense of stability, security, a meal ticket, or what not. I am sure there are many of us who regret that or that they are based on some mutual interdependent relationships. To each his/her own. As long as it is not a case of pure and simple sex for money or commercial relation, I do not think these wives should be called prostitutes.

Going back to SPs, actually a lot of SPs are married to someone, have boyfriends or lovers. So with regard to these relationships, perhaps they have solid foundations with their love ones or perhaps not. I am not here to guess.

With regard to your comments:

Dear Dr Louis

As always, I find your gloss on this subject quite insightful. I wonder, though, whether there is not a danger here of creating a false dichotomy (SP vs. spouse) based on a single commonality (sex). It seems to me that each belongs to his or her own realm and not situated at different points of the same spectrum (unless of course that spectrum is defined so broadly that it is no longer meaningful). .

So, yes, I do agree with you (once again) that there are differences between SPs and spouses (just as there are differences between SPs and rocks and between spouses and trees), but from there to placing them on the same spectrum, well… So when you say “I do not believe you can find a prostitute or SP who can provide all these relational elements to you,” do be careful since you are verging on a non sequitar. As much as they are fun, interesting, stimulating, sensual, erotic and so on for the time we are with them, I don’t think anyone should expect them to provide these relational elements or to make comparisons based on their capacity qua SP for doing so.

a) I think we are in agreement with regard to the realms or domains of where a SP and a wife belong although I do allow occasions when they overlap. Also, as you see from my previous post and this one, I wholeheartedly support the idea not to enlarge the definition of prostitution so much that it becomes meaningless or a joke.

b) Any hobbyist in the right mind would not expect a SP that he/she/it involved with to fulfill all relational requirements I espoused. This is almost a definitional thing here. A 'normal' hobbyist does not expect an an SP to be a wife, pure and simple. So there is no ‘non-sequitar’ here. Perhaps the Louisisgreat style of cynicism interferes with our communication here. However, under extremely rare circumstances, if an SP indeed fulfills all these requirements and it is not based on a commercial relation, then this SP is literally transformed into a what we call wife or lover or real girlfriend. In the world of logical possibilities, I guess we can entertain this scenario.

3. When I introduced the Greek concept of ‘Synthesis’, I applied it towards marital relations to limit the intrusion of an expanded version of prostitution. In actuality, the tripartite meaning in terms of mutuality, togetherness, and unity can serve as a foundation for building any good relations such as with your children, relatives, neighbors, business partners, among hobbyists, and so on. It is good at the microscopic level of individuals and at the macroscopic level of society, nations, the world, and the universe. I do not mean it as a prescriptive principle but as a regulative principle so people or aliens have guidelines to follow. Think about it, it is very entertaining from the cultural, socio-political standpoint, especially when you are so interested in legitimizing and normalizing names and what hobbyists do.

Your pal,

Louis,
The exiled Philosopher King working like a dog in the Pacific paradise.

P.S. Does a dog really work that hard? My dog surely doesn’t. He just lies there even when he gets laid. LMAO!!!

 

[Rexroth]

Rexroth my scholarly friend:

I am still keeping my professorship of Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism toasty warm in hope of someone as intelligent and as capable as you will take over soon. As my previous post is really an introduction of the concept 'synthesis', let me make the following points so we have a better understanding here:

Dear Dr Louis

Once again I must decline your invitation. With your wit and depth, you are by far the best person for the position. You do it proud. Were a minor lectureship in Rhetoric to become available, I might be coaxed into filling it until you found someone with the appropriate professorship potential. While I find your concept of synthesis quite interesting, I do not feel qualified to expand on it or to comment on it. I can only reiterate my warning about not merging SPs and spouses, with a view to make their comparison an object of debate or discussion. On this point, I take it you agree.


If you permit, however, I would like to turn to your last point.

I do not mean it (synthesis) as a prescriptive principle but as a regulative principle so people or aliens have guidelines to follow. Think about it, it is very entertaining from the cultural, socio-political standpoint, especially when you are so interested in legitimizing and normalizing names and what hobbyists do.:

I am not sure that I catch your drift here. What is the difference between a prescriptive principle and a regulative one? After all, normative principles are find their full expression as rules and regulations, as codes of (unacceptable and acceptable conduct), of what is right and wrong, and so on. Also, I am not too clear about how it applies to the issue of names.

Lastly, far from wanting to normalize names and what hobbyists do (or whom they do it with), I am much more interested in problematizing or at least drawing attention to the words, expressions, names and terms that we use to describe ourselves, others and activities. Language, as you well know, is not something that comes after the fact, it is part and parcel of constructing the facts themselves (whence my interest in rhetoric). This was the thrust of my reply to Juliana’s post. Consider in this regard what I had to say about the history of the word “whore.”


Your humble servant

Rexroth

 

[louisisgreat]

More Explanations....

Dear Dr Louis
If you permit, however, I would like to turn to your last point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisisgreat
"I do not mean it (synthesis) as a prescriptive principle but as a regulative principle so people or aliens have guidelines to follow. Think about it, it is very entertaining from the cultural, socio-political standpoint, especially when you are so interested in legitimizing and normalizing names and what hobbyists do."


I am not sure that I catch your drift here. What is the difference between a prescriptive principle and a regulative one? After all, normative principles are find their full expression as rules and regulations, as codes of (unacceptable and acceptable conduct), of what is right and wrong, and so on. Also, I am not too clear about how it applies to the issue of names.

Lastly, far from wanting to normalize names and what hobbyists do (or whom they do it with), I am much more interested in problematizing or at least drawing attention to the words, expressions, names and terms that we use to describe ourselves, others and activities. Language, as you well know, is not something that comes after the fact, it is part and parcel of constructing the facts themselves (whence my interest in rhetoric). This was the thrust of my reply to Juliana’s post. Consider in this regard what I had to say about the history of the word “whore.”

Rexroth Pal:

Thanks again for you compliment. I am sorry you do not want to take on the professorship from me. However my task here is to offer explanations to your questions:

A. Differences between prescriptive principle and regulative principle.

Sorry I did not explain my use of these terms in my last post since I was in a hurry to walk my fat, lazy dog, Fido. He is getting too fat for his own good. Let me begin by saying that between a prescriptive principle and a regulative principle, they are analytically distinct.

To me a regulative principle is descriptive, by and large an empirical principle which is observable and verifiable. So when I say that my Greek concept of ‘Synthesis’ or σύνθεσις (mutuality, togetherness, and unity) is a good foundation for building good relationships; as per my previous post, I describe to you how such a principle is a good foundation for building good relationships. People can observe and verify it by means of their experiences. Thus far the concept is descriptive in nature and logically there is no moral value added to this principle. Regulative principle is always empirical based on your every day life experience and observations. So ‘the sun always rises from the east and sets in the west’ can be looked at as a descriptive, regulative principle. Simply put, this is how I define a regulative principle. So I do not believe there should be a lot of controversy here.

Prescriptive principle is obviously normative or constitutive (as in our constitution) in nature as we use the words ‘ought’ or ‘should’ to laid down ethical or moral standards of conduct. When we say we should or ought to follow the principle of ‘synthesis’ because it is a good foundation for building good relationships, obviously it becomes a normative principle because of the moral elements added here. Thus far, I believe I have said enough to show the differences between regulative and prescriptive concepts or principles. If not, I can always say more later.

I do not intend my concept of ‘Synthesis’ here to be normative or prescriptive as I am only an exiled Philosopher King. The power to promulgate human laws of conduct goes back to my elders in the Revolutionary Ruling Council. Until I repent my ‘sin’ and renounce my relationship with Goddess Aphrodite and her ‘Greek Goddesses Society’, in the eyes of my elders, I am just another ‘bad boy’. Thus for my purpose in these postings, the concept or principle of ‘Synthesis’ is and remains a descriptive, regulative principle only. That is not to say that we cannot turn it into a normative, prescriptive principle. In fact we can easily do so but again it is not my intention here. So if you say that there are many levels or ways of using this concept or principle, I have no objections.

B. As far as the application to the issues of names, we can relate to our earlier discussions about the hobbyists’ attempt or desire to legitimize, normalize the terms which are used to describe themselves and their activities. I just thought that you can use the principle of ‘synthesis’ to achieve mutual understanding, empathy, and ‘meetings of the minds’ between hobbyists and the public at large (remainder of the population). You can look at this concept or principle as a tool or strategy to improve relations between hobbyists, escorts, the sex industry with the rest of the world. The public may be more receptive to the legitimacy and normalcy of the “hobbyists” if they can share and feel the plights and needs of the “hobbyists”. Think of it this way, if you get the public to support you and your claims, won’t it be easier for you to legitimize and normalize the terms such as “hobbyists” and their meanings?

C. Please excuse the professor’s idiosyncratic way of using the term ‘you’ as this is more or less my habit of writing, not because of the sweet French wine or the Chinese beer gets into my brain. So when I said, “especially when you are so interested in legitimizing and normalizing names and what hobbyists do”, the “you” here actually refers to the hobbyists in general. So it is nothing personal and please do not construe it the wrong way. Meanwhile, I do understand what you are trying to do and you are doing a good job.

As always, it has been a pleasure.

Your pal,

Louis

 

[Rexroth]

My very scientific analysis:

1-The biggest prostitutes are politicians.

2-If you're a wife and you're exchanging sex for gifts you're a prostitute (and a really pathetic being ).

3-SPs are the coolest kind of prostitutes because they tell you up front about the sex-for-gift exchange. Unlike the prostitute wife, the sex is usually better (and in the long run way less expensive ). And unlike the prostitute politician when you vote for them (on a board like this for instance) they don't turn around and change all their policies.

Cheers,
Chloë

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. The politician Alphonso Gagonit is really a prostitute because he doles out favours and generally ignores his principles so he can continue to get reelected. His wife Idolatra Quim is his equal because she makes their Saturday evening coupling conditional upon obtaining this, that and the other thing, not to mention the fact that if Alphonso is hoping for a bj, then he had better make sure that the car he is going to buy her comes equipped with leather seats. Unsatisfied with the costs incurred by this arrangement and finding his wife’s bj less than stellar, Alphonso turns to Sandra Piccolo, a prostitute, who gently and willingly escorts him from the bathtub to the bedroom, makes his woody feel like a real champion, and costs far less than leather seats in the Mercedes, not to mention the fact that she never says she has a headache.

Soon, however, as Alphonso stops pleading with her on Saturday nights, Idolatra begins to think something fishy is going on, especially when Alphonso tells her that he has taken up stamp collecting as a hobby and must often attend Satruday-night meetings of the local philatelic society. Indeed, he has even mentioned something about running for president. She might not give the best bj in town but our Idolatra is no dunce. She knows that her monopoly in the quim trade is in danger, so she alerts her fellow wife-prostitutes and they start a very public and very viscous campaign to counter the decriminalization of prostitution.

Meanwhile, Sandra is not in the least perturbed by this cloud on the horizon. She knows that she will continue to date gentlemen and to be pampered by them. She generally enjoys herself and the time she spends with them, knowing that they will come and then they will go, that often times they will be interesting, and that, unlike Idolatra Quim, she will not have to accompany them to a seemingly endless number of boring receptions. And in anticipation of her retirement, she has begun buying shares in condom manufacturers.

As for Alphonso, well, he is ever much the prostitute he also has been, he still has his woody, but has been forced (publicly at least) to forego his philatelic activities and to throw his weight behind his wife’s campaign. Rumour has it, though, that he has been fishing around for a posting as ambassador to a country which has legalized prostitution.

Rexroth

PS: Dr. Louis it would appear that a fair number of people are not paying attention to your regulative principle (which is by no means a criticism of it, but more a statement of what these same people value).

 

[louisisgreat]

No One Does Wrong Willingly!!!

PS: Dr. Louis it would appear that a fair number of people are not paying attention to your regulative principle (which is by no means a criticism of it, but more a statement of what these same people value).

Hahahahah…..What do you expect me to do, my dear Rexroth? Put them in jail if they do not practice the regulative principle of ‘synthesis’? Or set up an international network of ‘Louisisgreat Church For Hobbyists’ and let them repent? Please remember that I am in exile and this 'bad boy' has no moral authority to right anybody's wrongs. It is often said that good medicine is bitter to swallow. We all live and learn. It is my belief that no one does wrong willingly. People do wrong because they do not really know or they do not really understand. Hopefully the learning process does not start too late.

Of course, the problem with hindsight alone is that it is often too late to be useful. To lead a good life, we all need foresight for guidance. Personally, I think everyone should acquire practical wisdom (phronesis) to deal with everyday life matters and intellectual wisdom (sophia) to make important, big picture decisions. How? Keep learning and be wise enough to take bitter medicine when it calls for. Hope this helps.

 

[louisisgreat]

About Your Very Scientific Analysis....

I should have joined in before. Smart men turn me on (you know who you are )

My very scientific analysis:

1-The biggest prostitutes are politicians.

2-If you're a wife and you're exchanging sex for gifts you're a prostitute (and a really pathetic being ).

3-SPs are the coolest kind of prostitutes because they tell you up front about the sex-for-gift exchange. Unlike the prostitute wife, the sex is usually better (and in the long run way less expensive ). And unlike the prostitute politician when you vote for them (on a board like this for instance) they don't turn around and change all their policies.

Cheers,
Chloë

Chloe My Sweet Baby:

To my deepest chagrin, I am not a member of the ‘Smart Men Society’. Instead I am just a dumb ass professor and exiled vagabond who was kicked out of the ‘Philosopher Kings’ Club’. Thus I hope you don’t mind talking to this poor, uninspired lost soul; somebody who does not have a home and a country. You advanced three ‘earth shocking’ claims, presumably from your “very scientific analysis” and if you don’t mind, shall we go over them one by one?

1. With regard to your claim that “the biggest prostitutes are politicians ”, a disclaimer from this professor here. Being an ex-philosopher king qualifies me as an ex-statesman. I am not a politician by any means and never will be one. So please do not think that I am here to defend politicians. That being said, what grounds do you have to say that they are the biggest prostitutes? Is it because as you implied, when you vote for them, they turn around and change all their policies? Even then, I don’t see why you want to called them prostitutes. Do they offer sex to anyone in exchange for money or gift or favor? What is your definition of prostitutes, sweetheart? Are you entering the metaphorical realm as well?

2. For your second claim, you said, “If you're a wife and you're exchanging sex for gifts you're a prostitute (and a really pathetic being ).” I am not sure what your definition of a wife is. Let us imagine a situation that Mrs. Smith never had a diamond ring from her husband because when they married, Mr. Smith could not afford to buy a diamond ring for her. Years later, they gradually built a comfortable life for themselves. One night, they were watching TV and there was this commercial about diamonds are forever. Then Mrs. Smith said to her husband, “If you buy me a diamond ring that I never have, I will make junior so happy that you will be proud you are married to me.” Well, sweetheart, is Mrs. Smith really a prostitute per that example? While I have no objections if you say that some instances of marital exploitations go into the realm of prostitution, your claim here as a generalization is too broad and it intrudes unnecessarily into the realm of marital life. Perhaps you need to look at the concept of “prostitute wife” on a case per case basis. Look at it from a different way, your definition of wife must be very strict and purist in nature. If so, is it a reasonable one that is acceptable to society in general?

3. About your third claim, I already cast doubt to the generalization and the meaning of the statement that ‘the biggest prostitutes are politicians’. As for the concept of “prostitute wife”, I am sure no husband in the right mind will think that his wife is “cool” if she is a “prostitute wife”. On the other hand, I do not think that such a class of “prostitute wife” represents a significant percentage of all married women. The other thing is one cannot assume that a “prostitute wife” will demand everything for sex every day. So I do not know if such a comparison between SPs and ‘prostitute wives” is very meaningful.

I do find your one statement very interesting. You said, “unlike the prostitute wife, the sex is usually better (and in the long run way less expensive ).”

a) Is sex usually better with SPs than “prostitute wives”? Perhaps it depends on who those SPs and “prostitute wives” are. But if the answer is in the affirmative, I can understand why. First of all, if a husband has to buy a very expensive gift in order to have sex with his wife, he probably does not feel that great to begin with.
Secondly, about the wife, it is the same old face, same old body that he sees day in and day out for so long. Here comes the ‘marriage dulls libido’ theory. Good for SPs but bad for marriage as an institution! If I go back to my throne, I will hire juzt_a_girl to be Minister of Family, Marriage and Sexuality Counseling.
Thirdly, let us explore the psychology behind the hobbyists going to SPs. Obviously hobbyists want to satisfy their basic instincts of sexual desires. There is also the retribution factor involved seeing SPs. After all, what better revenge is there against a “prostitute wife” who demands a Mercedes with leather seats for a BJ? For the average hobbyists, the excitement of seeing someone new--with fresh looks, different bodies, more beautiful figures, or what not-- is sufficient driving force for them to forget that they have wives and go for SPs. Additionally, the fulfillment of the hobbyists’ fantasies of ‘treasure hunting’ and doing many things they otherwise cannot do with their wives is another major reason why the hobbyists want to see SPs. Perhaps these reasons individually or together contribute to how come sex is usually better with SPs, not necessarily the love making skills of the “prostitute wives” are not as good.

b) Is it really true that in the long run sex with SPs is less expensive? Again, it depends on who those SPs are and what do the hobbyists want to do? So if Mr. Smith wants to tangle with a porn star SP who charges $2000 per hour, the money he would have spent to buy a diamond ring will not last too long. Let’s explore this ‘economic theory of seeing SPs’ a little further. Perhaps it won’t cost as much for a local hobbyist to see a local SP. But assuming if a hobbyist has to travel thousands of miles to see some SP because she is so ‘peachy’, imagine what is the cost involved? How about a round trip airline ticket, hotel stay, rental car, meals, of course donation and so on? On top of that the lost time from work will translate into lost income. Indeed it is quite a costly endeavor. OK, there are no write offs and no company expenses allow this time. So can I get a discount please? LORL!!! Sorry the professor again cannot help teasing the ‘peachy juzt_a_girl’. Come over sometime and learn some classical Greek from this ‘bad boy’ philosopher king, you can have my professorship of Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism.

To sum up, with regard to the issues of prostitution, aren’t you widening the definition of prostitutes so much that your treatment of the term is itself problematic? In another instance, your concepts of “wife” and “prostitute wife” seem too questionable to be acceptable to the majority of human kind.

Louis,

From 9900 miles away

 

[Lion Heart]

My definition of smart men ... includes those who can laugh at themselves.

I fully agree with you on that Chloë. And I would add to your definition "and who don't take themselves too seriously". We have talk about this, you know why!

On a side note, that's why I have a problem seing most politicians as smart men. (Warning : sadly, I'm not sure if this a joke or not...).

If only there was a smily for jokes out there...

Lion Heart

 

[Juliana]

Chloe you are the best !

[editor's note: my previous post was a JOKE]

My definition of smart men (if this should be a post about me defining my concepts, Louis) includes those who can laugh at themselves. You have not been doing too good at this lately. Maybe you should really plan a trip to this city. Ask the boys around here. You'd feel more relaxed

I really don't get the point of any of your posts in this thread. Would you like me to start talking about synthesis, or regulative and prescriptive principles just so I can look half as intelligent as you? You should know that I could hold the conversation with you and surely it would be entertaining Do you think we would get a crowd? Perhaps I should write a long oration on the importance of knowing the difference between analytic propositions and synthetic ones because that's another incredible subject you can loose most people's interest on (but appear to be 100 times smarter ). Or better yet, maybe I should analyse the allegory of the Cave for you so as to show who is really blind around here.

Laugh at a joke Louis. I won't even bother going over your incredibly enlightened critique of my three "earth shocking" claims. I have better things to do. If your ever in town however, give me a call. Maybe I'll consider it if you pay me.



I completely agree with Chloe. If you Dr Loius is talking with that abstract obscure language to your fiends, you will be putting your listener to sleep !

I thought this thread was about definitions of names in the sex industry. Not a boring philosophy class.

Very much like Cloe I love men with enough brain power who can be reasonable enough to see the light, and do not have to put clever women down.

Thanks to patriarcky and male priviledge we Sex Workers get pay to put up with the pompous and self-umportant types, whereas your wife has to put up with you for free right ?

I am amazed how innocent and lacking of critical perspectives on marriage some of you guys are. Women not getting the fair deal on marriages and that has been documented for centuries ! Why do you think the people that most flourish are men ? Because males are brighter ? No. Because the wife loves you too much but you do not reciprocate, therefore her potentiality does not thrive. In some circles in Canada and Quebec society things are changing but very slowly.


By the way, it is your male priveledge that turns the wives and the Sex Workers into whores of very different degrees !

Viva the Male Libido economy !

Thank you for the reply of all the thoughtful and the openness of all the sensitive male responses in this thread, it has been fun. As Chloe would put you know who you are.

see you at my massage !

Juliana

 

[louisisgreat]

Hahahahaha.........

[editor`s note: my previous post was a JOKE]

My definition of smart men (if this should be a post about me defining my concepts, Louis) includes those who can laugh at themselves. You have not been doing too good at this lately. Maybe you should really plan a trip to this city. Ask the boys around here. You`d feel more relaxed

I really don`t get the point of any of your posts in this thread. Would you like me to start talking about synthesis, or regulative and prescriptive principles just so I can look half as intelligent as you? You should know that I could hold the conversation with you and surely it would be entertaining. Do you think we would get a crowd? Perhaps I should write a long oration on the importance of knowing the difference between analytic propositions and synthetic ones because that`s another incredible subject you can loose most people`s interest on (but appear to be 100 times smarter ). Or better yet, maybe I should analyse the allegory of the Cave for you so as to show who is really blind around here.

Laugh at a joke Louis. I won`t even bother going over your incredibly enlightened critique of my three ``earth shocking`` claims. I have better things to do. If your ever in town however, give me a call. Maybe I`ll consider it if you pay me.

Does that narrow down my scientific definition of prostitution for you?

Of course, I`m just teasing too

Chloë

Dear Chloë Sweetheart:

...hahahaha…..LMAO!!!! You are so cute when you rant and tease at the same time. Thanks for pulling my leg although I think I like a different leg to be pulled.

I am sure it will be very entertaining if we debate each other in the middle of a busy street. Want to debate my sense of humor vs your sense of humour? Of course, if it draws a crowd it is people who are attracted to how cute my dear Chloe is, not that they want to hear anything substantive from me. But by all means collect an admission fee to help your ‘Chloe’s Education Fund’.

Thanks also for reminding me how blind I have been, metamorphically of course. Frankly, I have been ‘blind’ most of life with my idiosyncratic ‘blind’ sense of humor. I laugh at myself all the time without me laughing. Ever wonder how small those Philosophy and Classics departments are in an average educational institution? One thing for sure, I may go back and teach but I will never go to a beauty contest. Instead, may I send you and Goddess Aphrodite to represent me?

I did have a good time with the debate and discussions with my scholar friend, Rexroth. After all, names and terms always fascinate me as much as beautiful companions. If no one else finds my post in this thread helpful and interesting, I can understand. I must admit scholarly debates in an escort review board sounds interestingly out of place. But we are all minorities here and there is such thing as freedom of expression, right? So why not here? If there is no freedom of ideas and expressions here, I shall be the first one to depart.

I thought you will exercise your brainy magic and bring some incredibly far out claims back to life, joke or not. I am sorry my idiosyncratic sense of humor may be difficult to understand at times and may lead people to think that I am elitist. If there is any comfort to you, I belittle myself all the time more than anyone else. Very frankly, I do not have time to intentionally belittle anyone else and I have no interest in doing so. More unique smileys will definitely convey my louisisgreat sense of humor. But at least I am a very unique ‘bad boy’, my dear. May be I should start popularizing my ideas by being a politician instead of trying to become a philosopher king again? Hmmm...an interesting thought. Oh well, it is time to go and make some Greek dollar bills to keep Goddess Aphrodite happy. LORL!!!



Louis

P.S. Do I have to fill out an application to join the ‘Smart Men Society’?

 

[Minnesotah]

Here's my two cents. If everyone works, everyone is somewhat a prostitute and somewhat a slave. Is it there really a difference between someone working with her legs, a steel workers using his arms or a scientist using his brain capacities? According to me, it is no. Each of them is using some or all of his / her person aspects to bring bacon home and they're all at risk for at least one type of work injuries (std, back pain, burn out...). Also, you can think about the "exploiter (boss) / exploited" (employee) relation and consider it as being bad, but it always existed in the History. How the things can be different? My view could sound a little marxist, but I am quite far from being a marxist or a communist. Also, I agree policiticians are more ethically more hypocrites rather than SPs. The real issue is when people mix up religion, moral, politics, business and cash together. Religion and State should be kept seperated. Viva la republica!

Anyway, it might depends about what's looking for, but SP, GF or wives can give you what you want. If is you want discret no-string fun only, SP are a good way to get it cheaper and more honestly. You don't have to build up a whole story and waste lots of gifts / cash on a wedding... You go right to the point.

Basically, it was my two cents.

 

[Rexroth]

I must admit scholarly debates in an escort review board sounds interestingly out of place.

Why should “scholarly” debate be out of place on an escort review board? What better place to have it? After all, the program of your typical Athenian symposium went something like this: Up-close-and-personal attentions given to bent-over adolescent boys, followed by food (fish) and water-diluted wine served by alluring flute girls, followed in turn by “scholarly” debate over things like the allegory of the cave, and, when the wine began to get the better of the participants (and often before), followed by the participants falling over themselves (quite literally) to win/pay for the attention of one (or more) of the hetaerae present. So, the “scholarly” parts of the symposia which have been handed down and made into objects of veneration or arid lessons to be learned can be seen much more profitably as pauses between erections and/or as constitutive elements of a broader and much richer canvass (a synthesis of mind and body perhaps?). In this context, we should pay less attention to Plato’s allegory of the cave than to his allegory of the chariot. (I leave aside for the moment a discussion of the respective political statuses of men and women in this tableau, even though it is very much at the centre of Juliana’s posts and very much a key feature in the origins and evolution of prostitution).

P.S. Do I have to fill out an application to join the ‘Smart Men Society’?

If you like I can send you an application to join DENSA (MENSA's dumb cousin). I am the past prseident so I can make sure you get in.

To sum up, with regard to the issues of prostitution, aren’t you widening the definition of prostitutes so much that your treatment of the term is itself problematic? In another instance, your concepts of “wife” and “prostitute wife” seem too questionable to be acceptable to the majority of human kind.

I do think, Dr Louis, that your definition of prostitute is much too limited in that you allow yourself to be imprisoned by the denotative dimension of the expression. If we can apply the term to politicians and wives at all, it is because “prostitute,” like any word, is always nested in a complex of social and cultural meanings and values. Although it is by no means original, labelling politicians is, nevertheless, instructive. If we can do so it is because we make an equation between selling (commodifying) sex and selling one’s principles, with the former act being neutral until it is associated with the latter. Thus by metonymic extension, politicians are “prostitutes”; indeed, they are “whores who f**k anybody if the price is right.” Were I a prostitute, I would be insulted by the comparison, would probably let politicians have the appellation to themselves, and would begin to refer to myself as a service provider.

I thought this thread was about definitions of names in the sex industry. Not a boring philosophy class.

It seems to me that this thread is a bit of both, i.e., about names and words (or rhetoric) and about philosophy. The two are closely related. The mistake is to think that philosophy alone can get us somewhere (after all, the primary vehicles of philosophy are names and words).

Thanks to patriarcky and male priviledge we Sex Workers get pay to put up with the pompous and self-umportant types, whereas your wife has to put up with you for free right? … By the way, it is your male priveledge that turns the wives and the Sex Workers into whores of very different degrees ! Juliana

Indeed, it is no doubt male privilege that has policed the naming process. Wives and whores are called “whores” whereas “Johns” call themselves "hobbyists" and/or “mongers.”

Rexroth

 

[louisisgreat]

Very Well, My Friend...

Why should “scholarly” debate be out of place on an escort review board? What better place to have it? After all, the program of your typical Athenian symposium went something like this: Up-close-and-personal attentions given to bent-over adolescent boys, followed by food (fish) and water-diluted wine served by alluring flute girls, followed in turn by “scholarly” debate over things like the allegory of the cave, and, when the wine began to get the better of the participants (and often before), followed by the participants falling over themselves (quite literally) to win/pay for the attention of one (or more) of the hetaerae present. So, the “scholarly” parts of the symposia which have been handed down and made into objects of veneration or arid lessons to be learned can be seen much more profitably as pauses between erections and/or as constitutive elements of a broader and much richer canvass (a synthesis of mind and body perhaps?). In this context, we should pay less attention to Plato’s allegory of the cave than to his allegory of the chariot. (I leave aside for the moment a discussion of the respective political statuses of men and women in this tableau, even though it is very much at the centre of Juliana’s posts and very much a key feature in the origins and evolution of prostitution)....

If you like I can send you an application to join DENSA (MENSA's dumb cousin). I am the past prseident so I can make sure you get in.

Rexroth

Rexroth my scholar friend:

In accordance with the classical Greek tradition which, by and large, is the origin of Western civilization, I am a staunch proponent of freedom of expression, including, of course, scholarly expression of ideas and academic freedom. So if you read my entire post instead of just the one sentence you quoted, you will get the drift. Additionally, if you examined others’ opinions in their recent posts, you will agree with me we are the minorities of the minorities since most people are not really interested in scholarly philosophical argumentations. Most people are primarily interested in escort, MP, strippers reviews and who they want to go to for gratification of their desires, fantasies, and what not. I am just stating the fact. Obviously that is not to say we cannot discuss names and terms, or other scholarly issues related to hobbyism in the manner we like. But you know who our audiences are, that’s all.

Incidentally the Ancient Greeks were probably the most liberal of the liberals of their time. Homosexuality was just as tolerated as heterosexuality and bisexuality. A little clarification is in place here since I transcend space and time by traveling back and forth between now and then. I love teenagers just like I love all my children. For a 2400 year old man, I do have lots of children, grand-children, grand-grand-grand…children. But I am against sexual relations with teenagers and teenage prostitution, except perhaps with a certain ‘juzt_a_girl’ because she can perform ass dancing so good. (Note to self: I have no doubt 'juzt_a_girl is of legal age and fully grown.)

Now that we are talking about ass, I have formed the ‘Dumb Ass Society’ since I decided to become professor emeritus of Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism. Thanks for your invitation to DENSA nonetheless. This is better arrangement for me since dumb asses don’t do too much anyway so I can devote my time on some monumental work projects on my lap. We all need to get our priorities straight and I need to get things done badly. My strategy is simple, anything that will take less than five minutes to think and write, I may sneak in and post. Please don't tell this to Goddess Aphrodite. Or she will rush to my cave and demand cave man style five minute quickies.

Beyond that, unless if I feel it is very significant or I hit the lottery jacpot, I shall not post ‘monumental theories or arguments’ anymore. Instead, I shall save those for when I go back to teach in college, such as a course in ‘Philosophy of Love and Sex’. This way, even if I bore people to sleep or to death, at least I get paid a handsome stipend.

Well my friend, I have complete confidence in you that you will do well in your scholarly discussions without my input. That is why I ask you twice to take on my now retired professorship in Classical Greek Etymology and Hobbyism. Here and there, now and then, you may hear from me. Otherwise, I wish you well and it has been a pleasure.

Your pal,

Louis

 

[hobby11]

excellent

excellent sex and culture... best best combo