• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL: Is there a moral difference between a $20 streetwalker and a $200+ "WILF" (escort, courteasan, etc)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: LED
K...so you take a one night stand out and spend some cash on her with you involved and she spreads the bedsheets for you...

Is she a whore...you know she does it for others?
Click to expand...

There was no agreement for sex, that's not their chosen occupation.

And yes, there is a difference. They both have the same occupation, but obviously an escort is at the top level of the occupation, whereas as streetwalker is at the bottom.
 
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
morally? probably not.

But most would go for the high class hooker before the $20 skank without any teeth.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't knock women with no teeth! That can be a good thing! 😀
 
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
morally? probably not.

But most would go for the high class hooker before the $20 skank without any teeth.
Click to expand...
Without teeth? AWESOME! Speak for yourself buddy!

And I don't see how in the world it could possibly be morally different. If you can't show me a difference, I declare this thread worthless.
Click to expand...

I think the moral ambiguity comes from the difference of a streetwalker that actively solicits and a high dollar whore who passively solicits.
Click to expand...

I've gone out plenty many times with us knowing the end result...but wanted fun beforehand (you know foreplay 😉)
 
Morally? I dunno. Is one more likely than the other to carry an STD? I suspect the streetwalker would be - more willing to not use protection, more likely to use drugs/share needles. So from the perspective that it is morally wrong to risk infecting my SO with an STD, I'd say it would be more morally wrong to rent a $20 prostitute than a "high class" escort.
 
Originally posted by: Hammer
no. there's an old saying attributed to winston churchill. (unconfirmed of course)

churchill asked this upper crust type woman at a party "would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?"
"of course!" she says
churchill then says "will you sleep with me for $1"
the woman is shocked and offended. "what kind of woman do you think i am?"
churchill responds "madam, we've already established what you are, now we are merely haggling on the price"
Click to expand...

That quote was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the OP.

Is there a difference between a $1 value meal at Micky D's and a $200 dinner at a 4 star restaurant ?
Click to expand...

A moral difference no, a quality difference perhaps. Leaving out the "moral" part of the original OP changes the entire nature of the question.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is there a difference between a $1 value meal at Micky D's and a $200 dinner at a 4 star restaurant ?
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same, in the end all you're doing is fulfilling a basic need(in this case hunger, or in the original example, to get your load off) it's just how much you enjoy it between A and B, and your expectations are in scale with the price you're about to pay.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is there a difference between a $1 value meal at Micky D's and a $200 dinner at a 4 star restaurant ?
Click to expand...

McD's: you serve yourself
4 star: you get served

McD's: C-grade beef
4 star: Grade A Angus <-please do NOT "fix" this. hehe

McD's: you get your fill for $1
4 star: you get full and then kick yourself for spending your monthly food bill in one night.


on a side note: 1000th post! :beer:

 
If someone can't tell the difference between a whore who will suck your dick for crack and a professional lady of the night, I'd suggest they have their dick laminated immediately before they get hurt.
 
I would say yes there is a moral difference. I'm just guessing/assuming here, but here's my take on things ...

The Streetwalker is probably not clean (knowing they are sick and intentionally spreading disease is rather immoral IMO.) Also, the likelyhood that they are using the income to better themselves (as in, for a productive reason, such as pay for college) is very slim. Most likely they are just addicted to some type of drug and looking for a quick way to get a fix. As long as they just hurt themselses, I don't see it as being really immoral.

The "WILF" types are much more likely to use that income to better themselves, be it through education, or through investing. They are probably clean, or at least a much larger percentage of them are clean, they get tested regularly to be sure, and they wear protection at all times.


I don't think there is anything immoral about solicitating one of either type, though I'd say it is probably dangerous and stupid to go with the streetwalker, and expensive to go with the WILF.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is there a difference between a $1 value meal at Micky D's and a $200 dinner at a 4 star restaurant ?
Click to expand...
More like the difference between McDonald's drive-thru and eating in at In 'n out.
 
pssh, you're all rookies.

Obviously I'd ask rossman for a coupon first and get the $200 whore for -20 bux AC AR PM to the local streetwalker .

Is there a moral difference? Hell yeah. What kind of sick, twisted bastard pays retail for anything?

😛
 
If the bottom line is both scenerios is sex for money.... then no, there is not moral or legal difference.

Having said that... I think the whole prostitution being illegal thing is pretty moronic.

a guy can take a girl out on a date, buy her dinner, take her home and have sex all night and it is perfectly legal. But if he gives her the same amount in cash instead of dinner, it is illegal. That makes no sense to me. If a man pays a woman to come and clean his house, wash his laundry and cook his food, he can pay her in cash and it is legal. but if he has sex with her, and give her the same hourly wage, they get arrested. silly, imho.

Personally, I think... from a legal standpoint... this should be states rights issue. Voters decide if they want a brothel in thier town or not. Strict restrictions would be put in place and all 'employees' should be tested regulary and pay taxes. And I think there should be the same restrictions as bars and casinos are far as how close to a church or school they should be.

It makes no sense to me that... if two consenting adults decide they will trade sex for money the government should get involved.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is there a difference between a $1 value meal at Micky D's and a $200 dinner at a 4 star restaurant ?
Click to expand...

You suck at logic. The correct analogy you could have made is $20 meal vs a $200+ dinner.

Is thinking that hard?
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is there a difference between a $1 value meal at Micky D's and a $200 dinner at a 4 star restaurant ?
Click to expand...

yeah, I could eat at micky d's 200 times, so quantity is the difference.
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
If the bottom line is both scenerios is sex for money.... then no, there is not moral or legal difference.

Having said that... I think the whole prostitution being illegal thing is pretty moronic.

a guy can take a girl out on a date, buy her dinner, take her home and have sex all night and it is perfectly legal. But if he gives her the same amount in cash instead of dinner, it is illegal. That makes no sense to me. If a man pays a woman to come and clean his house, wash his laundry and cook his food, he can pay her in cash and it is legal. but if he has sex with her, and give her the same hourly wage, they get arrested. silly, imho.

Personally, I think... from a legal standpoint... this should be states rights issue. Voters decide if they want a brothel in thier town or not. Strict restrictions would be put in place and all 'employees' should be tested regulary and pay taxes. And I think there should be the same restrictions as bars and casinos are far as how close to a church or school they should be.

It makes no sense to me that... if two consenting adults decide they will trade sex for money the government should get involved.
Click to expand...

As far as I know there is no Federal prohibition against prostitution so the states already retain the right to deal with it as they please. There are counties in Nevada where it is legal.
 
No. There is no moral difference. But then again, neither is doing anything morally wrong. Their bodies are their own, even to sell if they please. There is zero immorality in that, although it would not be a lifestyle that I would prefer. Now if during the course of business their clients are breaking vows and promises that they may have made to other people, that is the client's immorality, and not the prostitute's.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
No. There is no moral difference. But then again, neither is doing anything morally wrong. Their bodies are their own, even to sell if they please. There is zero immorality in that, although it would not be a lifestyle that I would prefer. Now if during the course of business their clients are breaking vows and promises that they may have made to other people, that is the client's immorality, and not the prostitute's.
Click to expand...

I agree. People in another thread were questioning the differences between a cheap whore and an expensive whore. IMHO besides the obvious, there is no difference (this is where morals come in)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top