So why is this a bad thing?

[Bronzeage]

If we could eradicate the stripper and hooker taboo.... I wonder if fewer rapes would happen. I bet that would be the case.

What exactly is the stripper and hooker taboo, and how does this relate to rape?

 

[thebeave]

Am I the only one who caught this (from the OP):

When his friend arrived from a party she was drunk, he said. Her flirting and touching made Sandoval uncomfortable. Something about the situation reminded him of educational sessions he’d had in prior years where he’d learned about sexual consent. Sandoval walked his friend back to her dorm.

The predictable response here is this Sandoval guy "gets it", and he should be commended for pushing aside his rapey thoughts. There's hope for men, yet! Fine. He did the right thing...good for him. Now, lets's reverse the genders.

Now, its a drunk guy hitting on the sober woman and touching her and making her uncomfortable. The message being pushed onto the woman from her college "educational sessions" is that he is sexually harrassing her, and she is highly encouraged to report the unwanted touching (i.e sexual assault) to the appropriate campus authorities. And hopefully, if this is a just world, he'll get some kind of punishment. Maybe suspended for a semester, or even expelled. Shouldn't the responses be the same, regardless of gender? Shouldn't Sandoval be encouraged to file sexual assault against the drunk girl for touching him without consent? If not, why not?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If we could eradicate the stripper and hooker taboo.... I wonder if fewer rapes would happen. I bet that would be the case.

What exactly is the stripper and hooker taboo, and how does this relate to rape?

The taboo of paid sex. If you are not aware of this taboo, perhaps you are Dutch or something?

The thought is that some rape may occur because of sexually frustrated men wanting to have sex and not having it easily available to them, making them more likely to push the envelope. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it may.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/ (legalizing prostitution correlated with sharp drop in rape)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime (rape rate 3x in US compared to Netherlands)

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000122 (Some argument for and against the idea)

 

[Bronzeage]

What exactly is the stripper and hooker taboo, and how does this relate to rape?

The taboo of paid sex. If you are not aware of this taboo, perhaps you are Dutch or something?

The thought is that some rape may occur because of sexually frustrated men wanting to have sex and not having it easily available to them, making them more likely to push the envelope. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it may.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/ (legalizing prostitution correlated with sharp drop in rape)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime (rape rate 3x in US compared to Netherlands)

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000122 (Some argument for and against the idea)

No, I am not Dutch, but in the US, illegal and taboo have distinct differences in definition. Prostitution has always been illegal in this country, but does not fall into the taboo. I'm not sure how strippers fit into this, as in most places, nude or nearly nude dancing is legal and licensed by local government.

There maybe something to the idea. I have a friend who spent several months in Europe, as a member of a professional sports team. They were on an exhibition tour of American style football games. He said Amsterdam was the most fun. He and his team mates would visit a legal brothel [see strange story below*]early in the evening, before hitting the bars of the town. This temporarily sated them and let them to tease and flirt with the women of the city, with less sexual pressure.

However, the idea does play into the belief that the sexual tension which leads to assault and rape are a matter if irresistible physical need and not and aberrant attitude of entitlement.

*Curious story about Amsterdam brothels
My friend said fellatio in a legal brothel was reasonably priced, but one had to watch out for the "chin job." This is where the prostitute tucks the customer's penis between her chin and neck, and with the aid of a small bottle of hand lotion, completes the act without any actual oral sex. I suspect my friend fell prey to a Low Country urban legend, but if any of TFT members can confirm this, I would be grateful.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Am I the only one who caught this (from the OP):

When his friend arrived from a party she was drunk, he said. Her flirting and touching made Sandoval uncomfortable. Something about the situation reminded him of educational sessions he’d had in prior years where he’d learned about sexual consent. Sandoval walked his friend back to her dorm.

The predictable response here is this Sandoval guy "gets it", and he should be commended for pushing aside his rapey thoughts. There's hope for men, yet! Fine. He did the right thing...good for him. Now, lets's reverse the genders.

Now, its a drunk guy hitting on the sober woman and touching her and making her uncomfortable. The message being pushed onto the woman from her college "educational sessions" is that he is sexually harrassing her, and she is highly encouraged to report the unwanted touching (i.e sexual assault) to the appropriate campus authorities. And hopefully, if this is a just world, he'll get some kind of punishment. Maybe suspended for a semester, or even expelled. Shouldn't the responses be the same, regardless of gender? Shouldn't Sandoval be encouraged to file sexual assault against the drunk girl for touching him without consent? If not, why not?

Why are black people allowed to say nigger this and nigger that and white people aren't? (Well you can, but in many cases you'll look like a douche.) I think both questions have similar answers.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Also, why do people make stuff so hard that really shouldn't be? I've had women come on to me drunk before. You put them to bed or whatever. This isn't new, back in the day it was called being a gentleman; not taking advantage of a situation. Also, if you meet your woman friend, and she's buzzed and touching you, that doesn't mean she wants it. It could mean a lot of different things, but slogging her over the shoulder and heading off for the bedroom should be pretty close to last on the list.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, I am not Dutch, but in the US, illegal and taboo have distinct differences in definition.

Illegal and taboo have different legal definitions yes, but I suspect both play a role. You don't have to make something illegal to make it taboo and for that taboo to have a powerful effect on society. Even if prostitution was legal, it would still be embarassing or shameful or a major ego blow to go to a hooker for a lot of men, so long as the taboo is kept strong.

My friend said fellatio in a legal brothel was reasonably priced, but one had to watch out for the "chin job." This is where the prostitute tucks the customer's penis between her chin and neck, and with the aid of a small bottle of hand lotion, completes the act without any actual oral sex. I suspect my friend fell prey to a Low Country urban legend, but if any of TFT members can confirm this, I would be grateful.

Doesn't surprise me and I bet it is true. I do know some massage parlours here in Ontario have girls that will "bodyslide" and use their hands and outside of their labia to simulate you having intercourse, and do it very well to the point that you may not be able to tell. I could see them doing it with lowered lighting and blocking the client's view, using a condom, and fooling some people.

 

[prideandfall]

Doesn't surprise me and I bet it is true. I do know some massage parlours here in Ontario have girls that will "bodyslide" and use their hands and outside of their labia to simulate you having intercourse, and do it very well to the point that you may not be able to tell. I could see them doing it with lowered lighting and blocking the client's view, using a condom, and fooling some people.

sorry to continue the derail, but i find this fascinating...

if you pay a woman to get you off, and she gets you off, but does it in a way that isn't precisely what you thought it would be, but you couldn't tell the difference anyways and still got off, what the hell difference does it make?

 

[Bronzeage]

Illegal and taboo have different legal definitions yes, but I suspect both play a role. You don't have to make something illegal to make it taboo and for that taboo to have a powerful effect on society. Even if prostitution was legal, it would still be embarassing or shameful or a major ego blow to go to a hooker for a lot of men, so long as the taboo is kept strong.

My friend said fellatio in a legal brothel was reasonably priced, but one had to watch out for the "chin job." This is where the prostitute tucks the customer's penis between her chin and neck, and with the aid of a small bottle of hand lotion, completes the act without any actual oral sex. I suspect my friend fell prey to a Low Country urban legend, but if any of TFT members can confirm this, I would be grateful.

Doesn't surprise me and I bet it is true. I do know some massage parlours here in Ontario have girls that will "bodyslide" and use their hands and outside of their labia to simulate you having intercourse, and do it very well to the point that you may not be able to tell. I could see them doing it with lowered lighting and blocking the client's view, using a condom, and fooling some people.

I have never heard of anyone comparing patronizing a prostitute with have sex with one's sister. I assume the sister is not a prostitute, which shows there could be some overlap. Even in the sunny south of the USA, prostitution is not on the list of sexual taboos. When a man is discovered to have visited a prostitute, there is a greater outcry if he is married, which makes his offense adultery, not fornication in exchange for money.

As for the chin job and it's variations, alls well that ends well.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it's not getting what you paid for, so that's a bad thing. If you pay for a blowjob and she gives you a handjob, the fact that you got off in both instances doesn't mean that she's somehow providing the services which she's advertised.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, it's not getting what you paid for, so that's a bad thing. If you pay for a blowjob and she gives you a handjob, the fact that you got off in both instances doesn't mean that she's somehow providing the services which she's advertised.

Simply a marketing issue. The solution here is to be upfront about the chin job, but charge more. The problem will solve itself. The chin job will quickly become the choice of discerning brothel patrons, similar to the trick with the live baby eels and the furlined mittens.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it's not getting what you paid for, so that's a bad thing. If you pay for a blowjob and she gives you a handjob, the fact that you got off in both instances doesn't mean that she's somehow providing the services which she's advertised.

Simply a marketing issue. The solution here is to be upfront about the chin job, but charge more. The problem will solve itself. The chin job will quickly become the choice of discerning brothel patrons, similar to the trick with the live baby eels and the furlined mittens.

And that's perfectly fine. My complaint was with the prostitute giving a chin job when the customer had ordered a blowjob.

It's no different than if you go to a restaurant and order a steak, but get fish instead. There's nothing wrong with either meal, but the business is required to serve you the one you asked for and not the one they feel like providing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's no different than if you go to a restaurant and order a steak, but get fish instead. There's nothing wrong with either meal, but the business is required to serve you the one you asked for and not the one they feel like providing.

I wonder how often that happens... restaurants passing one meat off as another. If you believed you were eating a rare gourmet fish, but it was really just a common fish dressed up in a new way.. I bet it has happened and I bet somebody has sued.

By the way, the way hookers around here get around that issue is the same way they try to get around the issue of prostitution laws in general. They say they are escorts, and you are paying for their time. That she will have sex with you isn't explicitly stated (though it is expected), so there is no list of what services you'll get.

 

[EricK]

Well, it's not getting what you paid for, so that's a bad thing. If you pay for a blowjob and she gives you a handjob, the fact that you got off in both instances doesn't mean that she's somehow providing the services which she's advertised.

Simply a marketing issue. The solution here is to be upfront about the chin job, but charge more. The problem will solve itself. The chin job will quickly become the choice of discerning brothel patrons, similar to the trick with the live baby eels and the furlined mittens.

"Be a man and take it on the chin"

 

[Bronzeage]

Simply a marketing issue. The solution here is to be upfront about the chin job, but charge more. The problem will solve itself. The chin job will quickly become the choice of discerning brothel patrons, similar to the trick with the live baby eels and the furlined mittens.

And that's perfectly fine. My complaint was with the prostitute giving a chin job when the customer had ordered a blowjob.

It's no different than if you go to a restaurant and order a steak, but get fish instead. There's nothing wrong with either meal, but the business is required to serve you the one you asked for and not the one they feel like providing.

No, it's more like going into a restaurant where the chef is a sexy woman who pretends to be your wife and she prepares a meal for the two of you. If you're no longer hungry when it's over, that's what you paid for.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And that's perfectly fine. My complaint was with the prostitute giving a chin job when the customer had ordered a blowjob.

It's no different than if you go to a restaurant and order a steak, but get fish instead. There's nothing wrong with either meal, but the business is required to serve you the one you asked for and not the one they feel like providing.

No, it's more like going into a restaurant where the chef is a sexy woman who pretends to be your wife and she prepares a meal for the two of you. If you're no longer hungry when it's over, that's what you paid for.

No, that's a horrible analogy. You don't go to a restaurant and say "I will have a meal". You order a specific type of food and that specific type of food is what's provided. If you just get generically fed with whatever the chef feels like providing that day, despite what you specifically ordered, the restaurant failed to provide the service you are paying for, regardless of whether or not you end up not hungry.

Similarly, if a prositute provides a list of services and those services include a blowjob, then that's what the client ordered and not giving it to him is a failure on her part to provide the services which should have been offered. It's no different than if he goes in expecting sex but she tells him that she's tired and will only give him a handjob. If she tells him that before taking his money and he still agrees, then that's fine but if she takes the money first and won't give it back, then the lying whore is going to find herself on the receiving end of a sternly worded letter from the Better Business Bureau.

 

[Bronzeage]

No, it's more like going into a restaurant where the chef is a sexy woman who pretends to be your wife and she prepares a meal for the two of you. If you're no longer hungry when it's over, that's what you paid for.

No, that's a horrible analogy. You don't go to a restaurant and say "I will have a meal". You order a specific type of food and that specific type of food is what's provided. If you just get generically fed with whatever the chef feels like providing that day, despite what you specifically ordered, the restaurant failed to provide the service you are paying for, regardless of whether or not you end up not hungry.

Similarly, if a prositute provides a list of services and those services include a blowjob, then that's what the client ordered and not giving it to him is a failure on her part to provide the services which should have been offered. It's no different than if he goes in expecting sex but she tells him that she's tired and will only give him a handjob. If she tells him that before taking his money and he still agrees, then that's fine but if she takes the money first and won't give it back, then the lying whore is going to find herself on the receiving end of a sternly worded letter from the Better Business Bureau.

That might be the way it is in Canada, where I am told the government provides prostitution subsidies and a special board regulates practices and prices, but in the US, we have learned to be happy if it turns out our prostitute has ovaries.

 

[Unbeatable]

A man is supposed to act like a gentleman. You might as well get a blow up doll if you are having sex with inebriated partners. Here is real minority opinion around here for which I expect I will be mercilessly flamed. Sex is not an end it's a means.

True. It's a means to intimacy, to pleasure, to status, to a variety of other things. It's a tool that people use for many purposes simultaneously, not just one. And you don't get to prescribe one purpose over the others. You present a false dichotomy between intimacy and physical pleasure. Oversimplifying the psychology of sex does not make you some sort of brave maverick. It just makes an ignorant person spreading incorrect information.

Guys, if you need to get off that bad:
Should take care of you if you need to get off, just to get off .... no need to get someone drunk or take advantage of someone who is drunk just to get your rocks off.... Your hand will never be charged with rape this way...

Being celibate, I've always considered sex to be a pointless risk and waste of energy compared with masturbation. But I've been informed by people who are into the whole sex thing that people's motives for having sex aren't as simple as mere physical release, or mere intimacy.

The taboo of paid sex. If you are not aware of this taboo, perhaps you are Dutch or something?

The thought is that some rape may occur because of sexually frustrated men wanting to have sex and not having it easily available to them, making them more likely to push the envelope. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it may.

No, I am not Dutch, but in the US, illegal and taboo have distinct differences in definition. Prostitution has always been illegal in this country, but does not fall into the taboo. I'm not sure how strippers fit into this, as in most places, nude or nearly nude dancing is legal and licensed by local government.

No taboo? Have you not encountered the idea "real men" don't have to pay for sex; that the inclination to do so implies a lack of better options, which implies a sort of inadequacy on his part which warrants shame? Granted, it's not applied universally to all men who utilize prostitutes (I think men who are already high-status and assumed to be capable of "getting laid" on their own can escape the implication), but it seems to me that it still exists.

 

[Bronzeage]

No taboo? Have you not encountered the idea "real men" don't have to pay for sex; that the inclination to do so implies a lack of better options, which implies a sort of inadequacy on his part which warrants shame? Granted, it's not applied universally to all men who utilize prostitutes (I think men who are already high-status and assumed to be capable of "getting laid" on their own can escape the implication), but it seems to me that it still exists.

Real men do not pay a lot of attention to that sort of nonsense. One is more likely to find that talk among insecure women who see prostitutes and their sexuality as a threat. Even in the 21st century, one can still find women who believe controlling access to her genitals will give her some specific influence over men. It can be disconcerting for them to see this power reduced to simple economics.

 

[Unbeatable]

No taboo? Have you not encountered the idea "real men" don't have to pay for sex; that the inclination to do so implies a lack of better options, which implies a sort of inadequacy on his part which warrants shame? Granted, it's not applied universally to all men who utilize prostitutes (I think men who are already high-status and assumed to be capable of "getting laid" on their own can escape the implication), but it seems to me that it still exists.

Real men do not pay a lot of attention to that sort of nonsense. One is more likely to find that talk among insecure women who see prostitutes and their sexuality as a threat.

Maybe that's more likely, but I originally encountered the idea among insecure men. It's like Jolly Penguin said-- "sexually frustrated men wanting to have sex and not having it easily available to them", but being unwilling to utilize prostitutes because, well, I guess they're not "real men" in your eyes, since they took seriously the idea that "having to pay for sex" would be a confirmation of their pathetic-ness. Is this something you're really not familiar with, or do you just look down on the men who are affected by it?