If prostitution were legal in USA (everywhere), would wives have less "headaches"?

[MatureDJ]

I was reading an article in my local rag about some 'ho's getting killed, and one of the comments got me thinking

When I was in the Navy, there were ***** houses overseas just about everywhere we went. The cost was reasonable, and the chances of STD's was minimized if you stuck to the reputable houses where medical checkups were done weekly. Your risk increased if you picked up a street walker, so most of us avoided them. I spent 4 years overseas, and went to ***** houses almost everyday. Never ever had any STD or other problems. You satisfied a need, they got paid, and everybody was happy. If they legalized prostitution in the U.S. wife's would be more sexually active with their husbands because if they weren't, the husbands would just go to the local brothel, pay his $20 and get what he wants. No more "I don't do that from wifes" if you know what I mean. Go to Nevada and try it and you'll see how nice it could be. For all the Puritan's and religious hypocrytes, you know y'all would use the service too, you ain't foolin' nobody.

It seems that the American wife has complete control of the sexual currency in the marriage, and because of this, husbands are much more supplicative. It seems that if husbands had an easy and affordable way to procure sexual release services, then the wives would not have so much power.

What do you all think?

 

[Stagger Lee]

It seems that the American wife has complete control of the sexual currency in the marriage, and because of this, husbands are much more supplicative. It seems that if husbands had an easy and affordable way to procure sexual release services, then the wives would not have so much power.

I think so and I think it would have a similar effect extending to single guys and single women not having so much leverage. You have all these guys bending over backwards and jumping through hoops because in most places a prostitute isn't a readily available, affordable and viable option so "non-prostitute" women have most all the sexual currency and leverage. By keeping prositution illegal and rare it is probably kept more expensive, kind of like drugs are. This probably protects the average woman's sexual market value.

 

[Robert28]

if prostitution became legal tomorrow, pu**y would plummet like the stock market does everytime Obama opens his mouth. you would wakeup and there would be a totally different world as far as dating/marriage went. no more flaking, no more b.s. games being played by women, and their rediculously high standards would all of a sudden be downgraded to a fat plumber with some serious butt crack. the womens libs would be rioting in the streets due to the loss of power overnight and i bet you would find women catering to men like never before. they'd be buying US dinner, theyd be asking US out and they would straighten their @$$es out because they knew if they ever hoped to get married, have a boyfriend, get pregnant, they would need to compete with the hot wh0res who got paid next to nothing to fulfill a guys desires. ahhhh damn it would be great! where do i vote??

 

[SecondHalf]

It's sort of legal in Canada, changes nothing.
It's legal in many countries including the US...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

Nice fantasy though.

SH

 

[Stagger Lee]

I was going to say it wouldn't make a drastic difference. Funny thing is Nevada was the easiest places to hook up that I've been based on the few days I've spent there. I think if it was legal in all or most states and wasn't overly regulated and taxed to the point it wasn't very affordable, it would make a noticable difference. You have to wonder why despite being legal as far as I know prostitutes costs as much in Nevada as where it is illegal. What would really make the most difference is ending affirmative action in coleges and in the workplace.

 

[Scars]

Sadly, I don't think it would change anything.

The feminists would just use shaming tactics to maintain control. "Guys who need wh0re houses are disgusting." "Men who use wh0re houses to get laid need them because they're too pathetic to get sex from a normal relationship" etc.. I could see it very quickly gaining a bad rep. Even the white knight men would jump on the band wagon, shaming each other for being "perverts who are too lame to get laid".

Woman's firm grip on America's balls isn't going to loosen up anytime soon, sorry. We have only ourselves to blame.

-Scars

 

[Lexington]

Prostitution is already legal in the United States except under a different name. Lots of women may call themselves "escorts" but make no mistake about it: they are hookers.

 

[Maxtro]

Prostitution is already legal in the United States except under a different name. Lots of women may call themselves "escorts" but make no mistake about it: they are hookers.

The problem with escorts is that they are very expensive. I don't know about now, but a few years ago, the going rate for an hour was $300.

The reason for the high cost is because it is illegal to have sex for money. With an escort you are technically just paying her for her time but of course it's for sex.

If prostitution was officially legal, more women would do it, and the cost would dramatically drop.

 

[Robert28]

Sadly, I don't think it would change anything.

The feminists would just use shaming tactics to maintain control. "Guys who need wh0re houses are disgusting." "Men who use wh0re houses to get laid need them because they're too pathetic to get sex from a normal relationship" etc.. I could see it very quickly gaining a bad rep. Even the white knight men would jump on the band wagon, shaming each other for being "perverts who are too lame to get laid".

Woman's firm grip on America's balls isn't going to loosen up anytime soon, sorry. We have only ourselves to blame.

-Scars

let the feminsist say all they want, won't affect me any. the wh0res are just providing a service that other women either refuse to provide on a regular basis, or worse yet, make you jump through tons of hoops for. i say scream til you lose your voice ladies! meantime, ill be doing some hot slut at a MUCH cheaper expense both emotionally and financially(dates get expensive). oh and the wh0re doesn't care if you forget her birthday, shes not going to tell you her problems, and she doesnt bring her drama and dump it on you, AND you dont have to call her....unless you want some. and she wont want to cuddle with you after....unless you pay for it.lol

as for the white knights, well they can keep on being white knights and hoping to get some @$$ oneday from the girls who they side with, while ill be getting sex anytime and as many times as i want, however i want it....long as i pay for it :rockon:

 

[Lexington]

The problem with escorts is that they are very expensive. I don't know about now, but a few years ago, the going rate for an hour was $300.

The reason for the high cost is because it is illegal to have sex for money. With an escort you are technically just paying her for her time but of course it's for sex.

If prostitution was officially legal, more women would do it, and the cost would dramatically drop.

The only difference between escorting and prostitution is that in the former, you're not technically paying for sex, but really you are. In effect, prostitution is legal.

Prostitution is completely legal in Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries. It isn't really cheap. I was in Amsterdam a couple years ago and the going rate for a bottom of the barrel girl was 50 euros for 15 minutes (and these were the kind of girls that would have to pay you!).

Prostitution is a lot cheaper in third world countries but all kinds of labor generally is in those parts and there's also a lot more human trafficking going on in those countries.

Prostitution is subject to the same economic forces as any other product or service. I'm sure you could score low grade p00n for cheaper, but the really hot girls would be a lot more expensive.

Also if there is demand, it will be met regardless of whether or not it is legal. See the drugs trade for example. Weed, cocaine, crack, heroin and meth are illegal. But I bet I could find them pretty easily if I was willing to look.

There will always be sky high demand for good pvssy.

 

[Jitterbug]

Legalisation doesn't mean much other than cleanliness. It's social acceptance that's more important.

Australia for example has legalised prostitution, but social shaming is heavy on men ("if you use it, you're a loser who can't attract women"), and we have the same problems with our women.

In many Asian countries, prostitution is officially illegal while unofficially supported by various forms of corruption in law enforcement. However, social shaming on men using the service is nonexistent. The shaming is either on the prostitutes or on the wives who apparently fail to satisfy their husbands. This female "I have headache" problem is unheard of in those countries.

 

[EastWind]

I live in Germany (being German) and girls and wives think as highly of their private places and the people they should share it with as in the US.

In fact, I find that US girls who stay here for a few days/weeks/months are much easier. Must be the whole "nobody I know is here to judge me" thing.

But, really, the legalization of prostitution in Germany has brought about one thing, and that is social safety for the hookers - they now have access to the state retirement, unemployment and healthcare funds (yes, all of these exist and are compulsory here) - and of course regular health checks in good establishments.

You're forgetting the social stigmata of prostitution. Someone mentioned it further up: if you pay for a prostitute, you're a loser who can't get girls for free. And I agree to some extent: seeing how some guys get sex for free all over the place (although I can't), I don't see why I should pay for something I can essentially get for free if I work hard enough on myself to get it, with the added bonus of becoming a better man.

 

[squirrels]

Eh...you pay for it one way or another. If you're not paying MONEY, you're putting in TIME.

Honestly...if lack of sexual willingness/imagination is a major hang-up for you with a woman, maybe you shouldn't have married that particular woman in the first place.

In fact, maybe you shouldn't have gotten MARRIED in the first place. Marrying for sex or for sexual exclusivity is basically the WORST reason to get married.

There are a lot of good reasons to get married...to have exclusive on-demand rights to a vag!na is a stupid, superficial reason to do so. It doesn't even guarantee you those rights...you are completely at the mercy of the other's sex-drive. And yes, these feelings DO eventually die off.

I know that there's this huge social stigma about how your value of a man depends on your sexual virility and I know almost all men in the world are stupid enough to buy into it...but maybe people should reconsider it before they enter into a legal/familial commitment with someone based on it.

 

[K2000kidd]

To answer OPs question if sex with a prostitute was legal and as cheap as buying a pack of smokes or a 12pack women would change their tune REAL fast and they'd jump through hoops to land US. Shaming or not i wouldn't care DCK would be a commodity not the poon and I'd make em work for it LMAO

 

[samspade]

You're forgetting the social stigmata of prostitution. Someone mentioned it further up: if you pay for a prostitute, you're a loser who can't get girls for free. And I agree to some extent: seeing how some guys get sex for free all over the place (although I can't), I don't see why I should pay for something I can essentially get for free if I work hard enough on myself to get it, with the added bonus of becoming a better man.

What I find interesting about the social stigma is that even (most) women will forgive a man for hiring a professional under certain circumstances - for instance, a guy who is in overseas combat, or just got out of prison. I know those are extreme situations, but the latent understanding is that a man needs his gratification at some point, especially in times of duress.

If prostitution were legal and regulated, it would still be a vice. We permit drinking and smoking and gambling, and I bet half the country is okay with marijuana use as well. Yet we also acknowledge that these vices, while entertaining and relaxing, can destroy lives if abused. Ditto prostitution, no matter how safe it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for its legalization, but I don't think it will ever rise above sex via seduction, love, or what have you. It would still be something that men need in a pinch, whether they're just desperate or having a bachelor party.

People love to warn about "slippery slopes" when it comes to things like this, but societies wager against supposed slippery slopes all the time when the legalize one thing or outlaw another. The biggest benefit of legalized prostitution would be the safety and health (and independence) of the prostitutes, IMO, followed by less waste by law enforcement arresting them.

 

[Burroughs]

Yes legalized prostitution would change the balance of sexual power in America for the male. Provided he is willing to act on it and not be "shamed" (a very real threat).

The prostitution would have to be franchised, clean, and marketed. It would begin with single guys 18-22..but it would have a ripple effect.

You already see most celebrity men tiger woods, sheen, mark wahlberg, sting, etc indulging. Why? These guys can't get laid on their own? Course they can. Its a time is money thing. Get laid...bust some nuts on her face, clean up, go back to building your empire...

Simple, efficient.

 

[sstype]

What I find interesting about the social stigma is that even (most) women will forgive a man for hiring a professional under certain circumstances - for instance, a guy who is in overseas combat, or just got out of prison. I know those are extreme situations, but the latent understanding is that a man needs his gratification at some point, especially in times of duress.

If prostitution were legal and regulated, it would still be a vice. We permit drinking and smoking and gambling, and I bet half the country is okay with marijuana use as well. Yet we also acknowledge that these vices, while entertaining and relaxing, can destroy lives if abused. Ditto prostitution, no matter how safe it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for its legalization, but I don't think it will ever rise above sex via seduction, love, or what have you. It would still be something that men need in a pinch, whether they're just desperate or having a bachelor party.

People love to warn about "slippery slopes" when it comes to things like this, but societies wager against supposed slippery slopes all the time when the legalize one thing or outlaw another. The biggest benefit of legalized prostitution would be the safety and health (and independence) of the prostitutes, IMO, followed by less waste by law enforcement arresting them.

The male shaming component in many ways is worse....even here on SoSuave. Mention buying a prostitute here and you will get equally lambasted as a loser and less of a man for buying it.

As I've harped on before....you will always pay for sex. Whether its through dates, learning how to be DJ, self-improvement, an LTR relationship, sarging, etc....you will pay in time, money, and effort.

 

[samspade]

As I've harped on before....you will always pay for sex. Whether its through dates, learning how to be DJ, self-improvement, an LTR relationship, sarging, etc....you will pay in time, money, and effort.

I hear/read this a lot. I get that everything costs something - time, money (which is your time, paid for), effort. That's true of everything in life. Me clicking my mouse just cost me .09 seconds.

But I think there is a distinction between hiring a hooker and seducing a woman. Even on a one night stand, a woman still has to like you on some basic level if she's going to let herself sleep with you. A hooker doesn't need to form any bond other than a quid pro quo agreement.

I say this only because the "you always pay" line is often used to imply that every woman is, on some level, a prostitute. Maybe on some meta, all-encompassing level that is true, philosophically - if we all pay with something, then women all receive something. But if a man has mastered seduction, he should be paying mostly with time (not too much though), attention, and effort. Money should be spent at a minimum.

This is why the "nice guy" is so resented by women - he often attempts to "buy" women with gifts and dinners, expecting sex in return. It's also why women feel fully justified in indulging without giving up the goods.

I don't think anyone's a loser because he hires a hooker. There are certainly losers who do it, but like Burroughs said, so do a lot of lady killers. The female shaming of prostitution is simply a fundamental misread of the male psyche and libido. Or, it's indignation that their "meal ticket" might lose its value.

 

[sstype]

I hear/read this a lot. I get that everything costs something - time, money (which is your time, paid for), effort. That's true of everything in life. Me clicking my mouse just cost me .09 seconds.

But I think there is a distinction between hiring a hooker and seducing a woman. Even on a one night stand, a woman still has to like you on some basic level if she's going to let herself sleep with you. A hooker doesn't need to form any bond other than a quid pro quo agreement.


I say this only because the "you always pay" line is often used to imply that every woman is, on some level, a prostitute. Maybe on some meta, all-encompassing level that is true, philosophically - if we all pay with something, then women all receive something. But if a man has mastered seduction, he should be paying mostly with time (not too much though), attention, and effort. Money should be spent at a minimum.

This is why the "nice guy" is so resented by women - he often attempts to "buy" women with gifts and dinners, expecting sex in return. It's also why women feel fully justified in indulging without giving up the goods.

I don't think anyone's a loser because he hires a hooker. There are certainly losers who do it, but like Burroughs said, so do a lot of lady killers. The female shaming of prostitution is simply a fundamental misread of the male psyche and libido. Or, it's indignation that their "meal ticket" might lose its value.

Agreed....there's nothing wrong with taking either path. It all depends on one's personal preference and life circumstances. My point was there's nothing wrong with outright paying for it if one chooses to do so.

 

[sstype]

I hear/read this a lot. I get that everything costs something - time, money (which is your time, paid for), effort. That's true of everything in life. Me clicking my mouse just cost me .09 seconds.

But I think there is a distinction between hiring a hooker and seducing a woman. Even on a one night stand, a woman still has to like you on some basic level if she's going to let herself sleep with you. A hooker doesn't need to form any bond other than a quid pro quo agreement.


I say this only because the "you always pay" line is often used to imply that every woman is, on some level, a prostitute. Maybe on some meta, all-encompassing level that is true, philosophically - if we all pay with something, then women all receive something. But if a man has mastered seduction, he should be paying mostly with time (not too much though), attention, and effort. Money should be spent at a minimum.

This is why the "nice guy" is so resented by women - he often attempts to "buy" women with gifts and dinners, expecting sex in return. It's also why women feel fully justified in indulging without giving up the goods.

I don't think anyone's a loser because he hires a hooker. There are certainly losers who do it, but like Burroughs said, so do a lot of lady killers. The female shaming of prostitution is simply a fundamental misread of the male psyche and libido. Or, it's indignation that their "meal ticket" might lose its value.

Agreed....there's nothing wrong with taking either path. It all depends on one's personal preference and life circumstances. My point was there's nothing wrong with outright paying for it if one chooses to do so.