To men who have seen prostitutes...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

[Anonymous]

"No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason."

Well, that's usually not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason."

Well, that's usually not true.

The "crime" of withholding sex is not morally equivalent to the crime of engaging in any facet of prostitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason."

Well, that's usually not true.

The "crime" of withholding sex is not morally equivalent to the crime of engaging in any facet of prostitution.

ok i agree with you and with 21:27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason."

Well, that's usually not true.

The "crime" of withholding sex is not morally equivalent to the crime of engaging in any facet of prostitution.

And it's so absurd that anyone would compare them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

And whose benefit was religion made for? See how f'ed up this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

it’s not criminal everywhere. Legal in many places around the globe. In U.S., it’s usually a misdemeanor, like littering or smoking a joint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

it’s not criminal everywhere. Legal in many places around the globe. In U.S., it’s usually a misdemeanor, like littering or smoking a joint.

It's morally reviled fairly universally. And legal in very few places. Certainly not in the United States. And people are working to make it a more serious criminal infraction. The days of cheek turning are over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

it’s not criminal everywhere. Legal in many places around the globe. In U.S., it’s usually a misdemeanor, like littering or smoking a joint.

It's morally reviled fairly universally. And legal in very few places. Certainly not in the United States. And people are working to make it a more serious criminal infraction. The days of cheek turning are over.

there are legal brothels in Nevada. As for turning the other check, I see it going the other way. Not fair to the prostitutes to run them out of business. They are the biggest proponents of legalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

it’s not criminal everywhere. Legal in many places around the globe. In U.S., it’s usually a misdemeanor, like littering or smoking a joint.

It's morally reviled fairly universally. And legal in very few places. Certainly not in the United States. And people are working to make it a more serious criminal infraction. The days of cheek turning are over.

there are legal brothels in Nevada. As for turning the other check, I see it going the other way. Not fair to the prostitutes to run them out of business. They are the biggest proponents of legalization.

It's not going to be legalized any time soon, sorry to tell you. The percentage of the population who make their living from sex work is fairly low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

Actually, there are legal grounds in several states for divorce for withholding sex. The term of art I recall from Maryland was or is: "alienation of affection."

Ask yourself: how often would men claim that ground versus women in divorce proceedings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The names of Johns should be put in the daily paper and their vehicles seized.

Totally agree.

Would be awesome if they did a "To catch a predator" about this and the little creeps got humiliated on national tv...

How about we do the same for all the women that withhold sex from their husbands.

No. Because there's nothing shameful about "withholding sex" aka not wanting to have it, for whatever reason.

And no one would watch it except for a handful of dedicated misogynists and MRAs.

actually there is something shameful about it. It's called breaking the covenant of marriage.

Now here you may have a point. I some religions, withholding sex is grounds for divorce, if I recall correctly.
However I'm not sure that grounds for divorce = the right to engage in criminal activity.

Actually, there are legal grounds in several states for divorce for withholding sex. The term of art I recall from Maryland was or is: "alienation of affection."

Ask yourself: how often would men claim that ground versus women in divorce proceedings?

LOL. Thats one of those outdated statutes that never get used anymore. Good luck using it today.

And since women file 70% of divorces, I hardly think this scenario is as common as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also the womens, they go to Africa for young boys - so not very much money. Everyone know this.

What on earth are you talking about?

Why is typical American so ignorant?? Why cannot you simply google the 'Marie Claiers' everybody know about? Here. I do it for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/04/childprotection.uk

There is lifes beyond America you should check it our sometimes.