Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Totally agree.

YES! These women who you play with are someone's daughter. It is gross to pay for sex. Perverts.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Totally agree.

Anonymous wrote:I think women just get all upset about this because deep down they know they do the same thing, but without the direct payments of cash. With little effort, we can find a number of post on this site about women getting married for money, status(right school, "good/rich" family, right type of job), etc. or the man should pay for everything on a date regardless of income....like meals, airfare(there was just a post about some guy wanting to pay for airfare), etc.

Anonymous wrote:As my friend (a frequent visitor to prositutes) always said: you don't pay them for sex, you pay for them not to call you the next day.

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing wrong with prostitution. Most of the women on criagslist are working independently, and make a ton of $$$.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As my friend (a frequent visitor to prositutes) always said: you don't pay them for sex, you pay for them not to call you the next day.

I find this assertion odd when many studies have shown that plenty of women want casual sex more than the average guy, and many guys want it less than the average woman.

Anonymous wrote:As my friend (a frequent visitor to prositutes) always said: you don't pay them for sex, you pay for them not to call you the next day.

Anonymous wrote:Men don't pay hookers for regular sex. They want freaky sex. Butt sex. Me and my friend and a hooker sex. Don't believe it's about regular sex.

It's not. They want what we won't do. Including being hurt. Plus ugly dirty men have to pay for it.

What I always found amazing was a man getting off work, being dirty, tired, driving home and thinking, damn, I'd like a blow job. The only woman that will blow a dirty man is a hooker.

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.

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.

That really isn't the point, is it?

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.

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 wrote:

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.