I think rich men also buy into the prospect of love

Suspicious teacher exposes double life of girl, 15, earning £100k a year as "escort"
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1X1qp6SNF

Underage ..... and with a pimp ..... :eek:

The term "High-Class Prostitute" always makes me laugh.

It's about time all prostitution was legalised. It'd give the girls the protection they need and stop criminalising both the girls and the men for what is essentially a business transaction.

I remember reading about a high class prostitute who made her living off one customer.. All she had to do was have dinner with him once a week then dress up in nice underwear and fling sticky buns at him. For each session she was paid 3k!! :shocked:

Now I ain't no ho, but if some wrinkly old man was willing to pay me 3 grand for flinging cakes at him, then I would be totally up for it!

Yeah, they ban smoking in pubs but still allow girls to be sold as sex slaves :bored:

Seems like they mostly want to brush it under the carpet

Nah. Having consential sex is allowed. Having it filmed is allowed. Selling such movies for others to watch - all strictly above board.

Absolutely agree 100%.

I'll go one further - I bet a lot who say they wouldn't do that, would be lying. :)

It's hardly 'allowed'. :bored: Do you have any idea how huge the sex slave trade is - and more importantly - why it exists, the people behind organising it, why they do it and the huge connection to that and the drug trade?

Obviously not allowed, but it still goes on. I think they should put far much more money into stopping it than they do, so it almost seems allowed at the moment.

The only scenario I can imagine (though feel free to offer others) where a man hires an escort purely for show (to colleagues / family / friends) is if he was in the closet and afraid of coming out of it. Obviously then they'd not be in it for sex. But I struggle to believe any others (other than the weird fetishist Lee pointed out :laugh:) hire escorts for company.

A lot of women hire male escorts to take them to certain do's or events they don't want to attend alone. Its actually very common.

I just don't think women crave sex enough to pay for it like men do. But they do crave company.

So too does drug dealing and drug taking seem allowed to go on at the moment in this country. How much money that comes from drug dealing in the UK do you think is connected to the sex slave trade from faraway shores etc, to which you are commenting on that is 'allowed' to go on?

Yet the drug connection seems to be given a wide berth by a great many, blind eyes turned by all those who happy sit there stoned, coked out of their head, happy to blithy stumble along in their ignornace (or complete dismissal) to accept the real connection that drugs and the sex trafficking trade go very much hand in hand: on the back of abusing those in abject poverty.

How much money do you think is spent tackling these issues if you think the current spend is not enough? How much money do you think the Government has available to tackle all these issues, along with everything else that they have to account for?

Correct Zippy. Many affluent woman use the services of Escort agencies for the very reason you have mentioned, as well as the reason that Shuan has made mention of in respect of men who wish not to be publically seen as not being hetro.

Life isn't all black and white, there are a great many variables.

*consensual

Prostitutes have consensual sex too. Unless theyre forced into it which is a different matter.

And it may be legal but its still being paid to have sex. It's a legal form of prostitution. Well its kinda a redundant question anyways because most pornstars do escort work on the back of their porn fame. That's how they make their money because porn doesnt even pay much these days.

Well I guess you're talking about the masses there. Did you ever see that doc about the police unit who is totally focused on the sex trade? I'm talking about them, they should have more money put into them. Drugs have been a problem for years, yes it's linked but they could break the link by putting more money into that unit.

*they're
*it's
*anyway
*doesn't

:tongue:


Aha..but you were asking about pornstars being regarded as being in the same realm as prostitution. They aren't paid to have sex. They are paid to be filmed having sex. There is a diffference.

It's a vicious circle and it's extremely fair to say that the drugs trade and the sex trade: that far more money is available for those trades to remain functioning, than there are funds available to be put into stopping it.

Of course I'm talking about the masses: the drug and sex trade is massive. It's not run globally from some wee portakabin off a Columbian high street.

Yeah, so I still think that unit should have more money to stop the sex slave trade. Does that not seem reasonable?

Hmm it's a very fine line, the absence of a camera is essentially the only real difference

If we lived in a world where money was in limitless supply as far as Fiscal Policy was concerned, then yes.

As it is: funds that would be needed for any real impact to be made, simply are unavailable. So no, on that score, I wouldn't agree it to be reasonable.

What I would find more reasonable is that people in this country who break the law and add to the whole problem by buying drugs - stop doing so. That would certainly help a little along the way - take away the demand, and the supply chain falters.

Fine line or not, the line is there: and therein lies the difference, regardless.

Well not much we can do about that, always happened and always will. Drugs are a part of life.

Sure but what is the actual significance of the fact that in one profession the sex is recorded and in the other it isn't? You don't really seem to think there is any

And conversely, so too is the sex slave trade. Most certainly, nothing will improve if everyone had that attitude. Always happened and always will. Sex is a part of life. (see what I did there!)

And on that note: I will bid you goodnight. Sleep well. It's been a pleasure!

They are not being paid to have sex with someone. They are being paid to allow their sex act to be filmed, that is the significant factor. Paid to allow their sex act to be filmed.

Clearly there is a difference, as you have already acceded to.

Prostitution is not a legal term

Pornstars are prostitutes being filmed. They're not being filmed baking cakes.

Sex is a part of life, but being sold for sex isn't. There is a difference, we're talking about a different kind of sex trade here. Like girls being promised a job ending up being sold for sex, or even in some cases being sold in their own country. Drugs does not come into it.

Except they are being paid to have sex with someone, that's something of a necessity in making a porn film. They are not "allowing" their sex act to be filmed, they are having sex purely so that it can be filmed

Yeah there is a difference but an incredibly small one, that is not particularly significant and one that doesn't merit one profession being perfectly legal and the other being completely criminal

If you believe drugs do not come into it, then you are more naive than I ever would have thought you to be.

Nope - money changing hands for sexual services, that would be illegal. ;) Having sex to allow it be be filmed is not illegal. Point proven.

"Yeah there is a difference". Again: you admit there is a difference. Hence why it is NOT the same. ;)

I view pornstars as not much different to prostitutes. The only difference I can see is that one is filmed and shared around, allowing others to watch, and the other isnt.

They both are getting paid to have sex.

A completely understandable point of view. But legally, there is a difference, otherwise porn movies would be illegal. The fine line is most certainly there - but it's still there. Whether we all agree on it or not: the line is there as far as the law is concerned.

The law is a little bit backwards when it comes to a lot of things tbh :p

It is indeed. Makes the world an interesting and quirky place to live in though!

OK this is the last time I will say it. Can everyone stop with the snipes and digs and trying to get one over on each other. We should be able to debate without all this crap :/

Oh, now there's an interesting question, why are pornstars allowed to be paid to have sex but prostitutes aren't? Seems the same thing to me.

I agree, so does that mean if the guy filmed himself having sex with the prostitute it would then be legal? :conf:

In the United Kingdom, prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is not a crime, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.

Bugger... I was going pandering this weekend.

It's a bit ridiculous really, I mean I don't understand how abortion is legal, because it's a womans right and it's her own body etc etc but then she doesn't have the right to charge men for sex with her own body.

She does :

In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland it is ONLY an offence to pay for sex with a prostitute who has been “subjected to force” and this is a strict liability offence (clients can be prosecuted even if they didn’t know the prostitute was forced).

It is illegal to buy sex from a person younger than 18, although the age of consent for non-commercial sex is 16.

I think you're misinterpreting legal intricacies that take years to learn.