Another whore thread?
Whhhhhyyyyyy
- Hot to Trot Daphne
- 12-31-2013, 12:07 PM
- Old-T
- 12-31-2013, 01:59 PM
I took a few days to spend with house company, and when I came back I expected these two posts would have run their course. Obviously they haven’t.
I will make one more post because I want to address LM’s basic premise, but other than that I think I will let these two threads go their own way without me—they have lost their focus and turned into a food fight that no longer has much to do with the topic. The mere fact that there were two such threads at all instead of one is significant evidence that discussing the word “whore” wasn’t really some people’s intent. The way the options were listed on one of the polls (can you say “leading the witness”) just adds to that.
LilMinx, forgive me if I misspeak about your intents—I get the idea that this conversation has gone on a long while before I started reading it on these threads—but it seems your primary interest is in decriminalizing prostitution and related activities. I completely agree with that goal, but it seems you have unnecessarily attached to a ancillary fight—the acceptance of the word “whore”—that does little if any good to the actual goal (I can’t believe you have any actually attachment to that word itself).
I don’t have time for a long, completely formed argument so I will touch the key points. If you do care to discuss further please PM me.
First, trying to argue the “official” definition of words is tricky at best, and essentially useless when we are talking about words filled with emotional baggage. For example, look at your own post #72 in this thread:
cour·te·san noun \ˈkȯr-tə-zən, -ˌzan also ˈkər-, -ˌzän; especially British ˌkȯr-tə-ˈzan\
: a woman who has sex with rich or important men in exchange for money : a prostitute who has sex with wealthy and powerful men
However:
Synonyms
bawd, call girl, cocotte, prostitute, drab, harlot, hooker, hustler, sex worker, streetwalker, strumpet, tart, whore
Related Words
madam, madame; white slave; bimbo [slang], chippie (also chippy), doxy (also doxie), floozy (or floozie), tramp; bitch, hussy, jade, minx; coquette, flirt, libertine, siren, tempter, temptress, vamp, wench
Somehow the supposed definition and many of the “synonyms” don’t match. The reality is almost all those synonyms have their own innuendos.
Second, whether it is the way you WANT it to be or not, the majority of the time the word “whore” is used, the person using it intends to use it as an insult. Why would to want to select a specific word that already HAS a negative meaning attached as the poster word for your real goal? That just adds additional obstacles to changing public opinion, and we all know there are obstacles aplenty already. The more you use a negative connoted word the more ingrained negative associations become in the mass public you are trying to influence—it goes against all the fundamental tenants of psychology and advertising.
Third, even if you do succeed in repurposing the word, all it will likely do is cause people to use a different word; if they want to insult people they will. If no word exists, they will create one or take a benign word and twist it into a negative meaning. See “faggot”. If we are ever to succeed it will be because we beat logic into the masses. Making the fight about a word—even if successful—will just spawn a new fight about a new word later.
Now I will save my typing fingers (all two of them) so I can reply to your “courtesan” post when you make it.
I will make one more post because I want to address LM’s basic premise, but other than that I think I will let these two threads go their own way without me—they have lost their focus and turned into a food fight that no longer has much to do with the topic. The mere fact that there were two such threads at all instead of one is significant evidence that discussing the word “whore” wasn’t really some people’s intent. The way the options were listed on one of the polls (can you say “leading the witness”) just adds to that.
LilMinx, forgive me if I misspeak about your intents—I get the idea that this conversation has gone on a long while before I started reading it on these threads—but it seems your primary interest is in decriminalizing prostitution and related activities. I completely agree with that goal, but it seems you have unnecessarily attached to a ancillary fight—the acceptance of the word “whore”—that does little if any good to the actual goal (I can’t believe you have any actually attachment to that word itself).
I don’t have time for a long, completely formed argument so I will touch the key points. If you do care to discuss further please PM me.
First, trying to argue the “official” definition of words is tricky at best, and essentially useless when we are talking about words filled with emotional baggage. For example, look at your own post #72 in this thread:
cour·te·san noun \ˈkȯr-tə-zən, -ˌzan also ˈkər-, -ˌzän; especially British ˌkȯr-tə-ˈzan\
: a woman who has sex with rich or important men in exchange for money : a prostitute who has sex with wealthy and powerful men
However:
Synonyms
bawd, call girl, cocotte, prostitute, drab, harlot, hooker, hustler, sex worker, streetwalker, strumpet, tart, whore
Related Words
madam, madame; white slave; bimbo [slang], chippie (also chippy), doxy (also doxie), floozy (or floozie), tramp; bitch, hussy, jade, minx; coquette, flirt, libertine, siren, tempter, temptress, vamp, wench
Somehow the supposed definition and many of the “synonyms” don’t match. The reality is almost all those synonyms have their own innuendos.
Second, whether it is the way you WANT it to be or not, the majority of the time the word “whore” is used, the person using it intends to use it as an insult. Why would to want to select a specific word that already HAS a negative meaning attached as the poster word for your real goal? That just adds additional obstacles to changing public opinion, and we all know there are obstacles aplenty already. The more you use a negative connoted word the more ingrained negative associations become in the mass public you are trying to influence—it goes against all the fundamental tenants of psychology and advertising.
Third, even if you do succeed in repurposing the word, all it will likely do is cause people to use a different word; if they want to insult people they will. If no word exists, they will create one or take a benign word and twist it into a negative meaning. See “faggot”. If we are ever to succeed it will be because we beat logic into the masses. Making the fight about a word—even if successful—will just spawn a new fight about a new word later.
Now I will save my typing fingers (all two of them) so I can reply to your “courtesan” post when you make it.
- Guest062114-5
- 12-31-2013, 04:41 PM
LilMinx, forgive me if I misspeak about your intents—I get the idea that this conversation has gone on a long while before I started reading it on these threads—but it seems your primary interest is in decriminalizing prostitution and related activities. I completely agree with that goal, but it seems you have unnecessarily attached to a ancillary fight—the acceptance of the word “whore”—that does little if any good to the actual goal (I can’t believe you have any actually attachment to that word itself).
Actually, you did misunderstand a bit. I haven't asked or desired any universal acceptance of the word "whore." I have merely wondered why women who accept money in exchange for sex have an issue with the technical definition. And if they do, and feel they have to sugarcoat what they do, then why are they doing this? And maybe they need to reassess. Maybe they don't, by maybe they do. It's for every woman to decide.
I have also opined, that I can't think of another word that technically serves as an umbrella category for all women who accept money in exchange for sexual favors.
Finally, I have also stated, that I choose the word "whore" to describe myself and my situation, because I believe it does help remove the stereotype attracted to women who receive money in exchange for sexual favors. it does this, in my opinion, by pointing out that "whores" can be upper class, over educated, savvy women, not just trashy trailer park sluts who get paid. Plus, what do you suggest I call myself?
That's my agenda. I'm not advocating calling anyone a whore who doesn't want to be called that, but I don't appreciate a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong for referring to myself that way. Does anyone really think I don't understand connotation vs. definition? I think I wrote a paper on it once, trust me...I get it.
Actually, you did misunderstand a bit. I haven't asked or desired any universal acceptance of the word "whore." I have merely wondered why women who accept money in exchange for sex have an issue with the technical definition. And if they do, and feel they have to sugarcoat what they do, then why are they doing this? And maybe they need to reassess. Maybe they don't, by maybe they do. It's for every woman to decide.
I have also opined, that I can't think of another word that technically serves as an umbrella category for all women who accept money in exchange for sexual favors.
Finally, I have also stated, that I choose the word "whore" to describe myself and my situation, because I believe it does help remove the stereotype attracted to women who receive money in exchange for sexual favors. it does this, in my opinion, by pointing out that "whores" can be upper class, over educated, savvy women, not just trashy trailer park sluts who get paid. Plus, what do you suggest I call myself?
That's my agenda. I'm not advocating calling anyone a whore who doesn't want to be called that, but I don't appreciate a bunch of people telling me I'm wrong for referring to myself that way. Does anyone really think I don't understand connotation vs. definition? I think I wrote a paper on it once, trust me...I get it.
- Old-T
- 01-01-2014, 12:32 AM
I made no attempt to comment at all on how you refer to yourself. If you think it helps your agenda, then by all means do so.
I just don't hold out much hope that it will have the result you seek. I have seen people work very hard to redefine the connotations words have--powerful, almost obsessed people and words having nothing to do with this corner of the world--but have never seen it work.
(A separate thought, again in general more that for any specific word: in today's instant communication/instant messaging kind of world, lave dictionaries as we historically know them outlived their usefulness in trying to "define" a word that has likely changed three times before the ink is dry?)
I just don't hold out much hope that it will have the result you seek. I have seen people work very hard to redefine the connotations words have--powerful, almost obsessed people and words having nothing to do with this corner of the world--but have never seen it work.
(A separate thought, again in general more that for any specific word: in today's instant communication/instant messaging kind of world, lave dictionaries as we historically know them outlived their usefulness in trying to "define" a word that has likely changed three times before the ink is dry?)
- Guest062114-5
- 01-01-2014, 02:51 AM
I made no attempt to comment at all on how you refer to yourself. If you think it helps your agenda, then by all means do so.I know it has the results I seek because every day I get PMs from many people here telling me their viewpoints have already been changed.
I just don't hold out much hope that it will have the result you seek. I have seen people work very hard to redefine the connotations words have--powerful, almost obsessed people and words having nothing to do with this corner of the world--but have never seen it work.
(A separate thought, again in general more that for any specific word: in today's instant communication/instant messaging kind of world, lave dictionaries as we historically know them outlived their usefulness in trying to "define" a word that has likely changed three times before the ink is dry?) Originally Posted by Old-T
- Guest050715-1
- 01-02-2014, 01:05 PM
Actually, you did misunderstand a bit. I haven't asked or desired any universal acceptance of the word "whore." I have merely wondered why women who accept money in exchange for sex have an issue with the technical definition. Originally Posted by LilMynx69
You are being obtuse to further your own agenda whatever that is. The question is: Is the word whore a pejorative. And “technically” if you were ever to get arrested, you’d get arrested or prostitution or solicitation not for being the social label of Whore.
Look at the poll. Of the forty-five people that voted, only three said they’d call their female loved ones. That means that less than one percent of those polled feel it’s a word to use towards all women. In a nut shell, it’s pejorative. The twenty-two percent that said no, but they wouldn’t call their female loved ones, are just hypocrites. They know the word is derogatory, they are just trying to be provocative or they don’t care for women in general.
And if Originally Posted by LilMynx69
they do, and feel they have to sugarcoat what they do, then why are they doing this? And maybe they need to reassess. Maybe they don't, by maybe they do. It's for every woman to decide. Originally Posted by LilMynx69The reason people sugar coat anything – dah!
I have also opined, that I can't think of another word that technically serves as an umbrella category for all women who accept money in exchange for sexual favors. Originally Posted by LilMynx69
PROSTITUTE! The word you are looking for is PROSTITUTE.
Finally, I have also stated, that I choose the word "whore" to describe myself and my situation, because I believe it does help remove the stereotype attracted to women who receive money in exchange for sexual favors. it does this, in my opinion, by pointing out that "whores" can be upper class, over educated, savvy women, not just trashy trailer park sluts who get paid. Plus, what do you suggest I call myself? Originally Posted by LilMynx69
Then my final comment to you must really be, “May you be whatever you resolve to be.” - Stonewall Jackson.
- Guest062114-5
- 01-02-2014, 01:14 PM
I may be trying to sugarcoat myself as a whore, but technically, I am in no way a prostitute. I have ZERO chance at being arrested for soliciting. Period.
You are being obtuse to further your own agenda whatever that is. The question is: Is the word whore a pejorative. And “technically” if you were ever to get arrested, you’d get arrested or prostitution or solicitation not for being the social label of Whore.
Look at the poll. Of the forty-five people that voted, only three said they’d call their female loved ones. That means that less than one percent of those polled feel it’s a word to use towards all women. In a nut shell, it’s pejorative. The twenty-two percent that said no, but they wouldn’t call their female loved ones, are just hypocrites. They know the word is derogatory, they are just trying to be provocative or they don’t care for women in general.
The reason people sugar coat anything – dah!
PROSTITUTE! The word you are looking for is PROSTITUTE.
Then my final comment to you must really be, “May you be whatever you resolve to be.” - Stonewall Jackson. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
- Guest062114-5
- 01-02-2014, 01:16 PM
By the way, I don't need to look at your poll, because both you and Daphne worded your polls in a way that is SO biased that it removes any type of validity.
- Guest050715-1
- 01-02-2014, 04:49 PM
I may be trying to sugarcoat myself as a whore, but technically, I am in no way a prostitute. I have ZERO chance at being arrested for soliciting. Period. Originally Posted by LilMynx69
The socially negative term for that is slut which I don’t use either. I think women should be able to sleep with whomever they want whenever they want without negative social consequences. So forgive me, but I have no idea at this point what the fuck you are talking about then. And thus we are back at the Great General’s quote, “May you be whatever your resolve to be.”
By the way, I don't need to look at your poll, because both you and Daphne worded your polls in a way that is SO biased that it removes any type of validity. Originally Posted by LilMynx69
That is absolutely untrue. The thesis is that the word whore pejorative. It has nothing to do with whether someone that is a prostitute calls themselves a whore or in your case whatever the fuck. You are either someone that takes money for sex or you are not. Period. And if you do not take money for sex, you are not a whore according to your entire stance. Period. You’re particular circumstances aside, that's why I asked the caveat about how one uses the word. Many here would say it's not pejorative for multiple reasons. But if someone won't call their female loved ones a whore or a slut, who are they really kidding? No one that's who.
- Guest062114-5
- 01-02-2014, 05:22 PM
I take money in relation to being sexually available. Quite frankly an enourmous Amount of it. Do I ever ask for it? No. They just give it to me because they know it turns me on, they can easily afford it and it binds us together in a special way. That makes me a whore.
I am also a slut, but sometimes when I'm being a slut, I wake up to find a stack of money on my nightstand...which then makes me a whore again.
I have a way about me that makes rich guys want to give me money. And I love to accept it. That's not being a prostitute. That is being a really smart and savvy slut.
I never indictated that people should use the word WHORE as a perjorative. Because I don't think that. I'm merely stating that showing people that's one. Who accept money in relation to sex come in many forms. And therefore, if they think it's ok for guys to give me money, they are being hypocrite to be judgmental about prostitution being illegal, because they aren't that different.
Essentially, I'm TOFTT by stating that I'm a whore. Most women in my situation would not admit it because they think they are better then the prostitutes here and everywhere.
I don't think I'm better. Not at all. I might be luckier, but not better.
I get PMs a day from gents who agree and have thanked me for expressing my point of view. And none of them are going to start calling their demand loved ones whores because if what I've said.
I am also a slut, but sometimes when I'm being a slut, I wake up to find a stack of money on my nightstand...which then makes me a whore again.
I have a way about me that makes rich guys want to give me money. And I love to accept it. That's not being a prostitute. That is being a really smart and savvy slut.
I never indictated that people should use the word WHORE as a perjorative. Because I don't think that. I'm merely stating that showing people that's one. Who accept money in relation to sex come in many forms. And therefore, if they think it's ok for guys to give me money, they are being hypocrite to be judgmental about prostitution being illegal, because they aren't that different.
Essentially, I'm TOFTT by stating that I'm a whore. Most women in my situation would not admit it because they think they are better then the prostitutes here and everywhere.
I don't think I'm better. Not at all. I might be luckier, but not better.
I get PMs a day from gents who agree and have thanked me for expressing my point of view. And none of them are going to start calling their demand loved ones whores because if what I've said.
- TGBeldin
- 01-02-2014, 07:12 PM
Interesting reading. I don’t post often but am obliged to comment on this.
Daphne, I doubt you have helped your business with your posts. You are coming across as an angry young lady. Your post on the original(?) calendar topic
Mynx, you can play all the word games you want but I think you are doing just that, playing word games. I will take you at your word that you never as for money. Men just give you lots of it. That could be enough to keep you from being legally a prostitute, I am not a legal expert. However assuming the men expect that you expect money, which I expect is the case. And assuming you would stop seeing a number of the men if they stopped gifting you large amounts of money. Then I would categorize you as a prostitute even if the law does not. If you do not expect anything of value in return, but only are fortuitous enough to have it freely gifted upon you, then let me know when you are available and I will come see you. I would categorize Sugar Babies similarly even though the law does not. When the expectation of payment is there and the expectation of sex is there you can spin the language all you want, it is prostitution.
We have such a litigious society that the Sugar Babies and you may have found a legal loophole just as the women in Rhode Island did for a while, but morally there is little if any difference. Congratulations. I applaud your literary creativity. Maybe we will all find ways to circumvent the stupid laws if we cannot change them.
Daphne, I doubt you have helped your business with your posts. You are coming across as an angry young lady. Your post on the original(?) calendar topic
Mynx, you can play all the word games you want but I think you are doing just that, playing word games. I will take you at your word that you never as for money. Men just give you lots of it. That could be enough to keep you from being legally a prostitute, I am not a legal expert. However assuming the men expect that you expect money, which I expect is the case. And assuming you would stop seeing a number of the men if they stopped gifting you large amounts of money. Then I would categorize you as a prostitute even if the law does not. If you do not expect anything of value in return, but only are fortuitous enough to have it freely gifted upon you, then let me know when you are available and I will come see you. I would categorize Sugar Babies similarly even though the law does not. When the expectation of payment is there and the expectation of sex is there you can spin the language all you want, it is prostitution.
We have such a litigious society that the Sugar Babies and you may have found a legal loophole just as the women in Rhode Island did for a while, but morally there is little if any difference. Congratulations. I applaud your literary creativity. Maybe we will all find ways to circumvent the stupid laws if we cannot change them.
- Guest062114-5
- 01-02-2014, 07:19 PM
Thanks for your thoughts. As you stated, you're NOT a legal expert. Well, luckily I am. Which also means that I DO getto play word games each abd everyday. I've sitting at my desk manipulating words for my own purpose all day, and I'm not talking about ECCIE.
And I'm quite certain of the legal basis for my arguments. But that doesn't mean you must agree. It just means I'd kick your butt in a court of law.
Seriously, I appreciate your viewpoint. The world would be a dull and dreary place if we all agreed. I love a gentleman you can disagree in a polite and logical way. You can Voluntarily leave a stack of $$$ on my bedside table any day. And if you choose not to, that's fine, too. So let me know when you're in Houston.
Yours truly,
LMx
PS. For the record, I don't have a large number of guys beating down my door to give me cash. But the handful that are, kick some serious ASS!
And I'm quite certain of the legal basis for my arguments. But that doesn't mean you must agree. It just means I'd kick your butt in a court of law.
Seriously, I appreciate your viewpoint. The world would be a dull and dreary place if we all agreed. I love a gentleman you can disagree in a polite and logical way. You can Voluntarily leave a stack of $$$ on my bedside table any day. And if you choose not to, that's fine, too. So let me know when you're in Houston.
Yours truly,
LMx
PS. For the record, I don't have a large number of guys beating down my door to give me cash. But the handful that are, kick some serious ASS!
- Unique_Carpenter
- 01-02-2014, 07:50 PM
Although TG presents some nice commentary, I'm afraid a weak presentation has damaged the point he may have been trying to make.
My point is that there are many classifications of folks that play with folks (other than their significant others). And this is an age old (thousands of years) situation. I don't think Mynx is playing games; she's simply trying to gets us to see ourselves with a bit of clarity. As an example, when the Greek civilization was at its peak, there were several different classifications of ladies, not just a few, that could be considered within this type discussion. I would think that gals like our Provocatrix would be in the "hetaerae" class of gals. And not to leave the guys out, the Greeks had a few classifications for the men as well. And I think it would go without dispute that all the guys and gals on this board would fit one of these classifications.
My point is that there are many classifications of folks that play with folks (other than their significant others). And this is an age old (thousands of years) situation. I don't think Mynx is playing games; she's simply trying to gets us to see ourselves with a bit of clarity. As an example, when the Greek civilization was at its peak, there were several different classifications of ladies, not just a few, that could be considered within this type discussion. I would think that gals like our Provocatrix would be in the "hetaerae" class of gals. And not to leave the guys out, the Greeks had a few classifications for the men as well. And I think it would go without dispute that all the guys and gals on this board would fit one of these classifications.
- dearhunter
- 01-02-2014, 07:54 PM
There are so many "whore" threADs, it is impossible to track of them all.
You bitches need to keep "Whale Wars" out of your whore mouths..........it was only the greatest threAD ever...........that's all I'm saying
You bitches need to keep "Whale Wars" out of your whore mouths..........it was only the greatest threAD ever...........that's all I'm saying
- Guest062114-5
- 01-02-2014, 08:06 PM
Although TG presents some nice commentary, I'm afraid a weak presentation has damaged the point he may have been trying to make.AMEN! It took a collective 30+ pages for someone to get my point.
My point is that there are many classifications of folks that play with folks (other than their significant others). And this is an age old (thousands of years) situation. I don't think Mynx is playing games; she's simply trying to gets us to see ourselves with a bit of clarity. As an example, when the Greek civilization was at its peak, there were several different classifications of ladies, not just a few, that could be considered within this type discussion. I would think that gals like our Provocatrix would be in the "hetaerae" class of gals. And not to leave the guys out, the Greeks had a few classifications for the men as well. And I think it would go without dispute that all the guys and gals on this board would fit one of these classifications. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
My point is not to call women derogatory names, but rather to open our eyes and others that this hobby is not so different than what happens in their lives. Therefore, why are they so concerned about keeping it illegal.
I'm an advocate for safe and legal behavior between consenting adults. When you expand the technical definition of "whore" to include more situations, including women and men, you force more people to consider other aspects of prostitution and possibly see that 99% of the time, it will not affect them.