This sounds an awul lot like...

[Wolfenrook]

I've read that article twice now, and I see no direct mention that these girls have sex with the men. As such, I fail to see how you can draw the conclusion that it's prostitution? Gold digging yes, prostitution no. We've always had women who are gold diggers, I've never seen them labled as prostitutes. This is just providing them with an organised venue, and it's clear to all that the girls are there as gold diggers. Seems to me, the way to clear this up is to say:-

A person who gets paid for sex = prostitute.
A person who gets paid for a RELATIONSHIP (not directly for the sex) = gold digger.
A person who gets paid purely to be company = escort.

The girls at these seem to be a mixture of gold diggers (looking for long term financial gain for a relationship) and escorts (charging per date). I see no mention of the girls charging directly for sex, any more than girls who hang around in night clubs and freeload drinks of lads who are hoping to get a bit.

Oh and I have to agree with Shoe's, that there is NOTHING wrong with prostitution. The fact that it is illegal in so many countries is stupid, and entirely based on antiquated religious mores. If a woman choses to sell her sexual favours for cash, so long as that's her choice it should be her business. If a man wishes to pay for sexual favours (and lets be honest, we all pay, one way or another. lol) then again so long as nobody is forced into it, then what's the big problem?

Ade

 

[wmrcomputers]

Quite an interesting discussion going on here. I myself wouldn't pay directly for sex, but I think most of us agree that indirectly it's sort of "just life". lol
Again I think it should be legalized and strictly controlled, but that's just my opinion and I respect those who's opinions differ.

Overall, these ladies are escorts and not prostitutes and there's a huge difference. Again, just my opinion, but if a girl offers a guy sex down an alley in return for cash... that would be prostitution. If a guy pays a girl for a date, where he gets to take her out for dinner etc., that is her being an escort. If she chooses to offer him something else at the end of the night, that is a seperate matter altogether and is between consenting adults.

Putting it into perspective, a girl i once worked with was on the scrounge for £20 so that she could come out with us all after work. I gave her the money and said that I didn't want it back, so long as she had dinner with me one night. I was expecting the "no chance" response but amazingly she said okay. A week later we went out for pizza, and that led on to her becoming wife number 1 some time later.
I'd hardly say that I married a prostitute just because our first date started out as banter with regards to £20 I offered her, would you??

 

[Glam]

Wife no1....how many wives (of your own) have you had?

 

[dangerousdave]

you're all right, there is no direct mention to the girls sleeping with the guys after being paid for their time so it obviously, definately, won't happen...

 

[wmrcomputers]

you're all right, there is no direct mention to the girls sleeping with the guys after being paid for their time so it obviously, definately, won't happen...

nobody has said that. All that we have said is that IF it did, then why should it still be frowned upon as prostitution? The payment isn't intended for sex initially.
I also agree with shoes, in the sense that prostitution should be legalized anyway. If a woman should want to sell herself, should that not be her right to choose to do so?
Also, I think that legalization with tough controls would also create a safer environment for prostitutes. In the part of America where "bunny ranches" are legalized. don't they have far less "sex related" crimes?

 

[wmrcomputers]

@glam - a couple. lol

 

[tek-monkey]

Surely its just manual labour, but more enjoyable than a cleaning job.

 

[dangerousdave]

i don't have a problem with prostitution, or prostitutes. however, these girls are prostituting themselves, however they want to dress it up. however, i bet if you called them a prostitute then they'd not be too happy...

 

[Wolfenrook]

i don't have a problem with prostitution, or prostitutes. however, these girls are prostituting themselves, however they want to dress it up. however, i bet if you called them a prostitute then they'd not be too happy...

Not by any legally acceptable definition they aren't. You are just applying your own narrow minded morals, and pinning a lablel on them that does not belong there. By your definition, would a girl going out with a bloke and been given a present equally be prostituting herself (quite a common occurance on dates....)? Or even an ESCORT who only gets paid to spend time with a client? Given as NOWHERE in that article was paying for sex either implied or stated.

You are either very very narrow minded, or just looking to troll, given as there is absolutely NO hint anywhere in that article that anybody is paying directly for sex.

I fail to see what it's got to do with any of us anyway. It's not like anybody is going to make any of us attend these even if they do happen. It's their business, so long as they brake no laws.

Ade

 

[John Marwood]

Nothing to see here

Move along

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054965/Sugar-Daddy-Parties-UK-coming-soon-Young-women-hook-wealthy-older-men.html

 

[Theresa Green]

Bat cave

Apparently there’s one just off the Tixall Road

 

[Glam]

Bat cave

Apparently there’s one just off the Tixall Road