LOL!farked2 said:
Wait for it...Well, thanks for your contribution, farked2. It is interesting to get the perspective of someone who does not have a vested interest in the topic, since you are neither a purveyor nor a consumer in this business.
Outcall Only SPs
- Thread starter Jodie
- Start date
Wait for it...Well, thanks for your contribution, farked2. It is interesting to get the perspective of someone who does not have a vested interest in the topic, since you are neither a purveyor nor a consumer in this business.
I have an interest Jodie..when ya coming to VicJodie said:LOL!
Well, thanks for your contribution, farked2. It is interesting to get the perspective of someone who does not have a vested interest in the topic, since you are neither a purveyor nor a consumer in this business.
Last edited:
I think your argument is a bit of a red herring. We were talking about the providers ethics, not the pooners. It sounds like guilt by association. The provider is unethical if her client is cheating on his wife? You are assuming the provider knows the client has a wife and still closes the deal. By the same logic does that mean the hotel that unknowing rents the room for the pooner is unethical? If a man plans to kill his family and someone unknowingly sells him a gun, is that unethical?farked2 said:
As far as your other comments, I'm not sure if it would be automatically be unethical. Under the idea of social contract theory, we make laws that define what is wrong, and as has been established already, outcall is not illegal, so therefore it is ethical.
For further reading of Ethics:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm
Please don't take this as a flame attack, it is just my opinion and it is how I can get to sleep with myself at night.
To farked2:
I wanted to add I respect your opinions, and I can understand them, but I think the difference between yours & mine most likely are relating to participating vs non-participating.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
I wanted to add I respect your opinions, and I can understand them, but I think the difference between yours & mine most likely are relating to participating vs non-participating.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
know what?.. who cares what reason.... personaly I respect that you, or whoever else doesn't do incall....
Hell... My place is no good for a lot of reasons... so I'm sure the sp might have the same problem.... gota respect it...
hotel is kinda newtral ground...
(wouldn't saying 'no incalls' be sorta like respecting... say... any limit?.... ... why do people have to explain themselves?)
Hell... My place is no good for a lot of reasons... so I'm sure the sp might have the same problem.... gota respect it...
hotel is kinda newtral ground...
(wouldn't saying 'no incalls' be sorta like respecting... say... any limit?.... ... why do people have to explain themselves?)
You are absolutely correct. It IS guilt by association. The reason why the ethics of the SP would also be called into question here is that this type of bad behaviour occurs so often that choosing to be associated with it can be considered in itself unethical.BC visitor said:
(Did that make sense? - it might not of... kinda getting late...)
Again you are correct. Under SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY, this is true. But in reality, most of the time that laws are slow to be changed is that politicians lack the balls to bring up a political hot potato that is potentially difficult to resolve and requires compromise from all parties.BC visitor said:
Consider an possible amendment to the statutory rape laws (which is much needed). In Canada, it is legal for a 75 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. Let's face it, that's wrong regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. By why have successive Liberal and PC governments chosen not to deal with something that most people would support? Because politically, you can never satisfy everyone (i.e. how far it should go) and it is best to keep it away from public debate.
Just because a law remains a law doesn't make it any more ethical. While I'm citing a rather extreme example, we only have to look at the Jim Crow laws to realize that unethical laws have passed and stayed in place for long periods of time...
BC Visitor, thanks for the link; it was interesting
Did I mention that the fine for operating without a business licence is $100? As stated earlier, working alone (ie not an agency) is legal in Canada. Incall or outcall, it makes no difference, unless you attract the wrong attention.
Jodie,
You can rent very nice hotels on priceline for around 40-60 usd a night. That is what I use to do before I opened a incall location, I use to end up with places like the hyatt and westin bayshore. I would just book for 4 days at a time. It actually became worth it as there are so many clients who want incall.
You can rent very nice hotels on priceline for around 40-60 usd a night. That is what I use to do before I opened a incall location, I use to end up with places like the hyatt and westin bayshore. I would just book for 4 days at a time. It actually became worth it as there are so many clients who want incall.
H
Hardatwork
Sorry, but I found that line amusing... What is "normal"? And if you are indeed one of the few on this discussion board that haven't used the services of an SP then doesn't that make you "abnormal"? LOLfarked2 said:
