Omar

Same story. Not sure how real-life insurance works, but there's no sense in stopping an insurance company from charging someone in poor health more than your average Joe. Sex workers can require tests if they so desire.

Hyper means "too much".

As far as recording goes: same deal. If you're a sex worker and someone asks if they can record, you can: a) refuse b) accept and ask for a higher price. Obviously, you do this knowing full well that it might be leaked. You can keep track of the client (you may require a cc for this) and sue them if they infringe upon the property rights of the video, although I must admit finding out would be difficult. You may also set a premium high enough that you're okay with the video being leaked. If none of those options work for you, don't allow recording in your business.

Here's Milton Friedman summing up my point of view on health regulations indirectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg Are there regulations that stop online commerce from operating unless it's secure as far as identity theft goes? I don't think so. Yet many retailers choose to advertise that the connection is secure. [Edit] The morality of prostitution is up for debate. Proceed.

1), 2), 4) -- why? If I'm willing to pay less to buy the services of a dodgier prostitute, why shouldn't I be allowed to? I can buy a cheaper guitar knowing that it'll be of lesser quality, and it doesn't bother anyone. So long as there's no fraud -- and healthy workers will advertise the safety of their services loud and clear -- I don't see the problem. Also, why can't I pay cash? Why can't I record if the prostitute is okay with it?

It's been a long time since there has been debate around these parts, so here's something worth posting about. Should people be allowed to buy and sell sexual services? Is it wrong to "sell your body"? Is prostitution "paid rape"? If so, what can the government do about it? How does this relate to the porn industry? Are pornstars the same as, or on the same moral level as prostitutes? To spark some discussion, here is an article from reason.com making the case for legalization.

It's complicated, muggi. Within GWW's paradigm as I understand it, nice guys who, for example, try to buy a woman's love, are in fact agents. They are the means through which the woman gets her diamond rings. For them to do this, they have to act--get a job, work, etc. while the girl sits there looking like she would bear one hell of a child. The difference between alpha and beta males is that the former takes risks that provide what was once vital--protection--whereas the latter provides something that doesn't require him to put himself on the line. That is why I used the word risk-averse to describe betas.

I don't think the betas are objects and become a woman's pawn according to girlwriteswhat. The point in the video is that women have incentives to be objects and to select less risk-averse partners, because they'll put themselves on the line to provide. Men who don't aren't pawns; it's the contrary, in that those who want to have children are "forced" to provide for the women (by proving that they're capable of defending them, for example). The others aren't being "used", but they don't reproduce. As far as politics go, you're right, everything is [bleep]ed up and it's not getting better, but anyone will tell you that regardless of their alignment. I don't believe politics makes you unhappy though. This sounds like I'm trying to get you to join the ranks of the Libertarian party or something (maybe I am), but considering how much you value your freedom, I expect you'd find a lot of meaning in defending it in the political sphere. Not the right thread though. Are we allowed to use censored words if we use [hide] tags to keep them out of sight?

This doesn't have much to do with this thread. Still interesting though. I was just wondering where you stand politically, actually.

He doesn't reject social responsibility (unless I misunderstand what you mean). He still thinks lying is a dealbreaker, for example. He just doesn't believe that his happiness is no less important than anyone else's. There's a difference between rejecting altruism and rejecting responsibility altogether.

I don't think it even matters whether it's wrong to omit that you're sleeping with other people. You're uncomfortable with it; that's all you need to know, really. That being said, if seeing multiple girls is a good thing, it's pretty clear you threw the baby out with the bathwater on this honesty issue. There's also an argument to be made that you wouldn't feel jealous about your partners being polyamorous if you were too, but by now you already know it.

I would have answered the same thing to #1.

Nah, hate is irrational.

I feel like this ALL the time ITT.

This one cracked me up: Dafuq did I just read? :-s Not sure why that confuses you >_> His post makes a lot of sense and was very helpful to me. So you agree with needing to resort to drug use to pick up women? Not any less than I do with needing to have coffee in the morning or needing to write things on paper to remember them.

That just reminds me of Of Mice and Men.

By no feelings, do you mean no interest whatsoever or just no inclination towards something like a long-term relationship?

Make that "I think I know you but I'm not sure I do" face, then "...you were in my labs right?"

Fair enough. I was under the impression you had one.

He was probably going to suggest something in the khaki spectrum. Anyway, if you like the clothes you got, that's what matters now. I've probably said it dozens of times, but saving up for better quality will serve you better in the long run.

Not really Muggi. You're advancing that your time frame is limited whereas Ginger says it's either closed or open. My point was that this is irrelevant to Saq's situation. I would wager that considering it takes at least a bit of time to get to know someone, your odds gradually shrink. There's more room to make mistakes, actively or passively.

Doesn't matter anyway. Whatever he's doing now isn't going to get him with whichever one it is he's interested in regardless of whether the friend zone exists. (Edit) hivemind

So, Donnie, in an ideal world, what would the government be in charge of? Would you rather it give up its monopoly on violence as well? And, more on why the Laffer Curve is just rationalization for tax cuts... http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/economists-fail-republicans-laffer-curve

It's going to be fine and you'll feel stupid for freaking out once it's over. Besides, if she was down to date you you're obviously doing something right.

I was talking about the US. The same thing is happening in France. Tax percentage of GDP according to data.worldbank.org is roughly twice as high in the UK. For what it's worth, the US still has room to impose according to lenders. People don't lend to governments that won't be able to pay back. Governments get their money mostly from taxes. Therefore people assume the US still hasn't hit the peak of the Laffer curve. By planned, I mean that the products are engineered in such a way that they become useless more quickly. Backwards incompatibility with previous software versions is an example. The product could have been better designed, but that's not in the interest of the producer. I'm not talking about cases where backwards compatibility is impossible, obviously.