Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: Moral high ground  (Read 6364 times)

Offline Marmalade

And what do we think of the shop assistant who feels morally superior to the customer who has just walked into the shop to buy what she is selling?
A fair and healthy sale is where both parties feel they have got a good deal. In some ways, you can say that a person who is not tied (a customer) is in a superior position to one who is working. He or she 'calls the shots' within the acceptable limits laid down by the seller for instance. But morally? A WG who takes a pride in her service and gives good value is morally superior to one who doesn't. One who posts on here within the ethos of the forum is morally superior to one who just posts shite against punters. A punter who acts with integrity, and that can include sufficient awareness not to get ripped off, is morally superior to the fluffie who is a plaything of the pro$$ie or one who rapes or steals. I think comparing punters-as-a-group with prossies-as-a-group is a bit meaningless; but the prossie may find it harder to extricate herself.

Offline Marmalade

The thing for a punter is it is quite easy for him to say, "I think I'll see a prostitute tonight." Is that what he really wanted to do with his life? Not that big a decision in most cases and if he decides it wasn't, no big loss. Whereas becoming a WG is a bigger undertaking. Some will make a careul choice and stick to it. Like the Belle de Jour student who went on to become Brooke Magnanti.For her, it was a morally superior choice viewed in hindsight. Many prossies however just get stuck in the lifestyle. They cease to become true to themself. That is a morally inferior position in my view.

. Many prossies however just get stuck in the lifestyle. They cease to become true to themself. That is a morally inferior position in my view.


Many punters however just get stuck in the lifestyle. They cease to become true to themselves. What sort of a moral position is that and who are we to judge either way? .

As i look like steptoe, smell of rancid piss and try to defile the WG  for as little as possible. The WG, nine times out of ten has higher morals than me, the punter.

Offline Ali Katt

And what do we think of the shop assistant who feels morally superior to the customer who has just walked into the shop to buy what she is selling?
It's a separate topic in itself. but when I was a student and used to do bar work, you'd be amazed how many customers would come in stinking of BO or pig shit and the number of arrogant bastards you used to get. I wouldn't claim superiority, I would just think fuck off and don't make things difficult for me.


Offline Marmalade


Many punters however just get stuck in the lifestyle. They cease to become true to themselves. What sort of a moral position is that and who are we to judge either way? .
A punter who is not true to himself is just as culpable in my view. It's not a judgement on anyone else, just a position that the highest moral duty is to be true to yourself. As a famous wit once said, if you don't like my morals I have others. Mine are only a humble selection.  ;)

Offline Marmalade

Speaking of Magnanti . .

Who would you rather shag/believe/enjoy a drink with?



One is a respected academic with personal experience as a pro$$ie - the other is a cow with a mouth full of buzzwords.

Which one is a cunt?

It's a separate topic in itself. but when I was a student and used to do bar work, you'd be amazed how many customers would come in stinking of BO or pig shit and the number of arrogant bastards you used to get. I wouldn't claim superiority, I would just think fuck off and don't make things difficult for me.

Quite. In the old tradition of waiters, the expert restaurant waiter can predict more about the customer walking in than the average customer can predict themself. I've known these guys and they are almost psychic. But they are quite right in feeling a bit superior (the French don't even bother to fucking hide it). Which is why comparison of punters-as-a-group vs prossies-as-a-group doesn't really work. The punter smelling of pigshit should be told to fuck off (unless perhaps the WG is offering her arse in a pig stall).

It's hard to tell in advance. There's a famous brothel area abroad that looks like pigshit. It's next to a meat factory. The street is awash with fuck-knows-what. Most of the rooms are pretty low-grade. Many punters take one look and turn their noses up in disgust. But it doesn't mean the prossies stink. Most of the ones I've fucked smelt as sweet as if they were going out for a night clubbing in the good venues. They showered and powdered their fannies and had sweet breath. Which is more than you could say for a lot of the local customers.

As long as the punter doesn't defraud the wg and vice verca i dont see how either has the moral high ground in that relationship. Or is that too simple a way of putting it. I suppose you could have a married man who routinely frequents knocking shops, who knows he is decieving his partner and feels no guilt. Compare that to a guy who is desperately lonely and is crying out for some sort of intamcy with a women. As a WG said to me yesterday everyones situation is different.

Offline Lurtz

Speaking of Magnanti . .

Who would you rather shag/believe/enjoy a drink with?




The years have not been kind to Blindell.   :vomit:

Offline Marmalade

The years have not been kind to Blindell.   :vomit:
Oh . . .  I dunno . . . not many sheep learn to stand on two legs

Offline Lurtz

Oh . . .  I dunno . . . not many sheep learn to stand on two legs

You old flatterer! I'd say she was more porcine than ovine.   :)

Offline Lurtz

One who posts on here within the ethos of the forum is morally superior to one who just posts shite against punters. A punter who acts with integrity, and that can include sufficient awareness not to get ripped off, is morally superior to the fluffie who is a plaything of the pro$$ie or one who rapes or steals.

Marmalade, as one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, you constantly delight our minds with your insightful posts and well-constructed arguments, which draw on the impenetrable logic of Aristotle and the dry wit of Diogenes. From the sidelines, I see you lock horns with posters, hurling them into the air with a casual shake of your head. So imagine my surprise when I read what you posted above. It sounds like something Jimmy would say. It isn’t worthy of the name 'Marmalade' – a by word for sophistication, not sophistry.  :)

Offline Marmalade

Marmalade, as one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, you constantly delight our minds with your insightful posts and well-constructed arguments, which draw on the impenetrable logic of Aristotle and the dry wit of Diogenes. From the sidelines, I see you lock horns with posters, hurling them into the air with a casual shake of your head. So imagine my surprise when I read what you posted above. It sounds like something Jimmy would say. It isn’t worthy of the name 'Marmalade' – a by word for sophistication, not sophistry.  :)

As I said, My Rt Honourable Mr Lurtz, I don't claim it is the only way of viewing it. But I did do you the honour of tring to find a logical flaw in your moral argument, so do give it a go if you wish to debate mine. ;)

I could spell it out at greater length .  .  .

When you join a forum, you agree to abide by the rules, and you could say written and unwritten (which then includes the ethos). If you fail to do that, then you are going against your oath as it were, which is morally reprehensible.

But even you do not accept that line of reasoning, thank you for your compliments  :hi: - and bear in mind I have no wish to be serious all the time!
 :cool:

I think taking a moral high ground can also be a psychological excuse for shame - a way of trying to compensate. I don't think there's any need to feel shameful about punting or prostituting. We often don't have enough sex and women often don't have enough money. (Or as much as both would like).

With some women (the 'Harman' types) it manifests in a different way. She feels devalued as a woman (not surprising as she's never achieved any honest potential). She's a bit of a 'fake' woman, not very comfortable in herself, and certainly no icon of womanhood and femininity. She becomes an icon of bitterness, draped in a cloak of 'caring' about 'the less fortunate' and taking a moral high ground, irrespective of the facts, that makes her feel better about herself.

I prefer an honest slag any day. At least the slag isn't fooling herself, a good basis on which to make something of herself. And give me a blow job while she's at it!

Great post!  :hi:  :drinks:

Offline Whore Of Babylon

That's a harsh word from such pretty lips. Worthier tasks would put them to better use.  :P
I disagree.
I argue that twat passing my pretty little lips is integral to the moral ethics of bisexual whoring. Very worthy indeed. In fact it's never far off the tip of my tongue.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 10:26:18 AM by Whore Of Babylon »

Offline Whore Of Babylon

A fair and healthy sale is where both parties feel they have got a good deal. In some ways, you can say that a person who is not tied (a customer) is in a superior position to one who is working. He or she 'calls the shots' within the acceptable limits laid down by the seller for instance. But morally? A WG who takes a pride in her service and gives good value is morally superior to one who doesn't. One who posts on here within the ethos of the forum is morally superior to one who just posts shite against punters. A punter who acts with integrity, and that can include sufficient awareness not to get ripped off, is morally superior to the fluffie who is a plaything of the pro$$ie or one who rapes or steals. I think comparing punters-as-a-group with prossies-as-a-group is a bit meaningless; but the prossie may find it harder to extricate herself.

Good point. Someone can have moral integrity or be bereft of it, prossie or punter.

A prossie who comprises her belief system for the cash prize is morally corrupt. And, by the same token, a punter who feels the buying of sex to wrong but can't help himself when he's got wood, lacks integrity.
And it's usually people of this ilk that are the most judgmental of their customer or provider.

Oh and I would pay to see Magnanti and Blindell 69
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 04:07:30 PM by Whore Of Babylon »

Offline crystaldenison

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 132
That is ridiculous, morality doesn't work on a score board basis, morality is what is right or wrong, luckily the law and whether you believe in god or not the bible (and other religious texts) has gone through the list and worked out what is right and what is wrong, in the UK escorting is legal so it stands to reason that UK society see it as morally acceptable from both parties (punter/WG) and even Jesus was ok hanging round with WG's. Lutz you are entitled to have your opinion on it, but I am sure neither punters or the girls want to or should view themselves as morally repugnant.

Dave sometimes honesty is the best policy but in your example you are probably right to keep that part of your past hidden providing you never return to a girl while you are committing yourself to an emotional relationship.

From my perspective I would always say to a boyfriend what I do for a living, obviously not on a first date but certainly before we engaged in any sexual activity as I believe he would have a right to know. I would also be unwilling to give up my profession in order to be with anybody emotionally so they would have to be ok with it or the relationship couldn't grow, my compromise is that it would then be a sexually open relationship.
All of that is because I stand to lose more than a punter who could just stop visiting girls to satisfy the terms of a relationship, I am not willing to stop paying my mortgage for anyone.

 agree fully with you I told my other-half b4 we got in deep so to speak and was surprised to learn how ok with it he was  :rose:

Offline Whore Of Babylon

Good on you. I'm in an honest and open relationship too
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 04:22:31 PM by Whore Of Babylon »

Offline crystaldenison

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 132
they could give james9999 a run for their money - i think james9999 should join up mumsnet and piss of the Boden Massive Posse  especially in the relationships  section  - it would be entertaining to say the least   :D

ref mumsnet ...

 I have to agree although they would ban him I expect ...  shame as I would enjoy watching this lol if anyone could argue his point there he would be the one  :drinks:
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 04:21:57 PM by crystaldenison »

Offline Lurtz

As I said, My Rt Honourable Mr Lurtz, I don't claim it is the only way of viewing it. But I did do you the honour of tring to find a logical flaw in your moral argument, so do give it a go if you wish to debate mine. ;)

I could spell it out at greater length .  .  .

When you join a forum, you agree to abide by the rules, and you could say written and unwritten (which then includes the ethos). If you fail to do that, then you are going against your oath as it were, which is morally reprehensible.

But even you do not accept that line of reasoning, thank you for your compliments  :hi: - and bear in mind I have no wish to be serious all the time!
 :cool:

Your Orangey Eminence,

The rules as posted by Adam seem reasonable and just.

As for The Ethos: well, it was originally coined to distinguish UKP from PN et al; a place where punters could feel at home to air their views without fear females would come along and put them on pre-mod.

However, The Ethos can be used by the unscrupulous as a blunt little tool to suppress freedom of speech, to put down women and exert control over what is posted. In a way, The Ethos – if adhered to too rigidly – can create the same problems that exist on PN but in reverse. And furthermore, heresy against The Ethos – rather than violation of the rules - could be seen as sufficient justification for harsh punishment.

The ethos is a 5-word Mission Statement, not an oath. How can it be? Are punters always right even when they are wrong?

 :hi:

Offline Marmalade

Your Orangey Eminence,

The rules as posted by Adam seem reasonable and just.

As for The Ethos: well, it was originally coined to distinguish UKP from PN et al; a place where punters could feel at home to air their views without fear females would come along and put them on pre-mod.

However, The Ethos can be used by the unscrupulous as a blunt little tool to suppress freedom of speech, to put down women and exert control over what is posted. In a way, The Ethos – if adhered to too rigidly – can create the same problems that exist on PN but in reverse. And furthermore, heresy against The Ethos – rather than violation of the rules - could be seen as sufficient justification for harsh punishment.

The ethos is a 5-word Mission Statement, not an oath. How can it be? Are punters always right even when they are wrong?

 :hi:

Mr Dear Lurtz, Leader of Isengard, Twice-Imagined Excellence of Jacksonian Re-Creation

You have introduced something of a red herring, O Thou of the Exquisitely Blemished Skin.

To enter into a contract and then disregard it is a denial of duty and so reprehensible. One may argue about the terms and meanings of the contract, but one either upholds it or doesn't. You could argue about what 'putting the punter first' means, and your interpretation would be diferent from your Esteemed Opponent, the Rt Honourable MarmiteFucking of Jamesian Emergence; but the fact would remain, whatever one's intepretation of 'putting the punter first,' that failing to do so, or putting the WG first (for a more straightforward example), or being a neutral irritant (such as a troll), would be contrary to the agreement you have made when joining the forum and hence reprehensible.

This very simple analysis makes no statements about punters generally or WGs generally. Nor does it make any statement about punters or WGs that choose not to post on UKP. And it is, of course, 'all other things being equal.' It does not say punters are always right - it makes no such judgement - and it makes no claim as to how the ethos should be interpreted. Just that if they follow the ethos of the forum that they are more right than if they do not. Simples!

I respectfully submit that this is a logic that even the you would be happy to choke the odd Ork with - all else being equal.  ;)
Your respectfully blah-de-blah-de-blah etc etc

...
ps Shoooorly 'putting the punter first' is 4 words nae 5??
pps If you could maybe flake off a wee bit of that 'Uruk' skin, not so much that you would miss any, I am sure I could blend a special 'strong flavour' marmalade with it ... what do you say?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 07:16:36 PM by Marmalade »

Online haystacks79

I hate to interrupt, as I'm quite enjoying this, but...

ps Shoooorly 'putting the punter first' is 4 words nae 5??

I can't argue with arithmetic. However, the site slogan currently appears to be "Where the punter comes first" which is probably where the 5 came from.

OK, as you were...

Offline Lurtz

Mr Dear Lurtz, Leader of Isengard, Twice-Imagined Excellence of Jacksonian Re-Creation

You have introduced something of a red herring, O Thou of the Exquisitely Blemished Skin.

To enter into a contract and then disregard it is a denial of duty and so reprehensible. One may argue about the terms and meanings of the contract, but one either upholds it or doesn't. You could argue about what 'putting the punter first' means, and your interpretation would be diferent from your Esteemed Opponent, the Rt Honourable MarmiteFucking of Jamesian Emergence; but the fact would remain, whatever one's intepretation of 'putting the punter first,' that failing to do so, or putting the WG first (for a more straightforward example), or being a neutral irritant (such as a troll), would be contrary to the agreement you have made when joining the forum and hence reprehensible.

This very simple analysis makes no statements about punters generally or WGs generally. Nor does it make any statement about punters or WGs that choose not to post on UKP. And it is, of course, 'all other things being equal.' It does not say punters are always right - it makes no such judgement - and it makes no claim as to how the ethos should be interpreted. Just that if they follow the ethos of the forum that they are more right than if they do not. Simples!

I respectfully submit that this is a logic that even the you would be happy to choke the odd Ork with - all else being equal.  ;)
Your respectfully blah-de-blah-de-blah etc etc

...
ps Shoooorly 'putting the punter first' is 4 words nae 5??
pps If you could maybe flake off a wee bit of that 'Uruk' skin, not so much that you would miss any, I am sure I could blend a special 'strong flavour' marmalade with it ... what do you say?

Dearest Caesar of Citrus, Enemy of Scurvy, Nourisher of the needy,

When you and I joined UKPunting it did not have a formalised Ethos. This came later. So I put it to you: are we to be bound by an ex post facto addendum cobbled together in haste by NIK on a dark, cold night, where no contract was writ, no agreement sought, and no consent given? A statement is not an oath. It constitutes no obligation. Agreement may be desirable, but adherence is consensual.

Your disobedient servant,

Lurtz

Offline Kitty

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 187
Good point. Someone can have moral integrity or be bereft of it, prossie or punter.

A prossie who comprises her belief system for the cash prize is morally corrupt.

I acted out a Tory RP once.

Never. Again.

Even hoes have limits and while little shakes me, being bent over and rogered while filling out a voting card for David Cameron was stepping over the line for me. It took a very long bath to get over that one.


Quote
Oh and I would pay to see Magnanti and Blindell 69

 :vomit:

Offline thickerdicker

I acted out a Tory RP once.

Never. Again.

Even hoes have limits and while little shakes me, being bent over and rogered while filling out a voting card for David Cameron was stepping over the line for me. It took a very long bath to get over that one.


 :vomit:



 :scare:   What the fuck!  For real?  Was the client a Tory Activist then?? :sarcastic:   Was it Mr.Cameron himself as he does seem to love himself and his voice !  Aha the "Mr,were all in it together,what a laugh"  > Know your place you working class scum !  Those top hat boys all pervs! :thumbsdown:  They get married off for the cameras and then have the rent boys to fuck up the ass so it feels like they back home at Boarding school/Eton/harrow on the hill /Charterhouse,you name it!  :sarcastic:  Tally Ho ,dear chap ! Know your place scum. I love the Monarchy! Rule and divide!

Some porn company should make a high end Porno for the Gay market called : The Tory Boys!


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)