Are these women innocent victims, or depraved fools?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
I'm going to say they were victims.
They were not there to party with the guy for sexual self gratification, but were there for a business deal of being an actor for legitimate porn photos.
The business was a fraud and he was a con artist.
It was a scam.
We could debate if any sexual activity outside of marriage is appropriate.
But as far as them being victims of a scam, they were.
So, depending on if you are basing the 'victim-hood' on legal grounds of a scam, or moral grounds of having sex, will alter the answer to the question.
They were not there to party with the guy for sexual self gratification, but were there for a business deal of being an actor for legitimate porn photos.
The business was a fraud and he was a con artist.
It was a scam.
We could debate if any sexual activity outside of marriage is appropriate.
But as far as them being victims of a scam, they were.
So, depending on if you are basing the 'victim-hood' on legal grounds of a scam, or moral grounds of having sex, will alter the answer to the question.
Yes.
They were victims of a scam and were whores.
Sans lust, there's no story here; and I know I sound chauvinistic, but I think that's more important than the whoring, because without the lust, there's no whoring even possible. It's possibility is founded upon the lust, so while whoring is blameable, it's only reasonable to only explicitly condemn the whoring, in the full light of condemning the lust first. Without the lust, the whoring can't happen.
musterion
Well-known member
1. The condemnation of the lust which creates the demand for whoring is assumed as a given, or should be. It goes without saying.
2. Anyway, is the guy a criminal and a lying scumbag? Yep. But he played on those women's lust for money and porn-fame just as much as they sought to play on his and other men's lust for sex. Both were exploitative, he just got the better of them (for awhile).
3. Just BTW...there is no difference between porn ("legal/okay") and prostitution ("Illegal/not okay"). They're the exact same thing, except one is filmed and the films sold for profit.
The correct answer is both. I wouldnt use the word innocent for any of it.
It should. But it doesn't. Lust is the soil, whores are the plants. There's no plants without fer-tile soil.
He's a man, so ..
In all seriousness, he tricked whores into working for free, by not paying his invoices, he's a broke customer for these whores, so they sued him, to get their whore money. They're using the courts to do it. They couldn't do this at church.
He didn't get the better of them at all, no matter how twisted his mindframe is wrt to what is supposed to be exclusively marital relations. They did next to nothing to him, and now he's being assaulted by the courts. He's going to lose; this will not go well for him, and what did he trick these whores into giving him? Anything of lasting value? Nothing of lasting value....
The courts disagree with you; what does that tell you? Because I agree with you 100-percent, they're censored, for money. That's prostitution. But the courts are more nuanced and somehow or other, First Amendment, and we're seeing the results in the fruits of the happening. You can't .. put it this way: The courts' solution to the problem of porneia, is to gravely discourage us from ever censored for money UNLESS IT'S IN FRONT OF A CAMERA.
You can't make this stuff up.
