Pravda today not cold war Pravda, Comrade....

"14:22 2002-09-26

A whore is a man’s best friend

Why do men pay for sex?

Because they don't want the burden of long-term relationship that will take up a lot of time and energy. Going to a prostitute is like going to a restaurant: it’s fast, comfortable, different, and you don't have to wash the dishes after your meal. Furthermore, going to a prostitute is like a session with a psychiatrist for the majority of men. Statistics says that every fourth young man is afraid to start a sexual relationship with a girl, whereas he does not feel any shame with a prostitute. In addition to that, prostitutes are like a taboo, which adds more hazard to the whole thing. Even if a man is happily married, there will be a time when he will crave something new. Needless to mention, there are also a few wives who also would like to try a new flavor. A hooker makes a man’s dreams come true, and it definitely helps to save families.

Sex is very affordable these days, and the most ancient profession is still in high demand. Generations of women keep asking the following question: “Why do men pay for sex when they can get it for free?”

First of all, it just so happens that a woman doesn't need as much sex as a man, especially a woman that has been with a man for ten years. A man’s head can function normally only when his penis is relaxed and satisfied. A penis is basically satisfied only 3.5 minutes after a sexual intercourse. Then, it starts all over again. This small body part dictates to a man where to go and who to grab. Puritan women are not good for this, as they can get knocked up and there might be scenes of hysterics and so on and so forth. Having a rest with a prostitute is a lot easier: there is no man who thinks that it is called cheating. You pay her in the morning, and, in the evening, you can watch TV and have a can of beer without the threat of sperm ejaculation. You can even help your wife with the housework: she will be very pleased with it all.

A man is not a romantic all of the time. Sometimes, a man simply wants to have sex without any stipulations, conditions, or strings attached. Men use love to get sex, that’s all. This is an issue of sexual relationships. Sometimes, he is too lazy to show that he is interested in his wife, but he still has the desire to have sex. The best way out is to go and find a hooker. She will need nothing in return, just a few dollars.

A man never fails to have an orgasm, and he definitely enjoys the process. However, sometimes it is too hard to take a wife to the peak of pleasure. You will either have to work your ass off, or just not even try. Things are different when it comes to sex with a prostitute. She gets no pleasure, but she gets the money. If a man does not satisfy his wife, he will have to look her in the eyes the next morning anyway (most likely, he will have to cook breakfast for himself as well). With a prostitute, there is no need to worry: it's a hello-and-goodbye issue. By sleeping with a prostitute, a man protects his wife from disappointment, neurosis, and other negative consequences of his sexual selfishness.

A man is a humble creature. Sometimes, men are too shy to ask their wives to do this, to do that, to bend this way, or bend over. What if she does not like it? A prostitute’s fee includes all the variations and requests. About 27% of men do not have oral sex with their wives, because they consider it dirty and humiliating themselves. It’s like, “and then she will kiss my children with those lips?” Off they go to look for an oral pleasure with a whore.

In 1941, several hundreds of New York prostitutes were sent to special camps in order to satisfy American soldiers and protect them from sexually transmitted diseases. The majority of prostitutes say that they do not enjoy their sex with their clients. Forty-seven percent of young men said that they started their sex lives with a visit to a hooker. Three-thirds of contacts with prostitutes are reduced to just an old-fashioned blow job."

Wonder what their sample was?

as if you had to ask

You said.. A Whore, is a mans best friend
Im offended by your selection of the word,
Whore.
And Besides I thought a mans best friend was his hand.
Oh I mean, a mans best friend is his Dog.
Have A Great Day!!

The last paragraph says "In 1941, several hundreds of New York prostitutes were sent to special camps in order to satisfy American soldiers and protect them from sexually transmitted diseases."

Can anyone confirm or deny?  Tell us more!!

"Three-thirds of contacts with prostitutes are reduced to just an old-fashioned blow job."

Umm.... Isn't 3/3 equal to 100%?



-Your 6th grade math teacher

If you have an ordinary date with a woman, you can spend a lot of money taking her out to dinner, a movie, and other rituals of courtship. And there's no guarantee that you'll get any at the end of the night.

Is that story about New York hookers servicing WWII troops true, by the way?

women accompanying the troops of General Hooker in the Revolutionary War. They were supposedly called "Hooker's women", later shortened to "hookers."

It may be apocryphal, but it does show that providers and the military have been linked for quite some time.

I've studied WW2 almost all my life (including a bit of research when I was in the Army) and have not seen anything relating to organized prostitution for US troops.  Be that as it may, some commanders at the small unit level were at times creative in providing certain "recreational" activities for their men when they weren't in combat.  In Europe, however, in general any GI could get himself laid in almost any rear area (no, I don't mean Greek! LOL).

The Japanese did set up what they called "Comfort Stations", manned (or "womanned"?) primarily by enslaved Korean, Chinese and  Japanese women.  They, for the most part, weren't compensated for their work (although the Japanese women were, see below), and more recently some surviving Japanese women did win some compensation (damages) from the Japanese government.  The following quotes are from a study done at the University of Arizona:

“The Japanese Imperial Army in WWII recruited military prostitutes from Korea. In order to justify the expense, the "women" (girls as young as twelve) were stripped of their ideals serviced up to 250,000 men per month. Each woman, therefore, had a quota of servicing 100 men per day (each man was allotted only three minutes). And, when they tried to raise the price of the three minutes from $3 to $5, the head of the Military Police reprimanded the prostitutes, saying, "the price of meat is still $3."

The lifestyle of the Japanese sex slaves, called "comfort women," would be considered by many unfit even for farm animals. First, the Japanese police would seek out young, single, socially isolated and economically disadvantaged girls from religious families in Korea (80-90% of sex slaves to the Japanese army were Korean). With strong Confucian ideals, the girls were likely to value virginity and chastity, thus reducing the possibility of spreading venereal disease. The girls were lured to Japan by false promises of high-paying jobs and steady food supply; or, they were threatened at gunpoint and kidnapped.  Once the girls arrived in Japan, they were forced into sexual slavery, which meant servicing up to 100 men a day for low pay or no pay at all. There was inadequate housing, long hours, limited freedom, and insufficient medical care, and those who tried to escape were killed. (An estimated 75-90% of comfort women became casualties of war.)"

One quick comment:  100 men at 3 minutes is equal to 3000 minutes of "service" per day. 3000 minutes computes to 50 hours, which is a very long day.  I guess the U of AZ is long on history but short on math!

The Germans employed what was called "Field Whores". They were young women taken from their pool of slave labor (Jews, Gypsies, Russians, etc.).  They were used primarily on the Eastern Front, and mainly by SS and Waffen SS troops.  I suppose regular German Army morality prevailed a bit in this case.

Fortitude - I always assumed that the informal brothels, such as those dramatized in Hawaii in "From Here to Eternity" were accurate representations. Is this assumption correct?

Also, there was a very good dramatization of the Manhattan Project on PBS in the late '70's ("Oppenheimer"), which described informal, small (~2 women) brothels in Los Alamos that were staffed at night by women who were clerks during the day. Since security was very tight, I always wondered how the single, male scientists and engineers made it through the war and were still functional.

The Civil War.  not the Revoluntary War

Gen. Joseph Hooker was briefly commander of the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War (or the War of Southern Secession, depending on your point of view).  Hooker was the victor (barely) at the Battle of Antietam.  As a very popular frequenter of the brothels on DC at the time, he actually invited the courtesans of DC to accompany the Army to Hagerstown, MD and on to Antietam Creek to watch the battle.  The troops, who by and large couldn't afford any of these women, unaffectionately referred to them as "Hooker's Brigade".  Hence the term.

Sorry, Papasan, but history is one of my strong points.

BTW, the Battle of Antietam, for those who care, bears 2 major points in American History:

1.  The victory was very sorely needed by Lincoln for political reasons.  The Union in fact was losing the war at that point, and Abe needed to shift focus from the issue of States' Rights, which most people in the North could care less about.  As a result, he wrote and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves. In doing so, Lincoln commented that he didn't care about the slaves, but if freeing them would save the Union, he would do it.  That is the only reason Lincoln issued the Proclamation.  Remember, he was originally from Kentucky, a southern state,

2.  Antietam was the single bloodiest day in American military history.  More Americans died in the first 30 MINUTES of the Battle of Antietam than died in the first 30 DAYS of the Normandy invasion in 1944.  Considering the numbers involved, this stat is staggering.  It has also permanently shaped the course of American military philosophy, which dictates that you attempt to overkill a foe with artillery, missiles, air power or whatever, before committing ground forces.  The US Army has 11 people in support roles (Air, Artillery, etc) for every single combat infantryman.  More than any other army in the history of armies.

God, I have too much time on my hands!  Sorry for the diatribe.


F.

-- Modified on 3/28/2003 7:02:50 PM

There were loads of brothels in Hawaii during the war,  Many women came in from the west coast just to work there.  Considering what the men in service were going through at the time, authorities, especially the MPs and Shore Patrols, looked the other way so long as there were no rip-offs.

BTW, one thing I neglected to mention above:  If you ever want a good laugh, try to get hold of some of the VD training films from that era.  Nobody had a clue!  The military did set up what were called "Pro Stations", "pro" as in "prophylaxis", where a marauding GI could go afterwards and get his tubes cleaned out, so to speak.  So although the military didn't officially condone prostitution, they understood that there was a necessity.

Insofar as the Manhattan Project is concerned, I can't give you a definitive response.  Be that as it may, I wouldn't be surprised if the security people at Los Alamos had these gals checked out and actually allowed the scientists to dally from time to time.  There is just so much one can do with a slide rule!  LOL.

F.

The Maj. Gen. Hooker story is entertaining, but, according to dictionary.com, the word is of a more ordinary origin.  Oh, well.  It's still a good story.  

hook·er
n.
1.  One that hooks.
2.  Slang. A prostitute.

Word History: In his Personal Memoirs Ulysses S. Grant described Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker as “a dangerous man... not subordinate to his superiors.” Hooker had his faults. He may indeed have been insubordinate; he was undoubtedly an erratic leader. But “Fighting Joe” Hooker is often accused of one thing he certainly did not do: he did not give his name to prostitutes. According to a popular story, the men under Hooker's command during the Civil War were a particularly wild bunch, and would spend much of their time in brothels when on leave. For this reason, as the story goes, prostitutes came to be known as hookers. However attractive this theory may be, it cannot be true. The word hooker with the sense “prostitute” is already recorded before the Civil War. As early as 1845 it is found in North Carolina, as reported in Norman Ellsworth Eliason's Tarheel Talk; an Historical Study of the English Language in North Carolina to 1860, published in 1956. It also appears in the second edition of John Russell Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms, published in 1859, where it is defined as “a strumpet, a sailor's trull.” Etymologically, it is most likely that hooker is simply “one who hooks.” The term portrays a prostitute as a person who hooks, or snares, clients.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hooker

http://theeroticreview.com/msgBoard/ViewMsgBody.asp?BoardID=1&Messageid=36721

-- Modified on 3/29/2003 4:17:10 AM

is complaining that Iraq is fighting a guerilla war. What did we expect; that Iraqi soldiers would line up like the Redcoats or Hessians so that we could mow them down?

Sorry, 100 x 3 = 300, not 3,000

You said:
"One quick comment:  100 men at 3 minutes is equal to 3000 minutes of "service" per day. 3000 minutes computes to 50 hours, which is a very long day.  I guess the U of AZ is long on history but short on math!"

Isn't 100 men at 3 minutes each equal 300 minutes (5 hours)?

I think my problem with the story is more of biology rather
than math.  I dont see how anyone can withstand 5 hours
of continuous intercourse for long.  I would think all that
friction would have a horrible effect (not to mention the
psychological effect).

AliBabaSD

100 x 3 is 300, not 3000.  300 minutes is only 5 hours.

If we are ever to change the face of this and not be looked upon as sexual defiants---a simple adjustment is within the grasp of all writers and speakers within the terminology.  As several here have traced the historical timeline... pleased be advised hookers and prostitues are from a time warp in the past (if your referencing it from that time zone than your terminology is appropritate for then).  I do not believe these old terms RE:  hooker, whore, or prostitute is representative of the larger majority of providers now.  These terms are offensive and may lead to negative imagery in the unknowning minds of the greater masses.  I was glad to see the term house wife upgraded to a Domestic Engineer for example.  I have carried that title with proudest wearing numerous hats at one time. For me becoming a Provider is the most enjoyable, soulful all encompassing hat I have ever had the pleasure of adding to the overall title of Domestic Engineer.  It has allowed me to find deeper meanings in EVERY aspect of my life. This is why I am disheartened when what I do is described with these less favorable titles. This is a simple transition and only a part of adjustments and information that will need to become known before people will come to know what we as a group has discovered. But we need to start somewhere to encourage a positive change to a more favorable light within societal norms of this beneficial service. So PLEASE address this profession with terminology that elevates it within the eyes of the masses so one day WE ALL may COME OUT OF THE CLOSET.

Good point Yellow Feather! Most of my friends say......
" The so-called Free sex is Really the most expensive" Because after you receive the Free Sex you Will Pay. The  next time the price may be raised at any time, terms may be changed without notice and you may be cut off  Without Notice...Even if you have already Paid .

The analogy with the Revolutionary war is indeed an interesting one. Then too, the British force was not in the colonies with overwhelming troop strength, did not want to wage total war on the civilian population, and it was hard for the Brits to distinguish friend (Loyalists) from foe (revolutionaries).

I agree too that Rumsfeld is getting a little testy with recent developments. Do we really want to declare war on Syria because they presumably sent night-vision goggles to Iraq? Don't we have enough problems with Iraq without taking on the rest of the Muslim world?

I said history was my strong suit, not math.  Acually I get my mayh from the G.W. Bush School of Fuzzy Math.