Ray A: A Mormon 'John'?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Moniker wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
One final time: My issue is not with prostitution, per se. My issue is with the fact that Ray, as a defender, wants to have it both ways.


Yet, you're the one using derogatory terms to refer to these women -- not Ray. You're the one using scare quotes.


Which terms would you prefer that I use, Moniker? Let me know and I'll go back and censor my posts. Moreover, from whence stems the judgmentalism/moralism? As I've noted, *I* am not the one who has any problem with the sex trade, per se.

Some of these women find it empowering to take money from men and twittering behind their backs at what suckers they are. Surely, you know this? Some of these women string men along for years and take from them. Let's not just make broad generalizations about these women that come in all fashions. Some are working their way through college, some are middle class mothers, some are destitute drug addicts that are on the streets.


Yep, quite true.

How does Ray want it both ways? I don't see him denying that he's befriended some of these women, or had some as lovers. WHAT precisely IS the problem here? He denies it not. What's the deal? That you can't be a Christian and find a woman that works in this profession and see them as more than what their clients see them as? That speaks, to me, of his ability to not be shallow or just another Neanderthal male.


Or just another Mormon? Does Mormonism---or a defense thereof---allow for the view you find praiseworthy in Ray, Moniker? That, fundamentally, is the question I'm trying to get at here.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
One final time: My issue is not with prostitution, per se. My issue is with the fact that Ray, as a defender, wants to have it both ways.


Yet, you're the one using derogatory terms to refer to these women -- not Ray. You're the one using scare quotes.


Which terms would you prefer that I use, Moniker? Let me know and I'll go back and censor my posts. Moreover, from whence stems the judgmentalism/moralism? As I've noted, *I* am not the one who has any problem with the sex trade, per se.


I don't know Mr. Scratch. Use whatever terms you're most comfortable with. :)

If you prefer to refer to these women as "fallen" and "children of the night" then go right on with it. I don't give a flip what you call them, it's not so outside the norm, really. Merely shows what you think of these women. I point out that the way you refer to these women is the complete opposite of how Ray refers to them. Surely that shows how you each view these individuals, does it not? I'm not judging you -- I don't think I've used a derogatory term to refer to your profession or what you choose to do. Nope, not that I'm aware of. Perhaps you're the one judging? Are you not judging Ray? Are you not also judging these women by the use of these terms?

I merely point out that you're doing so.


Or just another Mormon? Does Mormonism---or a defense thereof---allow for the view you find praiseworthy in Ray, Moniker? That, fundamentally, is the question I'm trying to get at here.


What? I could care less for Mormonism, it's defenders or critics. I don't care a flip about LDS. I find that Ray refers to these women as friends as you try to beat him over the head with his friendship something that I can comment on. Who cares if he's friends with these women? I find that he refers to them as friends and sees past the "sex industry" aspect of them to see the humanity in them (which is rather lacking in most men) as praiseworthy - and that's it.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Nope. I'm interested in Perfecting the Saints.



Now that is funny.

Well, given your whacked-out and antiquated notions pertaining to gender roles


I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I think my view of gender roles is fairly contemporary. Ask TD or Harmony or some of the other women here that I have interacted on this issue with. Ask my working spouse and my daughters who I have encouraged in all their worthy pursuits. Am I now going to be a target of your spinning since I am pointing out the bad behavior you seem to be obsessed with?



I seem to recall an exchange of ours in which I mopped the floor with you on the issue of gender roles, though I admit I could be mistaken. Feel free to call me on it.


If so I do not recall it. I could be wrong. I will readily admit that I struggle with the LDS Cultural side of this that has been so programmed into me. But mostly I am take a pretty liberal view about women and men issues.


Then what are you doing on this thread?



I am pointing out that your antics are absolutely rotten and hideous.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Scratch
As I've noted, *I* am not the one who has any problem with the sex trade, per se.


No, you use sex workers as weapons with which to disparage others.

Well, now, this is quite interesting! Who knew that, in addition to his violent outbursts, he was also hooking up with a Lady (or child?) of the Night


I mean, can you imagine the likes of charity warming up to someone who was banging a drug-addled girl like you were?


What is it you feel the need to defend? These sex workers, or the fact that you had "relations" with them?


Well done, Ray. In fact, I invite you to head on over to MAD in order to wax poetic about your "sessions" with these various sex workers.


Maybe you aren't ashamed, but I am willing to bet that you don't want certain people to know about your "predilections."
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker
. The "pimp daddy" term is very demeaning to women.


Since you appear to be familiar with the terminology, could you supply us with a defintion of "pimp daddy"?
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker
. The "pimp daddy" term is very demeaning to women.


Since you appear to be familiar with the terminology, could you supply us with a defintion of "pimp daddy"?


Well, it could mean a few different things. Not sure in what way Scratch was referring to Ray. It could mean that Ray gets lots of biatches, or it could mean literally that he associates with "fallen" women and he's a pimp. Either way, when referring to Ray and these women it's not a term of endearment. I know most women I knew were pretty strong, and self reliant. Unfortunately, many of the women I knew were supporting men. Many thought of themselves as in control of their lives, their sexuality, and their finances and did not need a man for anything.

So, these "fallen" women that were friends with Ray turned him into a "pimp daddy"? How so? Perhaps you should ask Scratch in what way he meant the term. Surely he wasn't suggesting that Ray was literally a pimp? Or maybe he meant of it in the way that Ray is a cool dude that has "ladies" hanging all over him? I assumed he was being sarcastic, perhaps not? I don't know. Yet, he talks about the woman that Ray was involved with in less than savory terms and I assumed he also was trying to throw the word "pimp" in there to juxtapose the talk about the prostitutes that Ray has been involved with. Perhaps, I'm wrong.

Maybe Scratch just thinks Ray is a cool dewd? ;)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Moniker wrote:
What? I could care less for Mormonism, it's defenders or critics. I don't care a flip about LDS.


Then your remarks have been completely off-topic, and I hereby request that the moderating team move this portion of the thread into the "Off Topic Forum."

I find that Ray refers to these women as friends as you try to beat him over the head with his friendship something that I can comment on. Who cares if he's friends with these women? I find that he refers to them as friends and sees past the "sex industry" aspect of them to see the humanity in them (which is rather lacking in most men) as praiseworthy - and that's it.


Hey, terrific. I just think there is something wrong with defending someone who defends the system which allows those words/terms to carry their derogatory power. Ray's stance on all of this reminds me of the sort of politician who berates porn, the sex industry, and so forth as things that "undermine values," and yet who sleeps with prostitutes on the side. Know what I mean? Something just doesn't add up there. I vote that Ray keep his friendships with these women, and ditch his defense of Mormonism. That's my position. His defense of the latter would seem to undermine the former, but that's just my .02.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jersey Girl wrote:Scratch
As I've noted, *I* am not the one who has any problem with the sex trade, per se.


No, you use sex workers as weapons with which to disparage others.


Fair enough, so long as you define "others" as LDS and other anti-sex ideologies. If there were no puritanical, Victorian systems such as Mormonism, or any number of other religious belief systems, it seems unlikely that the use of "sex workers as weapons" would be possible at all.

Meanwhile, I will go ahead and alter the OP, since it's clear that some here are finding it offensive. (As I've tried to point out, I never really intended this thread to get sidetracked into a discussion about what is or is not acceptable in terms of sex trade nomenclature.)
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Moniker wrote:
What? I could care less for Mormonism, it's defenders or critics. I don't care a flip about LDS.


Then your remarks have been completely off-topic, and I hereby request that the moderating team move this portion of the thread into the "Off Topic Forum."


I request then that Gad's remarks be moved, your remarks as it pertains to Beastie, as well as Beastie's response all be moved as well. Matter of fact NONE of this has to do with the LDS Church, does it? Thank goodness that Ray is not embarrassed by his association with these women. That Gad is not embarrassed of his associations speaks to his character as well.



Hey, terrific. I just think there is something wrong with defending someone who defends the system which allows those words/terms to carry their derogatory power. Ray's stance on all of this reminds me of the sort of politician who berates porn, the sex industry, and so forth as things that "undermine values," and yet who sleeps with prostitutes on the side. Know what I mean? Something just doesn't add up there. I vote that Ray keep his friendships with these women, and ditch his defense of Mormonism. That's my position. His defense of the latter would seem to undermine the former, but that's just my .02.



I'm not defending Ray. I'm defending these women. I say ANYONE that sees past the "terms" and sees the humanity has some decency in them. That's all. And sorry if that's not relevant to you. Those women aren't here to defend themselves, and continue to be dehumanized by the stereotypes and false characterizations of who and what they are. I take issue with that.

The LDS Church and the TBM's therein very well show scorn for "fallen" women, no doubt they do! Yet, I think that anyone that steps outside that paradigm and thinks for themselves should be praised for the ability to recognize the absurdity of the stereotypes.

About the issues, I understand your point. I know that Ray has spoken about how those that have not God in their lives may be morally decrepit... I understand... and yet on THIS issue he's got it right. I'm giving him some slack. Baby steps. :)
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Jacob 2: 28 wrote: For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts


Let me tell you what I find odd about Ray's behavior. Above is the typical Mormon and Book of Mormon position on chastity. Now, Ray has said on his blog that he loves the Book of Mormon and will defend it to the day he dies. But I ask, why? And further, I'm not sure I believe him, that he loves it so much. It's one thing to be "backslidden." If someone were a hypocrite, It's still understandable that they deep down want to be different, but just find themselves too weak. Yet in this case, Ray isn't simply the backslidden Mormon who feels like he can't live the lifestyle, but he has some clear ideological conflicts with Mormonism, and yea, even the Book of Mormon itself. Ray clearly says that prostitution is "ok". Yet the Book of Mormon strickly condemns it. So why is it that Ray wants to defend a book that teaches false morals?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Post Reply