Conference quark::mennotes

    More romantic?  There's no romance at all involved.  Yuck.
    
    				Steve

    Why not put a bullet in a revolver, spin the cylender, point it
    at your head, pull the trigger and see if you live to tell about
    it? You'll save the money spent on food, booze, and a room. It's
    a cheap thrill. And if you die it will at least be quicker.
    
    		Alfred
    
    

101.2>    Why not put a bullet in a revolver, spin the cylender,
    
No way, Alfred.  The cylinder stop would drag on the cylinder and wear 
through the bluing in a thin line around the cylinder's circumference, 
thereby reducing the revolver's value.  I got my *priorities*, you 
know!

- craig		:-)

re .1
I also don't understand why its romantic. The article said that those people do
feel romantic, esp. woman.

re .2
I think its my wording. The article said that people who attempted this claimed
they won't try the hookers. And those people usually got a good job and high
pay.


Mickwid.

    If people without partner do this, why not? If they feel like having
    sex and enjoy this feeling of meeting someone new, their problem.
    And, I guess women know how to make actions like this romantic, at
    least in their head. They know how to use imagination and they can pop
    into another person for a few hours, and do what they perhaps would
    never do together with a steady partner. Men also, of course...;*) 
    
    I know that it can be this way, but in an 'normal' intact friendship 
    there shouldn't be any limits either. For singles....why not.... 
    
    Maybe this is just some development in our society these days.....
    
    *Birgit_seems_to_be_oldfashioned
    

    Isn't this type of relationship as old as time itself?..... a one night
    stand?  Nothing new about this.
    
    Obviously its for purely physical release.... slam bam thank you
    Mam/Sir.  I suppose for consenting adults its fine if thats what turns
    you on (so to speak).  BUT.... in these days of AIDS it sounds like
    risky business to me, so, like all pleasures it comes (so to speak) with
    a price... the RISK.
    
    For me, I prefer a 'real' relationship thank you.
    
    
    Jeff

    Gee, this seems to happen in bars across the world every day/night.
    What one persons idea of romance might be anothers idea of cold. 
    
    Personally, there is some benifits, and there is the down sides. As
    pointed out.
    

    Sounds like the early '70's to me, before I'd ever heard of "Looking
    For Mr. Goodbar" or AIDS.   These days I prefer real relationships and
    antique shows.
    
    To quote an old Stevie Nicks song, "the loneliness of a one night stand
    is hard to take."
    
    And to attempt to quote an old Joni Mitchell song (Coyote) "it's
    amazing how close to the skin and the bone...you can get and still feel
    so alone."
    
    Lorna
    

	One nighters were, once upon a time, fun. These days, with the
	obvious problem of AIDS, I think Alfred's right - it's like
	playing russian roulette. If I was single I'd be very careful about 
	risking my future for a bit of slap and tickle.

	The other problem with one nighters is that sex can be awful. It 
	takes 'a little getting to know somebody' before sex gets to be really
	good. One night just isn't long enough :-)

	- Paul\

    The obvious problem is AIDS but there are more uncurable social
    diseases than that.  Herpes (once you got it, you got it), venereal
    disease (some antibiotic resistant strains) and other not so pleasant
    body infections (crabs).
    
    Maybe with a hooker your batting 50/50 and this way your 25/75, who
    knows.  If it is Russian Roulette, you've got three bullets in a rusty
    chamber.
    
    Monogany is not the way of the future, it ensures a future!
    
    Besides, I haven't seen the body condoms they used on the Naked Gun in
    stores yet.  

    Funny.  My biggest fear in going off to have sex with a complete
    stranger would be that he might beat me up, or kill me, whereas for men it
    seems the first thing many men think about is catching a disease.  It
    never seems to occur to men that if they have sex with a strange woman,
    she may decide to kill them, and dump them in a ditch somewhere.  I
    wonder why that is?
    
    At lunch today, I read an article in People magazine about some guy who
    was just arrested in NY for killing 13 women in the past couple of
    years.  Most of the them were prostitutes, an unsavory profession but
    one that never seems to lack for customers.  Very sad.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Maybe for men the biggest fear should be that she'll change the rules
    after-the-fact and decide she's been raped.  Good way to find yourself
    bunking with Mike Tyson.  Or that she'll decide that your're the most
    financially lucrative to support her and her upcoming little bundle
    of joy of the men she's slept with lately.  Either way, you had better
    have a _lot_ of money for a lawyer.

    The latest "trick" of "the oldest profession" is to grab his pants
    (and wallet) and run.  After all, what's he going to say when he calls 
    the police?
    
    fred();

    re .12, well, hopefully, in this day and age, any man who has sex with
    a strange woman would be using a condom so, unless it broke, he
    wouldn't have to worry about any forthcoming "bundle of joy" being his! 
    :-)
    
    You're right, though, there's stinkers of both sexes out there for all
    of us decent people to have to watch out for.
    
    Lorna
    

    Good point Lorna.
    
    Maybe I didn't consider it since I don't beat people up.   
    
    CSC32::Haddock is right too, it's a two way street these days.
    
    Regarding the wallet thing, saw that in an old movie, think it's been
    around for a while.  These days they don't wait for you to take your
    pants off.
    
    Make that 4 bullets in a rusty revolver.
    
    The odds look even worse!
              

    I'm far less concerned with getting beat up or killed the old fashioned
    way than I am of catching something incurable and getting killed that
    way.  
    
    So it's not just men who worry about what's floating around in the body
    fluids of their partners.  :)
    
    kim

    
    >Funny.  My biggest fear in going off to have sex with a complete
    >stranger would be that he might beat me up, or kill me, whereas for men it
    >seems the first thing many men think about is catching a disease.  It
    >never seems to occur to men that if they have sex with a strange woman,
    >she may decide to kill them, and dump them in a ditch somewhere.  I
    >wonder why that is?

    Well, the first thing that occurs to me is that one night stands are
    immoral and wrong. But I figured that wouldn't go over real well here.
    :-)
    
    For me this is a strictly academic question. I would not consider sex
    with someone I was not married to. I never have before and don't ever
    plan to change that. So it takes me more to come up with risks than it 
    might be for someone who has actually considered, let alone had, a one 
    night stand. Or any sex with an acquaintance more casual than a spouse.

    I suppose that if I were to actually consider it personal safety, in
    the form of a beating, shooting, or stabbing, would probably occur to
    me. Possibly even before disease. Especially if I felt that a condom
    was protection from that. There are a lot of other consequences I'd
    think about as well. I've seen "Fatal Attraction." I've known people
    who get fixated on things and/or people. And more. 

    I think also that many men consider themselves such a "catch" that no
    woman would want to do them harm. Especially after sex. I'm not quite
    so vain but I know a few guys who are. :-)

    			Alfred

    Getting beat up?! Getting Killed?!! I guess it would depend upon what
    kinda bar you go into. Or what kind of city. Perhaps in Nashua its a no
    brainer. Chances of winding up as land fill here is very low. Perhaps
    someplace in Boston or New York the odds work another schew.

    re .16, I don't think one night stands are "immoral and wrong."
    I just think people have to be careful because there are diseases and
    lunatics out there.  Also, people have to be honest about what they
    really want.  It's probably even easier to get one's feelings hurt
    engaging in casual sex, than it is to get a disease or murdered.
    
    You said you wouldn't consider having sex with someone you weren't
    married to.  Well, I wouldn't consider marrying someone I hadn't had
    sex with (otherwise how would you know if you even liked it, and then
    you wind-up stuck with somebody you don't even like having sex with? no
    thanks).  (Also, if someone only ever has had sex with one person in
    their entire life there is no basis for comparison.)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

   

>    re .12, well, hopefully, in this day and age, any man who has sex with
>    a strange woman would be using a condom so, unless it broke, he
>    wouldn't have to worry about any forthcoming "bundle of joy" being his! 

Not quite.  A previous encounter with another man may have resulted in the
bundle of joy.  The man who gets called 'father' may not be the one that was
there for the conception, regardless of what protections he used. Hence, he
may still face an uphill legal battle.
 
-Joe

I never tried one-night love before. Well, frankly, I'm still a virgin boy. Sure
its the traditional moral thinking. So sometimes I really don't know why people
like to be those one-nighters.

There was a short TV program discussing this topic. It described a girl who like
to play the game very much. And every time she finished, she asked the man for
the watch and kept a list of the watch and the detail of the man.

Its strange that this film didn't touch the topic on AIDS or other dieceases. It
just ruled out the rule of the game: becomes strangers again after sex.

I think I can only have sex, at least, with the one I love. It make no major
difference to me between one-night love and going to a hooker. Maybe the real
difference is that you can get a better, pretty woman than those old, poor
hookers.



Mickwid.

    re .19, well, at least, if the man had worn a condom then *he* would
    know that he wasn't the father, and if the woman sued him for child
    support he could clear his name with the paternity tests that are
    available today.  I realize it would be a pain the ass to have to go
    through all of this, as well as expensive, but if the man had not worn
    a condom, then it could turn out that he really was the father.  
    
    Surely, it's better for a person to have no doubt of their own
    innocence if accused of something.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .21

>    Surely, it's better for a person to have no doubt of their own
>    innocence if accused of something.

    Condoms are not 100% effective.  So you'd still be up the proverbial
    creek as far as the rather substantial expense of a legal battle.

    fred();

    re .22, well, you'd be up the creek as far as a legal battle goes,
    anyway, but if I were the guy I'd feel a lot better about the outcome
    if I had known that I used a condom (that didn't break) and I knew she
    had sex with other people (and maybe didn't use anything).  AFterall,
     if a woman does it with one guy, not using a
    condom, and then a week later does it with another guy who uses a
    condom (that doesn't break), and then finds out she's pregnant, I'd bet
    that the odds are overwhelming that the father is the guy without a
    condom.   
    
    Lorna
    

    re .23, do you think that would make a good name for a movie - "The Guy
    Without a Condom"?   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

        re .24

    <                           -< catchy title, eh? :-) >-

    Be catchy alright,  catchy AIDS, catchy syphilis, catchy herpes,
    catchy gonorrhea...


    fred();

    re .25, calm down, Fred.  Nobody's going to force you to do anything
    you don't want to do.  :-)
    
    (i never said I wanted to "have at it")  :-)
    
    
    Lorna
    

        re .26

    >    (i never said I wanted to "have at it")  :-)

    That's one of the nicer parts about monogamy ;^}).  Just keep the
    asprin handy 8^}).

    fred();

    Since this fad has apparently become the rage, what has been the effect
    on V.D. rates? AIDS should be a prime concern or do the Japanese have
    such low rates no one worries? Recent studies here indicate a large
    percentage of college students use condoms "once in awhile". This is
    supposedly our young bright minds. Surveys of kids in high schools with
    free condoms indicate lots of them stay in the wallets and that this
    group of invincibles also use them once in awhile. Why do I have the
    feeling my tax dollars are being wasted on these feel-good programs?
    Now we are going to get hit with those silly-assed AIDS ribbons on
    postage stamps. You just know those stamps will be a real deterrent.

    Nobody mentioned, that condoms can also be fun ......;*)
    
    As it was World-Aids-Day yesterday, I'm still wondering about the
    campaigns they are driving..... Why do they tell us "Use condoms and
    you will be protected of Aids"? Why won't anybody say, that this can
    also be caused by kissing, transmitted through saliva, open wounds etc.
    etc.
    Just imagine, a man weares a condom, but kisses an infected woman. He
    will be sure not to be sick and will pass the virus to his next partner
    or perhaps his children. Why isn't there said anything about this?
    MTV didn't send anything about this, just the usual "Use condoms...."
    
    Keep thinking about what and how you're doin' it, please!!!!!
    
    Birgit_wondering

>	Why won't anybody say, that this can also be caused by kissing, 
>	transmitted through saliva,

	I'm no expert on HIV and AIDS but I don't think this is true. All
	the information that I've ever seen on the topic has said that the
	disease is transmitted via blood. 
	
	I can imagine that kissing an individual who had or had received 
	lacerations around the mouth and was infected would increase the 
	risk of infection for you. This is one reason why it is not advised 
	to try mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on an individual who has received 
	facial injuries.

	- Paul\

101.29> you will be protected of Aids"? Why won't anybody say, that this can
101.29> also be caused by kissing, transmitted through saliva, open wounds etc.
101.29> etc.

I can't remember the researcher's name, but I believe she did a study 
in England that proved just that, but it was repressed by the general 
media and by the mainstream medical community.  This was several years 
ago.  I believe she even made a good case for the "aerosol effect," 
i.e. the transmission of the virus through coughing and sneezing.

If I have the time this week, I'll see if I still have it at home...

It just occurred to me this might be drifting into another base topic,
i.e. the politics of disease research and censorship of research
results, not to mention the various and sundry agendas this country's
media elite are working these days, so if the moderators want to
move/delete this reply, please do so. 

- craig

    According to the "experts", AIDS is not transmitted by saliva or
    kissing.  But with all "experts", it's because they cannot trace anyone
    getting AIDS that way.
    
    I don't think everyone believes the theory since we appear to have
    become a society of 'cheek kissers' (a social sense not in a business 
    sense).  

    Don't you people know that 18 to 24 year olds consider themselves
    immortal?  I am only partially kidding. That age group... or even those
    a bit younger supress their own acceptance of mortality.  Thats one
    reason that 18 year olds make such good military inductees... they con-
    sider themselves immortal for all practical purposes. Is it any wonder
    that not 'taking a shower with a raincoat on' (not wearing a condom)
    can be something someone that age can convince himself its an ok thing
    to do?
    
    Jeff

    
    Back a few years, right before one of the Super Bowls, Phyllis George
    was interviewing Roger Staubach.  Phyllis was trying to dig into him
    a bit about his strong support and participation in The Fellowship
    of Christian Athletes.  I'll never forget Roger's response, "Being
    a Christian doesn't mean you can't have any fun.  Hey, I enjoy sex
    as much as Joe Naimath (thud).  I just enjoy it with one woman,
    my wife.  Maybe more so, since I don't have to worry about a lot of
    things that go with that life style".  The "thud" was Phyllis George's 
    bottom jaw hitting the floor :^).

    fred();
    

    re:.0
    
    Sounds like the early 80s in America.
    
    Back then, it was quite typical to meet a babe at a club, retire to
    your car or someone's place to knock boots, then forget about each
    other.

    re .35, those were the days.  
    

    Well, that's what I've *heard* anyway.
    
    I fondly remember the sticky steering wheel contests on Sunday mornings.
    
    That was how you judged who had the hottest date.

>    I fondly remember the sticky steering wheel contests on Sunday mornings.
>    
>    That was how you judged who had the hottest date.


This sounds contrary.  I would think if the date was hot, one wouldn't need
to resort to using the steering wheel for such purposes.

    Earthlings make love strangely...:) On my planet we use other parts of
    our interplanet ships. Never the steering wheel!
    
     

    Romance is in the eye of the beholder.  The thrill of the chance
    meeting and the decision that this is a person who would be a good sex
    partner is doubtless one of the things that some people might see as
    romantic; pretty much any other human activity is appealing to some
    segment of the population, after all.
    
    I see it, at worst, as attempted suicide, and, at best, as serious
    moral turpitude.  YMMV, and probably does.

>and, at best, as serious moral turpitude.

 Interesting.

re: several re: the paternity question

I often thought how comical it might be for a frivolous paternity charge to
be lodged against a guy who's had a vasectomy and been clinically proved to
be sterile.

"She said _what_???"

-Jack

    Re .41
    
    Why?

    re:41  What has morality got to do with what goes on between two
    consenting adults?

        re .44

    Well, for one thing, the illegitimate birth rate is becoming a real
    pain in the pocketbook of the taxpayers.  And before you start on
    the so-called "deadbeat-dads" thing, the first thing you have to know
    is which one he is.  If you look at it beyond the religious aspect,
    most morals usually have a practical basis.

    fred()

	What percentage of your tax dollar goes to support single-parent
	families and/or illegit kiddies ?

	- Paul\

    re .46
    
    Too much and growing.
    
    fred();

    re: I often thought how comical it might be for a frivolous paternity
    charge 
    
    
    Believe me, there's not a damn thing at all funny about it! I know of
    what I say.

re: .-1

>    Believe me, there's not a damn thing at all funny about it! I know of
>    what I say.

How so? I would think that publicly exposing her as a liar might be somewhat
gratifying . . . 

Perhaps this deserves a string of its own . . . 

-Jack

    re.44 
    
    So your moral as long as you practice birth control?
    

        re .50

    I just said that that was _one_ part.  As the pro-abortionists (another
    moral debate) are fond of pointing out, no "birth control" (except
    abstinence of course) is perfect.  The "birth control" argument is just
    a Red Herring anyway since a good sized chunk of the population are
    obviously not using birth control.  There is also the little problem 
    of AIDS and other STD's (to name a couple more) that are spread 
    primarily by sexual contact that society is then expected to shoulder 
    then burden of.

    As I told my son when he wanted to start driving, "You can drive
    everything you can afford to buy and pay for insurance on".  "Morality"
    as well as "law" (formalized morality) is just societies rules of 
    conduct.  If you expect society to bear burden of your conduct, then 
    society has a right to say something about your conduct.
    
    fred();

Re.47

	Your gut feeling doesn't constitute the fact or the basis of a
	sound argument. But you knew that already, huh fred :-)

>	As I told my son when he wanted to start driving, "You can drive
>	everything you can afford to buy and pay for insurance on".

	If you place 'living within your means' as a question of morality
	then you've just cast the American nation into the immoral pot 
	because they aren't. To me it's more a question of financial
	management - either you practice it or you don't.

	- Paul\

.52>	If you place 'living within your means' as a question of morality
.52>	then you've just cast the American nation into the immoral pot 
.52>	because they aren't.

        Great observation...  What would happen if America or individuals
        were to 'live within their means'?  This would imply self-control which
        MUST be present before you can have birth-control.  It implies people
        putting much thought BEFORE they take action on anything.  I think
        morality comes into play in HOW we deal with the consequences of our
        actions with the long term effect always in mind.

    With US national debt in the Trillions of dollars and the Canadian debt
    forecast as a Trillion dollars by the year 2000, how are we going to 
    live with the consequences?
    
    One night love may be the only affordable pleasure left!

            re .54

    >    One night love may be the only affordable pleasure left!

    That would imply that we are so far gone that there is no saving
    ourselves as a nation or society.  So...don't worry, be happy?

    Ah, but that's the entire problem or a good sized chunk of it 
    anyway.  It isn't free...or affordable any longer.  

    fred();

    re:55
    
    We have covered a lot of ground, haven't we, from morality, to
    paternity, threw in a bit of religious overtones, taxes, a couple of
    social ills, medical issues and now we're down to financial management
    and affordability.
    
    What we haven't touched is the cultural and social needs that this
    practice resolves.  We often make judgements on other cultures based on
    our 'norms' of behaviour.  Was there not similiar 'clubs' in New York a
    few years ago?
    
    It is not a matter of 'don't worry, be happy'.  The entire thing may
    resolve a social need in Japan and Hong Kong.  We find it socially not
    acceptable (unless paid for).  Every city in North America has a red
    light district.
    
    The North American method of marriage, kids, divorce, welfare is far
    more expensive.  
    
    No one has convinced me it's not 99% free!
    
    

    
    re .56

    >                 -< Morality is in the thighs of the beholder >-

    Actually morality is in the eyes of those who end up paying the
    freight.  If/when they decide that they can no longer afford to
    pay the freight and put that "morality" back on the shippers then
    _they_ (the shippers) will be faced with just how much "morality" 
    they can/can't afford.  Even Bill & Al have now admitted that
    Dan Quale was right.  Even the good Governor Roy of Colorado
    was on national news this weekend explaining how Colorado is going
    to start moving people off of welfare.

    >    No one has convinced me it's not 99% free!
    
    Checked your pay stub lately?
    
    fred();

    Yup, checked my paystub, getting screwed royally.  You Americans ain't
    seen nothing yet.....
    
    But, in the context of this Japanese/Hong Kong situation, I still think
    it is a far less expensive avenue than 'we' the North American society
    has adopted where we have an enormous welfare burden on our backs. We
    have built a welfare empire as an industry in itself.
    
    They have a much smaller unemployment rate than we do and limited
    welfare if any. (correct me if I'm wrong here).  They import labor.
    
    From the context of their overcrowded society, from other books on the
    Japanese culture I have read, this is the most innocent of their sexual
    deviations!  
    

    re .58
    
    Looks like they are just starting on someting we've been working on
    for a couple of decades now.  $3 _trillion_ dollars on social programs
    since 1964 and LBJ's "Great Society" for naught.
    
    However, the Japaneese do not have welfare or unemployment programs.
    So who gets to pay the freight there is likely a whole different ball
    game.
    
    Hong Kong had better live it up while they can.  'Cause in '97 the
    place goes back to Red China.  Talk about differnt ball games...
    
    fred();

    Immigration from Hong Kong.
    
    They're not living it up, they're buying us out!  Driving housing
    prices in some areas through the roof.  We're spending what we ain't
    got and their buying evrything we used to have.  Maybe that's our
    'economic salvation!'
    
    While some of the oriental criminal elements are rearing their ugly
    heads, they in general tend to put us North Americans to shame in their
    work efforts and habits (personnal observation only).
    
    Hmmmm....maybe they'll open one of those night clubs.
    
    Bill
    
    

.54> With US national debt in the Trillions of dollars and the Canadian debt
.54> forecast as a Trillion dollars by the year 2000, how are we going to 
.54> live with the consequences?

     OK, let's see what's happening now...  To NOT 'live within one's means'
     is to 'steal' from someone (usually the people who 'live within their
     means').  In the case of our governments being trillions of dollars in
     the red, in essence we are 'stealing' away our children's future.  But
     hey, why worry about future generations - Life is now!  In fact, we
     can do some of those future generations a favor by aborting them right
     now - save them from the misery which a 'stolen' future holds...
     Men/Women are pretty smart, they have brains, they can rationalize.  Some
     of them have already figured out that when you keep taking from those
     who 'live within their means', pretty soon there's no one left who CAN
     'live within their means' - everyone must 'steal' in order to eat/survive.
     To prepare for this eventuality, everyone begins to ARM themselves - it's
     the rational thing to do...  Better forget any long term commitments;
     they are something NO rational person would ever be involved for they
     have no future - in order to get Love each of us will need to 'steal' it.
     But 'stolen' love isn't really Love - can probably get away with calling
     it rape...  But who's raping whom?
    
.54> One night love may be the only affordable pleasure left!

     If you wanna call it that - both people are only victims of their
     short term happiness...

    	The U.S. obviously doesn't have the social concerns of France. The
    French government has recognised the consequences of a declining
    population. As an exaggeration, imagine a nation of geriatrics, where
    all the people who can work are running the geriatric homes. Nobody is
    generating the  wealth required to run those geriatric homes.
    
    	The people who will be geriatrics in 20 or 30 years time recognise
    this as a possible problem, and are willing to pay money now to
    encourage people to breed now and ensure that their kids are well
    educated, so that in 20 years time...
    
    	Social charges to unmarried mothers is investing in your future.,

Re.62

	It probably has nothing to do with the base note but to follow on
	there was an interesting article in the Economist this week about
	the old in America. The economist reported that today there are some 
	32,000 Americans who have reached the ripe old age of 100. By the 
	year 2000 they estimate that some 1 million people will have reached
	this age.

	The article also reported that today medicare and medicaid are spending
	some 19 billion dollars a year on keeping old folks ticking over.

	That's 19 billion TAX dollars. So If I were an American I'd be
	agreeing with your last sentence.

	- Paul\



	  

    re:63
    
    The only connection I can establish with the base note is that those
    people that lived to the ripe old age of 100 didn't go to the one-night
    sex shops and catch some fatal disease so we're paying the health bill
    later instead of sooner!

To the base noter:  I think you may be taking too seriously things you see
on TV or read in magazines.  Remember these folks are just trying to make a
little money off you.  They could care less about telling you the truth.

.56>    What we haven't touched is the cultural and social needs that this
>    practice resolves.  We often make judgements on other cultures based on
>    our 'norms' of behaviour.  Was there not similiar 'clubs' in New York a
>    few years ago?

Sure, and still are, for all I know.  And this kind of thing was part of the 
the life style of many people in the US from the 60s (when I first noticed it)
to the 80s (when AIDS and other STDs got a lot of press).  This is not about
American culture vs other cultures.  Promiscuity has a long history in American
culture, and long term relationships (usually monogamous) have a long history 
outside the US.

.56>    It is not a matter of 'don't worry, be happy'.  The entire thing may
>    resolve a social need in Japan and Hong Kong.  

Sure it does, to the extent that it is not just a figment of a TV ratings war.
The questions are rather how well does it meet the social needs (which are not 
quite so geographically limited) and what are the personal and social costs.
Anybody who has read this far without realizing that these costs are worth
considering is probably impervious to anything I would say about that.

> We find it socially not
>    acceptable (unless paid for).  Every city in North America has a red
>    light district.

I think you have it backwards.  Red light districts are definitely not socially 
acceptable.  In my part of US culture, the scale of social acceptability is 
now something like

	monogamy
	serial monogamy
	long term relationships
	short term relationships
	technological prostitution (X rated videos, CDs and computer games)
	one night stands
	upscale prostitution (mistresses)
	downscale prostitution (red light districts)

I can't imagine a party in New England where you could not stop all converation 
dead with a sentence beginning  "When I was in the Combat Zone last night..."
I think a majority of my fellow citizens would support any zero cost way of 
closing all red light districts.  I think a large minority would support 
closing them even at a significant cost in money and/or civil rights.  As
long as they could still rent X-rated videos.

    re: 65
    
    Probably it as a slow day in the media world, titilation always sells. 
    If it sells papers write it up, if it doesn't, make it up!
    
    In Japan, Hong Kong or Boston, there is no crime being committed.  So
    we stand on our moral 'soapbox' and call it wrong.  This was not about
    soliciting or prositution or what ever we class as illegal or immoral.  
    And, I'm sure the same thing happens in bars across America every night.
    
    Red light Districts in many cities are legal, controlled and licensed.
    Maybe not here in North America.  I recall guided 'walking tours' 
    through Amsterdam's red light district.  Mostly North American
    tourists, giggling and twittering.  
    
    Double standards abound, the same as being able to rent a porn video
    but be outspoken against the real thing.
    
    Last time I heard, it wasn't a spectator sport (unless your into
    videos).   
    
    

    To the noter who is wondering at the cost effectiness at keeping 100
    year olds 'ticking over':  If YOU reach 100 it would be interesting to
    see what your answer to this question is then.
    
    You DO have a point allright, and its a scary one. All of a sudden its
    becoming a 'crime' to grow old.  Brave New World
    
    To those who wonder at the right of the older generation to collect
    Social Security:  They paid... they should GET their entitlements.
    Too bad it doesn't look as if the younger generation will be able
    to support Social Security.  Better watch out that the money is there
    for when YOU grow old, otherwise your throwing bad money after good.
    
    Jeff

    It gives me the shakes when we define human life by monetary standards. 
    
    But, thats the basis of our medical system and the future basis of our
    social system.
    
    What was that movie in the '60's about a very young President and 40
    year olds were sent off to camp.  Maybe it was a prophecy!  
    
    What happened when age meant respect and wisdom, today it's an anchor.
    
    
    
    

Re.67

	It isn't cost effective to take care of 100 year olds. That's the
	point. With the retirement age set at 65 that's some 35 years of 
	receiving a state pension and medicare or medicaid. That's the
	problem and before anybody 'flames on' I care very much about the old, 
	and the young too. 

	Europe, with it's ageing and declining population cannot afford
	it's welfare systems. That's a fact. Sweden, Norway and Finland,
	who chose their 'third way', are in a desperate situation as their
	economies stumble. Britain has just increased the retirement age
	of women from 60 to 65 and is looking at ways of privatising the
	pension system. Germany pays it's pensioners month to month; it has
	no monies saved for future pensioners.

	What that means for people like me who have and still are paying 
	into the system is that by the time we reach pensionable age there
	will be, at best, less money available. Today a pensioner can't live 
	on his/her pension (a single chap in the UK gets 3,000 pounds A YEAR).
	In Germany a married women gets 600DM per month, a married man a little
	more than 800DM.
	
>	To those who wonder at the right of the older generation to collect
>	Social Security:  They paid... they should GET their entitlements.

	It maybe an entitlement today but when I'm 65 will that still be the 
	case ?

	- Paul\

>       Britain has just increased the retirement age
>	of women from 60 to 65 and is looking at ways of privatising the
>	pension system. 
    
    	Since there are no more jobs for women over 60 than for anyone else
    (it doesn't create a new category of jobs) I estimate this has
    increased the unemployment figures by about 4% at a stroke by
    reclassifying these women as unemployed rather than retired.
    
    	Or do you think that there is some limit to percentage unemployment
    such that increasing the number of people potentially employed will
    increase the number actually employed?
    
    	It is the number actually employed that creates the countries
    wealth, so adding 63 year old women to the labour pool only helps if
    you can have some confidence in finding jobs for them.
    
    	My mother used to be a school teacher, and in principle early
    retirement was possible because of the high unemployment rate of
    teachers in Britain. For 4 years she applied for early retirement,
    knowing that if she got it she would be replaced by someone younger,
    and make way for someone unemployed who would have been paid much less
    because of less seniority. She was finally allowed to retire at the age
    of 59, and it is a little difficult for me to see how forcing her to
    work till she was 65 would have helped the economy.
    
    	Both my parents took early retirement thinking in part that they 
    would be helping youngsters to get jobs. Were they wrong? As a 25 year
    old would you rather be unemployed, or employed but have to pay high
    taxes to support wrinklies?

    "When I reach 65 will there still BE money to pay my entitlements?"
    That is exactly my point.
    
    Ironic isn't it?  Before, Mankind was plagued by illnesses that killed
    people by the time they were 40... so old age was something most people
    didn't reach. Of course there were regular wars which culled out vast
    numbers of people too.
    
    Now that many of the diseases are licked we are faced with a severe
    economic problem trying to support the growing numbers of people who
    had made it to old age. If its not one thing its another.
    
    I am afraid that the facts are that there are only a certain amount of
    medical resources to go around.  Either we can reduce the demand on
    those resources by triage or rationing, or we can INCREASE the
    resources, or, do both.
    
    I think that Western Cultures reducing the value of the older
    generation is, in itself a vast waste of resources.  The most
    experienced people are put out to pasture and for the most part their
    wisdom is ignored.  And, we wonder why (in part) we are in such
    trouble.  Hell, we WASTE what we have, (both physical materials, and
    people) to an extent that boggles the mind.
    
    Until we start utilizing ALL the resources more cost effectively (The
    older generation?) the younger generation better get ready to carry
    more and more of the load.  So... its up to you younger generation,
    help utilize us older people (I am 50) better or be prepared to do the
    work yourselves.  And don't forget, if you set policies for older
    people to be 'euthanized' (or more socially acceptable equivalents
    such as withdrawal of medical support) YOU will be in that position
    yourself someday.
    
    Off my soapbox, but I think the trends are ALARMING!
    
    Jeff

    	Maybe the problem isn't that there are too many old people; maybe
    it is that our governments have decided to transfer money from the
    young to the old.  If the money that was taken from the old in the form
    of social security/whatever you want to call it in other countries had
    been invested, there would have been a real return on it which could
    provide for their old age.  I pay around 15% of my income for social
    security (in the US).  If I were free to invest this money, it would be
    provide capital for businesses, which would provide more jobs and more
    good and services.  The money would grow and would be available for my
    retirement.  Instead it provides employment for government bureaucrats
    and a marginal living for some retirees.
    	Most people of my age (40s) are sure that the social security
    system won't provide for us when we are retired.  Unfortunately many of
    us cannot afford to invest in private plans because we have so little
    left after the government takes its whack at our paycheck.  There have
    been proposals made for allowing people to opt out of the government
    system.  So far none of them have gotten to the point where congress
    might take action on them.
    	Chile set up a private system a few years ago, and so far it
    appears to be working very well.  Everyone is obliged to provide for
    their own retirement.  Once they have enough invested to provide some
    minimum level of income at retirement they have no further obligation
    to invest.  Many people were able to get to this level in a fairly
    short period of time.  The money that they invested will continue to
    provide jobs and a return until they are ready to retire.   A plan like
    this in the US would probably mean that single people could invest
    heavily, and then when they have children and higher expenses their
    investment would sit and accue interest.  30 or so years later it would
    be worth several times the initial investment.  Others might not be
    able to do as well, but if only 10% of their income were invested
    steadily they would be on the right side of compound interest and would
    have no problem at retirement.
    						John
      

    Maybe we should eat the rich.
    

    
    
    -1
    
     Yeah really, everyone above $30k :-)

Re.70

	Only applies to women who are currently under 44. If you are 44 or
	older you get to retire at 60. I think that changes your 4% somewhat.

	- paul\

    	It delays the 4%. WHEN we have women unable to retire until 65 then
    we will have the extra 4% unemployment.
    
    	When I was a kid they were predicting that by the year 2000, with
    increasing  automation, the country would be able to produce sufficient
    wealth for everyone if the average person only worked about 10 years
    out of their lifetime of 100 years. This would mean that at any
    particular time only 10% of the population would be employed. Whether
    you classify the other 90% as "non-working spouses", "unemployed",
    "retired", "too young to work" hardly matters. That was a serious
    prediction, though it looks to have been rather optimistic/pessimistic
    depending on whether you regard 90% unemployment as desirable.
    
    	It is my opinion that this prediction is technically possible. The
    EEC has run out of places to stockpile butter, beef, wine, and is
    paying farmers to not produce any more. Similar things are happening in
    the U.S. I am told. Digital has recently paid a lot of people lots of
    money to stop producing and selling computer equipment and software.
    
    	In every area we can produce more than we can use. What we can't
    handle is the societal change to a society where 70% (say) of the
    voting population is unemployed and expects the remaining 30% to
    produce the wealth.
    
    	Dave (candidate for the Unemployed Party ;-)

    re .72  Good points John. i.e.: Have the people in a mandatory system which
    encourages/forces investment until a certain level is reached.
    
    Jeff

    Re .last few
    
    Can I then assume that if you provide for your own retirement its ok
    for you to go out in and enjoy one-nighters, regardless of the other
    risks involved ?!.  (-;
    
    The idea of having everyone forced to save for their retiremnt in fact 
    as well in name, is a good one, if managed correctly and keeping in
    mind that no investment is 100% safe (it would at least take care of
    problems population ups and downs).    But what do you do with those 
    already retired or soon to be retired that don't have the time to do 
    this... Both pay for them and save for yourself !!!
    
    Gil

    Sorry this is late.
    
    The magazine I referred to earlier was New Dimensions, the March 1990
    issue.  Their address is (was?) 111 N.E. Evelyn Ave., Grants Pass, OR
    97526.  The phone is (was?) 503-479-6812.  I use the possible past
    tense because I'm not sure if the magazine is still around.
    
    - craig