Sex Work Is Legitimate, But Needs Regulation

[Shakeel]

No contradictions. I don't see it as black and white where guilt is assigned to one party or the other.

No, it's all rainbow colours of hypocrisy. You argued that the hypothetical person wasn't mind controlled. Then you proved that wasn't the real reason for your opinion. You tried to give a reason that everyone would have to agree with and then contradicted yourself when another example was given. I knew you wouldn't be able to be consistent with it. Why not just admit that you don't think adultery is a big deal?

 

[Shakeel]

It's not hypocritical to want sex workers to live better lives while simultaneously not wanting people to cheat on each other.

It is when you know one happens with the other.

Only addicts "live for" their sexual desires

I disagree.

but things like strip clubs are just dumb harmless fun.

I agree it is dumb.

mature adults are capable of doing things that involve sexuality while still being well-balanced, productive members of society

Are you referring to prostitute/strip club/porn visiting people as "mature adults capable of doing things that involve sexuality" in exclusion of others? It against feels like deception. All normal people are able to do things that involve sexuality.

Productive as in making money? Sure. If they spend it on sex - all the more money to the "poor vulnerable" ones!

If these men are cheating on their wives because they saw an opportunity, that means they were always going to be a cheater.

I disagree. Man is weak.

People in healthy relationships don't jump ship at the sight of the first (or second, or third...) opportunity

I disagree again. Healthy has little to do with it. It's more about happiness, sexual satisfaction and attention.

If the sex worker doesn't know they're married, they're blameless.

She knows they're almost as likely to be married as they are to be unmarried.

There is nothing wrong with this

Well I wasn't exactly talking about the wrong in it - just comparing it to how things are done in the wild.

I do this. Many people do this.

A child molester could say the same.

Sex is not a shameful thing.

Within marriage it isn't.

More seriously though, perhaps if you were more open to friendship and acquaintanceship with other people (and didn't assume the worst of their intentions in discussion) you'd be enriched

Perhaps if you were more honest with yourself about your creation you'd be enriched.

I obviously don't agree with everybody I talk to here, but it still enriches my thought processes;

And how does that benefit you?

I disagree with this. I have many male friends (I live with two men even). There are times where some men (some men) have tried to cross boundaries, but one of two things has always happened: either they accept "no" for an answer and it never comes up again, or they cease to be friends. It's that simple. There are plenty of men (a majority) that have never even attempted making a pass.

I wasn't talking about "making passes".

As for this flirting business, I wonder what's being interpreted as flirting? A woman being nice or playful with a man is not the same thing as flirting: it is just having an upbeat attitude, spreading joy.

Being playful is flirting. Being nice could be anything.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is when you know one happens with the other.

(For context, I had said "It's not hypocritical to want sex workers to live better lives while simultaneously not wanting people to cheat on each other.")

Go back to the donut shop analogy. People should be able to enjoy a donut if they want, but there are some people with really bad health problems that probably shouldn't be walking in and eating a donut. Is the donut shop owner supposed to check everyone's medical records as they walk in, is that moral onus on them? I'm not so sure that it is. What do you think?

Seems like the person that's culpable for the failing in these cases is the person wrongfully seeking something they shouldn't be seeking; not in the places they can find it (that otherwise exist for people that aren't seeking them out for problematic reasons).

Are you referring to prostitute/strip club/porn visiting people as "mature adults capable of doing things that involve sexuality" in exclusion of others? It against feels like deception. All normal people are able to do things that involve sexuality.

I think the point I was making was that a person that's sexually active can do so in a responsible manner, be this visiting a strip club with friends or taking home someone interesting they've been talking to, or whatever else. That some people do things irresponsibly doesn't mean everybody does. For instance, some people enjoy high-risk sports that can cause serious injury or death: some people do this responsibly, some people don't (and the ones that don't usually pay for it). I don't think we would moralize an entire activity just because some people make poor decisions, imagine if we said that motorcycle riding is "animalistic hedonism" because some idiots don't wear protective gear and weave in and out of traffic like maniacs.

Well, some people are sexually active and they're not addicts, they're not doing anything crazy or harmful. They're just experiencing part of life.

Productive as in making money? Sure. If they spend it on sex - all the more money to the "poor vulnerable" ones!

Productive as in doing something for society, which yes is often tied to making money but I'm more talking about what productive thing they're actually doing that benefits society. A custodian benefits society while making money, a scientist does, an artist does, etc.

I disagree. Man is weak.

What kind of men do you know, then? There are many married men in my life that would never cheat on their wives (and many married women in my life that would never cheat on their husbands). What do you mean "men are weak?" Men are strong! Some of the most morally upstanding people I know are men.

If you argue that men really are lecherous animals (something I vehemently disagree with, for the record: I believe in the strength of men, and I'm a big ol' vocal feminist!), then shouldn't it be men that are kept under lock and key, maybe made to wear chastity belts, instead of women being forced to live under all these restrictions prescribed by the type of religious culture you advocate? I mean if men are the problem, wouldn't that make more sense? (Again, definitely disagree that men can't control themselves, though: just pointing out absurdities).

Please believe in yourself and your own strength, I know many men that do; men I would trust with my life both in general and that they would never hurt their loved ones by cheating. This is probably more important than some stupid argument about prostitution to know your own moral capabilities.

I disagree again. Healthy has little to do with it. It's more about happiness, sexual satisfaction and attention.

For context, I had said, "People in healthy relationships don't jump ship at the sight of the first (or second, or third...) opportunity."

Healthy has everything to do with it: in a healthy relationship, there is trust, communication, a willingness to work out problems, and a lack of desire to cheat (to actually go through with it, I'm not talking about silly things like a married man checking out the hot waitress for a quick second, women do this too. It's normal. Going through with it isn't).

She knows they're almost as likely to be married as they are to be unmarried.

I was disturbed by the stats you found on this for escorts, I will admit. The culpability is still largely on the cheaters though. I suspect donut shop owners know that people walk through their doors every day that really shouldn't be eating a donut, but do we shut them down and call them craven for not closing their doors?

A child molester could say the same.

For context, this is in response to me saying "I do this. Many people do this." (to taking home someone they may have been talking to at a bar).

The difference here is obviously that child molestation involves nonconsent, not adults that are capable of making responsible choices like gauging their partner, using protection, making sure each person is emotionally healthy, socially aware, not intoxicated, things like this. When people do this irresponsibly such as trying to take home someone that's too drunk to consent that's rape (and where I'm from, people will not let you get out the door if you attempt that).

Perhaps if you were more honest with yourself about your creation you'd be enriched.

What do you mean by this? Is this just about not being convinced there's a god? I'm not sure what you're saying to me here.

And how does that benefit you?

For context, I was talking about how I talk to people I don't necessarily agree with and how it was enriching.

Because people from different backgrounds might have novel ways of thinking or approaching problems: people can learn from one another. For instance in this very conversation you've given me some information I didn't have before (some data on escorts and married people being brazen in front of them). Maybe I'd have stumbled into that information myself, I don't know. Is it not also just pleasant to understand people from a different walk of life? Is it not more pleasant to discuss matters in a friendly way with someone you share a feeling of mutual humanity with rather than rigid, aggressive back-and-forths with someone you couldn't care less about?

I wasn't talking about "making passes".

From what I recall, you had said that men and women couldn't be friends because of "sexual feelings" (or something like that, unfortunately the conversation is a page back and I don't want to lose everything I've typed). What did you mean, then? I literally live with two men, I have many male friends. Our bonds of friendship are very strong. What's wrong with that?

Being playful is flirting. Being nice could be anything.

I've been playful with you, literally using the words "just teasing" to make sure you knew I wasn't serious. Did you consider this flirting? Can you see how maybe that's not the correct interpretation of playfulness?

 

[Shakeel]

Go back to the donut shop analogy. People should be able to enjoy a donut if they want, but there are some people with really bad health problems that probably shouldn't be walking in and eating a donut. Is the donut shop owner supposed to check everyone's medical records as they walk in, is that moral onus on them? I'm not so sure that it is. What do you think?

I think eating donuts is not a moral crime and that analogy is insulting to obese people.

Seems like the person that's culpable for the failing in these cases is the person wrongfully seeking something they shouldn't be seeking; not in the places they can find it (that otherwise exist for people that aren't seeking them out for problematic reasons).

Who are you to say who gets to buy sex and who doesn't? And how does that affect the people who want to do so?

I think the point I was making was that a person that's sexually active can do so in a responsible manner, be this visiting a strip club with friends or taking home someone interesting they've been talking to, or whatever else. That some people do things irresponsibly doesn't mean everybody does.

I don't know what this talk about responsibility is. Someone's ability to use a condom with a stranger awakens no respect in me. If that was the issue I'd suggest switching prostitutes to cam girls.

For instance, some people enjoy high-risk sports that can cause serious injury or death

And that's usually dumb waste of time, too. It's not responsible to waste time in dangerous sports to begin with.

Productive as in doing something for society, which yes is often tied to making money but I'm more talking about what productive thing they're actually doing that benefits society

What are they actually doing when they're not attending to their sexual urges or collecting and spending money?

What kind of men do you know, then?

I said man not men. Men and women are created weak. They sin easily.

There are many married men in my life that would never cheat on their wives

You think so, anyway.

Healthy has everything to do with it: in a healthy relationship, there is trust, communication, a willingness to work out problems, and a lack of desire to cheat

So if the man has needs much greater than the woman and the woman won't compromise, you think the relationship is unhealthy because the man wants his needs fulfilled? I think it would only be unhealthy in its incompatibility, if in anything. But I don't think incompatibility equals unhealthy.

The difference here is obviously that child molestation involves nonconsent, not adults that are capable of making responsible choices like gauging their partner, using protection, making sure each person is emotionally healthy, socially aware, not intoxicated, things like this. When people do this irresponsibly such as trying to take home someone that's too drunk to consent that's rape (and where I'm from, people will not let you get out the door if you attempt that).

Doesn't matter. You defended it as normal and okay by saying you and many others do it. That's obviously no proof.

What do you mean by this? Is this just about not being convinced there's a god? I'm not sure what you're saying to me here.

More or less. You don't know how you were created.

Is it not also just pleasant to understand people from a different walk of life? Is it not more pleasant to discuss matters in a friendly way with someone you share a feeling of mutual humanity with rather than rigid, aggressive back-and-forths with someone you couldn't care less about?

What I want to know is how that benefits you? If pleasure is all there is then you might as well say prostitution should be legal because it's pleasant. With that, why should child molesters be scolded for wanting their share of pleasure?

Pleasure can be extremely harmful. Something doesn't automatically benefit you because it's pleasant.

From what I recall, you had said that men and women couldn't be friends because of "sexual feelings" (or something like that, unfortunately the conversation is a page back and I don't want to lose everything I've typed). What did you mean, then? I literally live with two men, I have many male friends. Our bonds of friendship are very strong. What's wrong with that?

I mean sexual feelings - sexual attraction. The wrong, aside for the divine commands, can be seen in what it often leads to; fornication, adultery, rape, abuse, ******* children, diseases, etc.

I've been playful with you, literally using the words "just teasing" to make sure you knew I wasn't serious. Did you consider this flirting?

Yes, I consider it mildly flirtatious. That's why I ignored it.

Can you see how maybe that's not the correct interpretation of playfulness?

Do you see how there could be different opinions about that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, it's all rainbow colours of hypocrisy. You argued that the hypothetical person wasn't mind controlled. Then you proved that wasn't the real reason for your opinion. You tried to give a reason that everyone would have to agree with and then contradicted yourself when another example was given. I knew you wouldn't be able to be consistent with it. Why not just admit that you don't think adultery is a big deal?

No, I can assign responsibility to all parties involved. There's nothing hypocritical about it.
And I never said anything about adultery. I don't see it as that big of a deal as long as secrets aren't kept and it's understood the relationship is open.

 

[Earthtank]

My comments ONLY apply to those who choose this kind of "work", it does not apply to the people are bought/sold or forced in to it. So with that, I think you are asking the wrong question. Instead of improving the "working" conditions for something that you say is not for you, which I also understand as (please correct me if I am wrong) not something you personally support or will choose for yourself, why don't you ask how you can help people from ending as sex workers and putting their lives at risk?



Child molestation and rape have always existed as well and unfortunately always will, want to improve those conditions too? How long something existed is not a criteria nor a basis to base your stance off of

@Meow Mix no response here?

 

[Shakeel]

No, I can assign responsibility to all parties involved. There's nothing hypocritical about it.

No, indeed. This is about you not assigning guilt to a woman who seduces another woman's husband to sleep with her, because "he isn't mind controlled". But you're assigning guilt to someone who encourages a woman to get into a suspicious stranger's car or to someone who encourages another to suicide. According to you those two aren't mind controlled and have all the responsibility to make their best decisions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, indeed. This is about you not assigning guilt to a woman who seduces another woman's husband to sleep with her, because "he isn't mind controlled". But you're assigning guilt to someone who encourages a woman to get into a suspicious stranger's car or to someone who encourages another to suicide. According to you those two aren't mind controlled and have all the responsibility to make their best decisions.

So nice of you to decide what I'm really doing despite my words saying otherwise.
Do you worship your god with that mouth?

 

[Shakeel]

So nice of you to decide what I'm really doing despite my words saying otherwise.
Do you worship your god with that mouth?

I just repeated what you said within the last 24 hours. It's okay if you've realized you made a mistake. Just let it go. I don't even care.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just repeated what you said within the last 24 hours. It's okay if you've realized you made a mistake. Just let it go. I don't even care.

You didn't repeat what I said, because you totally ignored where I mentioned where responsibility can be assigned to both.

 

[Shakeel]

You didn't repeat what I said, because you totally ignored where I mentioned where responsibility can be assigned to both.

Because that's just muddying the waters after you contradicted yourself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because that's just muddying the waters after you contradicted yourself.

No, it's you making a lame attempt to spring a "gotcha trap."

 

[Meow Mix]

@Meow Mix no response here?

I may have missed the original post, sorry. I’ll respond in a while here, just surfing while I’m waking up. I’m not a coffee person so it takes a minute.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think eating donuts is not a moral crime and that analogy is insulting to obese people.

I hadn't said anything about obese people. There are a myriad of medical conditions whereby someone should not consume sugar-filled foods like a donut, and I wasn't saying anything insulting about anyone, not even the example I was actually thinking of (diabetic people).

Who are you to say who gets to buy sex and who doesn't? And how does that affect the people who want to do so?

For context, I was saying that people that seek something they shouldn't (such as with the purpose to cheat) are the ones culpable for the moral failing. I think maybe you read too hastily through my example, the purpose of my analogy was to say that donut shop keepers don't close their doors because some people seek donuts against what's best for their health and we don't consider donut shopkeepers immoral. The implication is that a brothel shouldn't be blamed for married men or women seeking to cheat: that is on the cheaters.

I don't know what this talk about responsibility is. Someone's ability to use a condom with a stranger awakens no respect in me. If that was the issue I'd suggest switching prostitutes to cam girls.

I understand that your issue with premarital sex is by what you perceive to be divine mandate. There's nothing I can do about that. Without said mandate though (for those that do not share your belief), being sexually active isn't immoral unless someone is doing it irresponsibly or without consent.

And that's usually dumb waste of time, too. It's not responsible to waste time in dangerous sports to begin with.

Yes, this seems on track for your personality: no use in having any fun in life. (I'm teasing, by the way. I understand that you have reasons for your views, but I ask that you at least entertain that other people can have good reasons to hold different ones).

What are they actually doing when they're not attending to their sexual urges or collecting and spending money?

Humans do a lot of things in their spare time, is this a real question or a rhetorical question? If I had to imagine what kind of point you might be trying to make with a rhetorical question, it'd be about the usefulness of idle time or something like that; to which I'll respond that many people still engage in socially useful activity in their spare time. I myself have been an activist since my early 20's up until running out of time while in grad school (with full time work to pay for said grad school). That includes political causes and charitable causes.

But I don't think spare time has to always be "useful." I also write poetry, enjoy social time with friends, that sort of thing. What's the purpose of your question?

So if the man has needs much greater than the woman and the woman won't compromise, you think the relationship is unhealthy because the man wants his needs fulfilled? I think it would only be unhealthy in its incompatibility, if in anything. But I don't think incompatibility equals unhealthy.

People with wildly different libidos probably shouldn't get married unless it's an issue the unsatisfied partner is willing to live with. Alternatively, if the person with less libido is willing to have sex anyway, that's possible and okay; but nobody should be forced to have sex against their will: rape is still possible within marriage, it's called marital rape.

This is why it's really important for couples to communicate openly before committing to marriage.

Personally, I'd sleep with somebody before marrying them and possibly cohabitate for a little while to find out whether we're compatible for marriage.

Doesn't matter. You defended it as normal and okay by saying you and many others do it. That's obviously no proof.

Okay, fine. Shakeel 1, Erin 0. But my clarification from the last post stands.

More or less. You don't know how you were created.

But this is silly, I of course believe that you just mistakenly think you know how you were created. We could always have a general theism vs. non-theism debate some other time and place if you like.

What I want to know is how that benefits you? If pleasure is all there is then you might as well say prostitution should be legal because it's pleasant. With that, why should child molesters be scolded for wanting their share of pleasure?

Pleasure can be extremely harmful. Something doesn't automatically benefit you because it's pleasant.

I mean yes, I'd categorize prostitution under "entertainment" if I had to, same as I would a barkeep or a stage magician. Of course it exists because it's pleasant. However, child molesters harm people by fiat; it involves nonconsent. Before you say "ah but prostitution can harm people because drugs, because married people, because this and that," the keyword there would be can. It's not harmful by fiat, what harm exists is there because of a lot of the criminal underworld that exists precisely because of its criminalization (as with all the arguments in the OP about there being no police to maintain law and order or protect people, no regulation, etc). Of course you'll have your religious view, and again I can't say anything about that. But not everyone shares the religious view.

We can agree on some things being harmful universally like nonconsent, and child abuse is always that. Prostitution doesn't always have things we all agree are harmful; just the religious prohibitions remain in many cases.

I mean sexual feelings - sexual attraction. The wrong, aside for the divine commands, can be seen in what it often leads to; fornication, adultery, rape, abuse, ******* children, diseases, etc.

But men and women can have friendships without fornication, adultery, rape, abuse, etc. I so treasure the men in my life, I don't know what I would do without them. I feel sad for people that miss out on literally half of the connections they can make with fellow humans.

Yes, I consider it mildly flirtatious. That's why I ignored it.

Do you see how there could be different opinions about that?

Why, though? How could I flirt with you: I know nothing about you, have no attraction to you (don't even know what you look like), and so on -- how could I possibly flirt with you? Teasing, being playful, being lighthearted, these aren't flirtation: they are just that. Flirtation is specific, it's about sexual attraction and giving social cues regarding that attraction. Being lighthearted is not that.

For instance in this same post, I teased once when I said something sarcastic about you not knowing what fun was. But I made sure you know I was just teasing: this is to show that it's not mean-spirited teasing so you didn't think I was truly trying to insult you, just poking fun at you. Perhaps this really is something that your personality doesn't get along with, but I can assure you it's not flirting. I have zero sexual intentions towards you, only friendly ones.

 

[Meow Mix]

My comments ONLY apply to those who choose this kind of "work", it does not apply to the people are bought/sold or forced in to it. So with that, I think you are asking the wrong question. Instead of improving the "working" conditions for something that you say is not for you, which I also understand as (please correct me if I am wrong) not something you personally support or will choose for yourself, why don't you ask how you can help people from ending as sex workers and putting their lives at risk?

I do support exit programs, 100%. I don't think anybody that doesn't explicitly want to work in sex work should have to because of mere economic pressure.

However, there are some people that might enjoy such work, such as the women I posted about interviews for why they entered porn. Such people that choose this should be able to work safely, have regulated working environments, not be under the thumb of pimps, etc.

Child molestation and rape have always existed as well and unfortunately always will, want to improve those conditions too? How long something existed is not a criteria nor a basis to base your stance off of

Okay, that's fair for the most part.

 

[Shakeel]

I hadn't said anything about obese people. There are a myriad of medical conditions whereby someone should not consume sugar-filled foods like a donut, and I wasn't saying anything insulting about anyone, not even the example I was actually thinking of (diabetic people).

I didn't say you were insulting someone. I simply said it is insulting. Most diabetics are overweight.

The implication is that a brothel shouldn't be blamed for married men or women seeking to cheat: that is on the cheaters.

Really, when did a donut break a family?

Humans do a lot of things in their spare time, is this a real question or a rhetorical question? If I had to imagine what kind of point you might be trying to make with a rhetorical question, it'd be about the usefulness of idle time or something like that; to which I'll respond that many people still engage in socially useful activity in their spare time. I myself have been an activist since my early 20's up until running out of time while in grad school (with full time work to pay for said grad school). That includes political causes and charitable causes.

But I don't think spare time has to always be "useful." I also write poetry, enjoy social time with friends, that sort of thing. What's the purpose of your question?

I only wanted to know if you're able to point out an example of what you said about people being useful or productive or whatever it was. You didn't give one. I'm not surprised because usually the main goal in people's lives is to be entertained.

This is why it's really important for couples to communicate openly before committing to marriage.

Right - the benefits of fornication, right?
Not so.
People usually find out the reality of their sex life long after marrying. Even if they fornicate first.

But this is silly, I of course believe that you just mistakenly think you know how you were created. We could always have a general theism vs. non-theism debate some other time and place if you like.

See what I was replying to. It was your condescending comment about how I would be enriched if I accepted some of the views that are impermissable in my religion - if I may word it in a different way.

I mean yes, I'd categorize prostitution under "entertainment" if I had to, same as I would a barkeep or a stage magician. Of course it exists because it's pleasant. However, child molesters harm people by fiat; it involves nonconsent. Before you say "ah but prostitution can harm people because drugs, because married people, because this and that," the keyword there would be can.

I wasn't going to argue that at all. I asked you how the previously mentioned thing benefits you. The only thing I got from your response was that it is pleasant. I showed you how that is an insufficient reason for something to be described as beneficial.

 

[Shakeel]

But men and women can have friendships without fornication, adultery, rape, abuse, etc

Yes, but it opens the door to all those possibilities and all of them happen at times.

Why, though?

Because that's what I consider flirting. See my previous posts.

How could I flirt with you: I know nothing about you, have no attraction to you (don't even know what you look like), and so on -- how could I possibly flirt with you

I didn't say you did. I said I consider it mildly flirtatious. There's a difference and it relates to intent.

At the same time you should know that flirting is done in order to attract attention - not necessarily because one is attracted. So a person can flirt with anyone without even knowing them.

Flirtation is specific, it's about sexual attraction and giving social cues regarding that attraction.

It isn't specific. A person flirting does not have to feel sexual attraction. The purpose of flirting is to communicate it, whether real or not, in order to awaken attraction in the other party. Like I said before, this has become the "normal" manner of behaving for women so it is no wonder you don't seem to know what I'm talking about.

For instance in this same post, I teased once when I said something sarcastic about you not knowing what fun was. But I made sure you know I was just teasing: this is to show that it's not mean-spirited teasing so you didn't think I was truly trying to insult you, just poking fun at you. Perhaps this really is something that your personality doesn't get along with

You're confusing my faith with my personality which is a major mistake. Muslims cannot "tease" a person of the opposite sex. That would be extremely inappropriate and embarrassing.

Saying to someone "I'm teasing you", would count as a joke and they cannot joke. They cannot laugh together, they cannot smile to each other, they cannot look at each other and they cannot talk, in person or in private, if it isn't necessary.

That is my religion, not my personality.

 

[Meow Mix]

I didn't say you were insulting someone. I simply said it is insulting. Most diabetics are overweight.

I am sorry if I said something insulting, that was not my intention.

I only wanted to know if you're able to point out an example of what you said about people being useful or productive or whatever it was. You didn't give one. I'm not surprised because usually the main goal in people's lives is to be entertained.

I did give the example of my activism (I don't know whether you would find value in the political activism, but perhaps the charity), which consumed massive portions of my adult life's free time. I guess I would need to ask what you consider to be productive?

Right - the benefits of fornication, right?
Not so.
People usually find out the reality of their sex life long after marrying. Even if they fornicate first.

Anecdotally (at least), I know of couples that have separated because of incompatible libidos that saved them from an unhappy marriage. Some of them still benefit from close friendship.

See what I was replying to. It was your condescending comment about how I would be enriched if I accepted some of the views that are impermissable in my religion - if I may word it in a different way.

It was not my intention to condescend, I'm sorry if it came off like that. I'm beginning to understand that you're saying I'm doing the equivalent of tempting you against your beliefs when I make overtures of friendliness. I hadn't understood that context before fully. I can tone down my personality to be "business only" in our interactions to respect that.

 

[Meow Mix]

You're confusing my faith with my personality which is a major mistake. Muslims cannot "tease" a person of the opposite sex. That would be extremely inappropriate and embarrassing.

Saying to someone "I'm teasing you", would count as a joke and they cannot joke. They cannot laugh together, they cannot smile to each other, they cannot look at each other and they cannot talk, in person or in private, if it isn't necessary.

That is my religion, not my personality.

I did not know or understand this before, so I'm sorry about that. This would never be the life for me, but I can respect that you have a way that you wish to live.

 

[Revoltingest]

This topic has become a minefield.
Oh, well...at least I'm not offended.
And if I've offended anyone else....expect it again.