Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort

Bobaloo wrote:

yesstiles wrote:

They aren't. They mess up too. They know it's wrong though and acknowldege that we are hopeless without Christ. We are all sinners in need of God's grace.

Ain't christianity great!

You can hurt others without being too hard on yourself, because, after all "we're ALL sinners!"

Even better, you can get the whole thing purged from your record just by -- you guessed it -- declaring your devotion to superman with even greater sincerity than before!

And if the infidels give you crap for it, you just smile and tell yourself you're being persecuted for your faith!

You just can't lose!

BS. The Bible says we are all sinners so that NO ONE CAN BOAST. The emphasis is on God...not us. The Bible says we are just as guilty as anyone, and we are not off the hook, for sin separates us from our creator. But....we are forgiven and told to sin no more - a command we are told to obey.

The initial post was to clarify that Christians don't all believe they are superior to others...but that we are wrong too, and in debt the same as everyone else.

She did what she did and apologized. Let's not lock her out for the sake of sport.

We have seen people like Tiger Woods, and Schwarzenegger. Tiger woods is still rocking in golf circles and is well accepted. Arnold on the other hand is back to movies.

In Athletics especially running, we need to keep all the talented athletes we have as much as we can. Such athletes are rare, so we can't afford to lock them out whenever they fell out of public favor.

things we know

she admits

she keeps in stride with her admission of taking a dive in the OGs and puts the responsibility on herself

she and her husband have been effectively living apart for some period could be as long as a year.

she is on anti-depressive Rx meds or was in the recent past

she admits a history of depression and medication has played havoc with her emotional stability

she thinks there are whore client rules that prevent men from bragging about getting laid never mind by an Olympic athlete

deductions

a number of folks who post here believe they could scrape together 600 to get laid

many posters think a 1-800 dial a hooker(.com) charging a grand for a slice of different is a highend escort

666 is the number of the beast

// wrote:

I really have nothing to add but just wanted to be post #600 on this thread.

Q: what are five words that SFH doesn't want to hear at Chrstmas?

A: Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas!

Santa Claus wrote:

Q: what are five words that SFH doesn't want to hear at Chrstmas?

A: Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas!

The term is provider or courtesan. The word whore is terribly disrespectful. You christian types are all the same.

I knew this story would spread in the media, but the "viralness" is phenomenal. When the story first broke, I looked up how many Google references there were to "Suzy Favor Hamilton" (in quotes). There were 70,000. Now? 60,000,000.

My kind of girl.

Seriously though, she has probably read the whole 50 Shades series.

Social response to literature?

The Social Mediator wrote:

SFH is enduring nothing less than what Hester Prynne suffered through in the 17th century. My, how we've progressed. To be perfectly blunt, people should be free to f*ck who and when they want without consequences.

Without consequences. The perpetually immature contort what passes for logic so they can believe that actions can have no consequences.

Nothing so encapsulates the moral vacuum of our newly adopted secular society as that last sentence.

Rojo your moderation of this thread is disgusting. Let people speak their mind. If Suzy didn't want people talking about her then she shouldn't have been an escort. Actions = consequences

Nothing Less than Evil wrote:

The Social Mediator wrote:

SFH is enduring nothing less than what Hester Prynne suffered through in the 17th century. My, how we've progressed. To be perfectly blunt, people should be free to f*ck who and when they want without consequences.

Without consequences. The perpetually immature contort what passes for logic so they can believe that actions can have no consequences.

Nothing so encapsulates the moral vacuum of our newly adopted secular society as that last sentence.

OK, "without consequences" was a poor choice of words (IMHO - and I am not The Social Mediator). But what if we replace these with something like:

"People should be free to f*ck who and when they want without being subject to all the self-righteous indignation from complete strangers for whom one's actions should be none of their damned business"

You have a problem with that?

the term is sex worker, not whore, ho, or even escort.

sex workers are providing a service, whether you agree with it or not. it's their body and they're taking the risks.

so much stigma is attached to sex. it's an act of hydraulics and a physical need. if a person chooses to purchase and another to provide then no one can or should judge.

and as for the daughter, she would be better off if people didn't judge sex workers so harshly. it would be better if a child and people in general understood that survival is hard, and some people are complex, but to say to a child that all people should fit one mold and then heap scorn on their parents, now that, yes that, is very unhelpful

feminist wrote:

the term is sex worker, not whore, ho, or even escort.

sex workers are providing a service, whether you agree with it or not. it's their body and they're taking the risks.

so much stigma is attached to sex. it's an act of hydraulics and a physical need. if a person chooses to purchase and another to provide then no one can or should judge.

and as for the daughter, she would be better off if people didn't judge sex workers so harshly. it would be better if a child and people in general understood that survival is hard, and some people are complex, but to say to a child that all people should fit one mold and then heap scorn on their parents, now that, yes that, is very unhelpful

This ^

Although it would be more accurate to say, "If a person chooses to purchase and another to provide then no one else should judge." Obviously, others can and do judge all the time, which is a shame.

The best interpretation is that "without consequences" was exactly what the poster wanted to say.The fallacy of your thinking is that actions have no consequences. There are many practical consequences to such actions, as well as long term results. There are health consequences for such an intimate act with strangers used to paying for such things with currency, as well as possible pregnancies, the common result throughout the history of the human species for such acts. There are familial consequences. This is a woman with a husband and a daughter. How does this make their family better or stronger with these actions? To have to ask such questions is a damning indictment of the immoral code of the immoral code of conduct that you espouse.More important are the consequences to your soul, which our secular society would call the individual's psyche. Choices, and actions, have consequences. The callous use of sex for the most transient pleasure or monetary compensation is unwise, unhealthful and ultimately likely not a positive influence on a person's character.Yes, character. A word from the old America. An ability to make choices that will make you a better person and the society around you a more livable place.Each person's character affects those around you, starting with your family. And then, on a greater scale, ultimately they affect to a smaller degree the whole society in which you live.We used to understand this, especially those of us with daughters.

Different Words wrote:

OK, "without consequences" was a poor choice of words (IMHO - and I am not The Social Mediator). But what if we replace these with something like:

"People should be free to f*ck who and when they want without being subject to all the self-righteous indignation from complete strangers for whom one's actions should be none of their damned business"

You have a problem with that?

I don't believe in many absolutes, but this is one that I DO believe in:

Young kids should not, if at all possible, be subjected to either upheaval of their beneficial routine in response to an avoidable traumatic crisis, or to any avoidable diminution in dignity or respectability of their immediate and legitimate role models.

Who gives a crap about SFH? I certainly don't. She's an adult woman who I don't know personally, and who is not a symbol for any cause in which I am personally invested.

She can do as she pleases, UNLESS she makes the life of an innocent kid worse--THEN it is MY business, even if it is her offspring. Kids are a part of society just as much as are adults, and every adult has not only an interest in their beneficial development, but a DUTY to look out for them, whether they are their own kids or not.

I feel for the kid--she will now have to endure something I never had to endure, but something I have seen somebody else endure. Because SFH is in this kid's life, she needs to understand that she has been an a-hole, so that maybe, just maybe, she can avoid being more of an a-hole in the future.

Look for SFH to seek redemption by cashing-in on the fame, slutting it up for lots of money, and using that money to try to buy her kid's respect and adoration. Who knows, depending on the kid, it might even work, and it might be the best possible outcome. If she goes that route, I would suggest to her to hold out for a LOT of money, because when you use it for such purposes, you can burn through it pretty quickly.

masculinist: "Although it would be more accurate to say, "If a person chooses to purchase and another to provide then no one else should judge." Obviously, others can and do judge all the time, which is a shame."

Again, WHAT A LOAD OF ABSOLUTE CRAP.

You have just JUDGED those who attach stigma to sex as somehow immoral, inadequate, or unfortunate.

YOU are the kind of POS hypocrite who loves to judge everyone, as long as it is according to only your own criteria.

Jerk.

Sprintgeezer:

"If I understand correctly, she was doing this WHILE she was married, and he KNEW about it?!

That's certainly strange. He is a lawyer, however, so there's a good chance he's a moral relativist.

What are the chances that he sent clients her way?

The fast-track to partnership.

OTOH, maybe he's gay and they never do it anyway, so what would either of them care?

Lots of possible explanations, I would like to hear some more reporting."

Sprintgeezer wrote:

masculinist: "Although it would be more accurate to say, "If a person chooses to purchase and another to provide then no one else should judge." Obviously, others can and do judge all the time, which is a shame."

Again, WHAT A LOAD OF ABSOLUTE CRAP.

You have just JUDGED those who attach stigma to sex as somehow immoral, inadequate, or unfortunate.

YOU are the kind of POS hypocrite who loves to judge everyone, as long as it is according to only your own criteria.

Jerk.

That is some of the dumbest shit you have posted on this thread. And you have posted a whole lot of seriously dumb shit. That's the classic, "Hey, aren't you being prejudiced against me in speaking against my prejudice?"

Nice. Very clear thinking there, lad.

hmmmmmmmmm--

The fact that I would like to hear more reporting about it in no way means that I care about HER.

In fact, as you can tell from the post you italicized, I'm more interested in HIS thinking than in SFH's thinking.

More information please!