Reply to Mandeep Dhillon

What Mandeep said -
I think a person can only be called a prostitute if she or he takes money from someone and then provides sex. Someone who takes money from but doesn’t provide sex shouldn’t be called a prostitute because; she or he didn’t have the intention to present sex. However he or she can be seen as a thief as the money was handed over, but didn’t supply what the “customer” wanted. This I think is at the same level as socially unacceptable, as the “prostitutes” still have the intention to be paid for sex.

My Response -
I agree with the statement that you can only call a person a prostitute is they take money for sex. If someone gives the inkiling they will 'put out' for money it is not prostitusion, it is conning. They are conning that person and the person is falling for it.
I agree they are theifs but not prostitutes. Stealing and selling your body are two completly different things. They are both wrong but very different.
The extract we wacthed was an example of conning. This form of being bad depends on the person you're connings gulability. It is kind of their fault for assuming the girl is going to be a whore. It is there choice to hand over the money. She dosen't have a gun to his head. I guess it's the basic 'a women abusing her power over a man'. Make a man think he'll get sex and he'll do anything.