Im in shock and I dont know what to do

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Not by the definition of Webster. Not always.

Its a subjective definition. Not objective. That is the problem...

This is what happens when you try to legislate morality...

-P

Charles,

I contend, that its not all that clear.

If USCIS meant that a 'bar girl' was not allowed a visa, then they would have stated such. They did not do so.

What they did, was choose words that have an amount of 'fudge factor'...

-Phil

phil, what webster has to say for a definition is inmaterial. what matters is what uscis says and it's spelled out quite clearly.

By your logic, if we call a prostitute a chocolate sundae, then they are no longer a prostitute. There really isn't much to debate here. "Bar girls" are prostitutes.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I do understand your point Charles. And to some degree, I agree...

But you must understand that laws ARE an exercise in semantics.

This is proven by the very existence of the Judicial Branch...

If everyone agreed on what the law says, we would not need them. But people do not agree. That's why we have so many lawsuits... That's why so many people on this very forum disagree all the time.

-P

Charles,

I contend, that its not all that clear.

If USCIS meant that a 'bar girl' was not allowed a visa, then they would have stated such. They did not do so.

What they did, was choose words that have an amount of 'fudge factor'...

-Phil

phil, what webster has to say for a definition is inmaterial. what matters is what uscis says and it's spelled out quite clearly.

i think everyone here knows better than to try to "fudge factor" given the potential for a lifetime ban. i'd appreciate it if we don't have an exercise in semantics.

[charlie&pam 1]

Can't we all just get along!!!...lol.....well to the OP dude it is your call if this happened years before u were in the picture ....give her props for clearing her conceince.......I am glad it doesnt matter to mine about how many girls I was with before her.....I doesn't matter....LOVE IS LOVE!!!!!......If you love her there shouldn't be a question about it ....U may never feel this way again.........In my eyes it is obvious how much she loves you since she told you and didn't want it to come up in the future and for you to think she was using u!!!!....Dont get me wrong I dont believe anyone should sell their body at all and I do not condone it .....but things in the past are just that the past!!!!!....if you cant deal with your love for her anymore just move on ....but remember you might always tell yourself what if!!!!>>>>and you will be the one dealing with that pain

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Well said.

-P

Can't we all just get along!!!...lol.....well to the OP dude it is your call if this happened years before u were in the picture ....give her props for clearing her conceince.......I am glad it doesnt matter to mine about how many girls I was with before her.....I doesn't matter....LOVE IS LOVE!!!!!......If you love her there shouldn't be a question about it ....U may never feel this way again.........In my eyes it is obvious how much she loves you since she told you and didn't want it to come up in the future and for you to think she was using u!!!!....Dont get me wrong I dont believe anyone should sell their body at all and I do not condone it .....but things in the past are just that the past!!!!!....if you cant deal with your love for her anymore just move on ....but remember you might always tell yourself what if!!!!>>>>and you will be the one dealing with that pain

[Ban Hammer 13,445]

I do understand your point Charles. And to some degree, I agree...

But you must understand that laws ARE an exercise in semantics.

This is proven by the very existence of the Judicial Branch...

If everyone agreed on what the law says, we would not need them. But people do not agree. That's why we have so many lawsuits... That's why so many people on this very forum disagree all the time.

-P

Charles,

I contend, that its not all that clear.

If USCIS meant that a 'bar girl' was not allowed a visa, then they would have stated such. They did not do so.

What they did, was choose words that have an amount of 'fudge factor'...

-Phil

phil, what webster has to say for a definition is inmaterial. what matters is what uscis says and it's spelled out quite clearly.

i think everyone here knows better than to try to "fudge factor" given the potential for a lifetime ban. i'd appreciate it if we don't have an exercise in semantics.

i think a vast majority on vj will agree that offering sex for money, or taking money for sex, is prostitution. to try to coat it as less than that by attaching a different name or by trying to give it some imaginary wiggle room is a disservice to the op.

[nowhereman 1]

I do understand your point Charles. And to some degree, I agree...

But you must understand that laws ARE an exercise in semantics.

This is proven by the very existence of the Judicial Branch...

If everyone agreed on what the law says, we would not need them. But people do not agree. That's why we have so many lawsuits... That's why so many people on this very forum disagree all the time.

-P

Charles,

I contend, that its not all that clear.

If USCIS meant that a 'bar girl' was not allowed a visa, then they would have stated such. They did not do so.

What they did, was choose words that have an amount of 'fudge factor'...

-Phil

phil, what webster has to say for a definition is inmaterial. what matters is what uscis says and it's spelled out quite clearly.

i think everyone here knows better than to try to "fudge factor" given the potential for a lifetime ban. i'd appreciate it if we don't have an exercise in semantics.

i think a vast majority on vj will agree that offering sex for money, or taking money for sex, is prostitution. to try to coat it as less than that by attaching a different name or by trying to give it some imaginary wiggle room is a disservice to the op.

Reminds me of Shakespeare's quote "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Interesting thought...

How about this one?

The legal definition of prostitution varies from state to state, but typically includes language along the following lines: "Prostitution" shall mean the commission by a person of any natural or unnatural sexual act, deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual contact for monetary consideration or other thing of value.

A person who engages in, or agrees to engage in, or offers to engage in, sexual penetration or sexual contact or in any sexual conduct or act with another person in return for a fee or in consideration of a pecuniary benefit commits the crime of prostitution.

So lets see... "Pecuniary benefit" is benefit in the form of money, property, commercial interests or anything else, the primary significance of which is economic gain to defendant or to any other person or entity in whose welfare he is interested.

Hummm.... the immigrants family... his/herself.....

How many men on this forum would have adopted the philosophy of 'another fish in the sea' if their SO had said marry me first or no sex on their visit to the Phil's? I bet many would have found another girl...

So lets see.... "other thing of value"... like a US citizenship.... married to a US citizen....

Things of value.... hummmm....

I only try to defend the OP's girl.

I maintain that simply being a bar girl is not automatically guilty for prostitution and does not mandate answering Yes to the the question at issue. I think a No answer given a lack of police record is acceptable and honest.

Perhaps many here should have answered that way but for a fudge factor....

I am done with this thread. If you don't understand my perspective there is little I can do from here.

-Phil

I do understand your point Charles. And to some degree, I agree...

But you must understand that laws ARE an exercise in semantics.

This is proven by the very existence of the Judicial Branch...

If everyone agreed on what the law says, we would not need them. But people do not agree. That's why we have so many lawsuits... That's why so many people on this very forum disagree all the time.

-P

Charles,

I contend, that its not all that clear.

If USCIS meant that a 'bar girl' was not allowed a visa, then they would have stated such. They did not do so.

What they did, was choose words that have an amount of 'fudge factor'...

-Phil

phil, what webster has to say for a definition is inmaterial. what matters is what uscis says and it's spelled out quite clearly.

i think everyone here knows better than to try to "fudge factor" given the potential for a lifetime ban. i'd appreciate it if we don't have an exercise in semantics.

i think a vast majority on vj will agree that offering sex for money, or taking money for sex, is prostitution. to try to coat it as less than that by attaching a different name or by trying to give it some imaginary wiggle room is a disservice to the op.

[rsn 135]

Interesting thought...

How about this one?

The legal definition of prostitution varies from state to state, but typically includes language along the following lines: "Prostitution" shall mean the commission by a person of any natural or unnatural sexual act, deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual contact for monetary consideration or other thing of value.

A person who engages in, or agrees to engage in, or offers to engage in, sexual penetration or sexual contact or in any sexual conduct or act with another person in return for a fee or in consideration of a pecuniary benefit commits the crime of prostitution.

So lets see... "Pecuniary benefit" is benefit in the form of money, property, commercial interests or anything else, the primary significance of which is economic gain to defendant or to any other person or entity in whose welfare he is interested.

Hummm.... the immigrants family... his/herself.....

How many men on this forum would have adopted the philosophy of 'another fish in the sea' if their SO had said marry me first or no sex on their visit to the Phil's? I bet many would have found another girl...

So lets see.... "other thing of value"... like a US citizenship.... married to a US citizen....

Things of value.... hummmm....

I only try to defend the OP's girl.

I maintain that simply being a bar girl is not automatically guilty for prostitution and does not mandate answering Yes to the the question at issue. I think a No answer given a lack of police record is acceptable and honest.

Perhaps many here should have answered that way but for a fudge factor....

I am done with this thread. If you don't understand my perspective there is little I can do from here.

-Phil

I do understand your point Charles. And to some degree, I agree...

But you must understand that laws ARE an exercise in semantics.

This is proven by the very existence of the Judicial Branch...

If everyone agreed on what the law says, we would not need them. But people do not agree. That's why we have so many lawsuits... That's why so many people on this very forum disagree all the time.

-P

Charles,

I contend, that its not all that clear.

If USCIS meant that a 'bar girl' was not allowed a visa, then they would have stated such. They did not do so.

What they did, was choose words that have an amount of 'fudge factor'...

-Phil

phil, what webster has to say for a definition is inmaterial. what matters is what uscis says and it's spelled out quite clearly.

i think everyone here knows better than to try to "fudge factor" given the potential for a lifetime ban. i'd appreciate it if we don't have an exercise in semantics.

i think a vast majority on vj will agree that offering sex for money, or taking money for sex, is prostitution. to try to coat it as less than that by attaching a different name or by trying to give it some imaginary wiggle room is a disservice to the op.

Nothing you have said above is even remotely close to a valid argument (more like incoherent ramblings).

[Ban Hammer 13,445]

Interesting thought...

How about this one?

The legal definition of prostitution varies from state to state, but typically includes language along the following lines: "Prostitution" shall mean the commission by a person of any natural or unnatural sexual act, deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual contact for monetary consideration or other thing of value.

A person who engages in, or agrees to engage in, or offers to engage in, sexual penetration or sexual contact or in any sexual conduct or act with another person in return for a fee or in consideration of a pecuniary benefit commits the crime of prostitution.

So lets see... "Pecuniary benefit" is benefit in the form of money, property, commercial interests or anything else, the primary significance of which is economic gain to defendant or to any other person or entity in whose welfare he is interested.

Hummm.... the immigrants family... his/herself.....

How many men on this forum would have adopted the philosophy of 'another fish in the sea' if their SO had said marry me first or no sex on their visit to the Phil's? I bet many would have found another girl...

So lets see.... "other thing of value"... like a US citizenship.... married to a US citizen....

Things of value.... hummmm....

I only try to defend the OP's girl.

I maintain that simply being a bar girl is not automatically guilty for prostitution and does not mandate answering Yes to the the question at issue. I think a No answer given a lack of police record is acceptable and honest.

Perhaps many here should have answered that way but for a fudge factor....

I am done with this thread. If you don't understand my perspective there is little I can do from here.

-Phil

whether she's a bar girl or not is not the issue. the op quite clearly stated the issue in no uncertain terms in his op. introducing what is or isn't a bar girl, or if a bar girl is or isn't a prostitute is not the subject of discussion but more of a tangent off the topic. perhaps you might want to start a thread about bar girls and let those who have been to pi (or lived there) weigh in with their thoughts/opinions/experiences. this thread, however, isn't the place for that discussion.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

[Pinay Wife 47]

I did not have sexual relations with that woman!

Edited December 7, 2009 by Pinay Wife

[chinese_mutt 11]

here goes,

My Fiancee fessed up to me on the phone just earlier, she comes from a poor family for Hilongos Leyte, she left and went to Manila to find a job, when I met her she was working at a waterstation. Now here is the kicker, she said its been on her mind for a very long time and wanted to tell me this so she can clear her conscience. During our conversation out of the blue she told me that she needed to tell me something, she said she used to work at a BEER HOUSE and would have sex with men for money, she claims she only went out 3 times till she no longer can take it as she was starting to lose respect for herself. Should I be affected by this ? should I lose sleep over this ? right now I am in a world of confusion and so much thoughts are racing thru my mind.

WHAT DO I DO ?

WHAT would you guys do ?

ADVISE ME PLEASE ?

Why are you arguing whether a bar girl is a prostitute or not, the OP already wrote the girl received money in exchange for sex.

As for visa fraud, AVOID AVOID AVOID! Do not lie to the USCIS, NVC or EMBASSY! That's a big no-no. You don't want to get caught because you 'interpreted' the language of the law the way you want to. Laws are to be interpreted to give life and essence to the law. The essence of that immigration law is to prevent prostitutes from receiving visa benefits.

As for relationship advice, OP if you are so bothered by it. Let the relationship go for now. She gave you an opt-out button. Be glad she's honest with you. BUT I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, what if she was just sexually active and promiscuous without receiving money, would that change things? What really bothered you? That she received money in exchange for sexual favors or that she slept around with men?

Edited December 7, 2009 by chinese_mutt

[marklovetina 52]

If she was not arrested of prostitution, she is free of not answering the question if she has been engaged in prostitution.

oh really? if she's never been arrested, in your opinion she can answer no to this question?

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance(drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes?

note that it does not ask if one has been arrested for prostitution. it asks if one has been arrested or convicted of any offense or crime.

the part about having been a prostitute or not is a yes or no, not a maybe only if arrested.

Yes sir, in my opinion....if i have been engaged in a prostitution, and wasn't arrested..then I wouldn't have proofs in NBI or any police records...then I can escape that question easily....(just correct me if imwrong please...hehe)

you'd be wrong to answer it no if you had. and misrepresentation earns a lifetime ban.

Yes, i know that sir....but how would they know or what proof?

Sorry for this,coz i don't know where I read it (not in VJ)..but the girl that has been engaged in prostitution denied it because of no proof and been granted visa.

****thank you for the correction

hehhee yeah right bcoz i know someone who did this before she's a call girl but she's in the us right now and she did had 3 marriages already... :whistle: :thumbs:

[Pinay Wife 47]

As for relationship advice, OP if you are so bothered by it. Let the relationship go for now. She gave you an opt-out button. Be glad she's honest with you. BUT I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, what if she was just sexually active and promiscuous without receiving money, would that change things? What really bothered you? That she received money in exchange for sexual favors or that she slept around with men?

You hit it right on the nail. I couln't have said it any better.

They have what they call here in the US "friends with benefits" which is very popular among university students. They sleep around with friends with no strings attached. There's no monetary exhange but both sides benefit from it.

[hellINTIM 9]

If she was not arrested of prostitution, she is free of not answering the question if she has been engaged in prostitution.

oh really? if she's never been arrested, in your opinion she can answer no to this question?

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance(drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes?

note that it does not ask if one has been arrested for prostitution. it asks if one has been arrested or convicted of any offense or crime.

the part about having been a prostitute or not is a yes or no, not a maybe only if arrested.

Yes sir, in my opinion....if i have been engaged in a prostitution, and wasn't arrested..then I wouldn't have proofs in NBI or any police records...then I can escape that question easily....(just correct me if imwrong please...hehe)

you'd be wrong to answer it no if you had. and misrepresentation earns a lifetime ban.

Yes, i know that sir....but how would they know or what proof?

Sorry for this,coz i don't know where I read it (not in VJ)..but the girl that has been engaged in prostitution denied it because of no proof and been granted visa.

****thank you for the correction

hehhee yeah right bcoz i know someone who did this before she's a call girl but she's in the us right now and she did had 3 marriages already... :whistle: :thumbs:

i know some one too shes 18 and i guess the man is like 50 but she passed the interviewed . reason bcoz they didnt provoke shes a prostitute shes never been arrested and never been jail who knows shes a prostitute as long she smart #### answered correct all the question in consul aight?! beside if u talking about protitution in philippines errmmmmmm no comment ,,, ... beside veener is the one gonna marry her not us so its his decision if he want to marry her or not,, .. past is past man maybe she tell u that bcoz she loves u or she want to get out to her work and go usa.. but the options are its either she will be forever to u or she still having sex to other man here in US.. think about man choose wisely..

Edited December 8, 2009 by .MythaG-