Would you care if your friend told you they used escorts/prositutes

Sunnyisland · 03-09-2011 11:35pm

evry1sm8 wrote: »

If she is willing to have sex with men for money then yes, I would.
Collecting rubbish as a job is not demeaning or selling yourself short.
Massive difference there

Whats your opinion on male escorts & prostitutes that many women use ?

Nulty · 03-09-2011 11:40pm

evry1sm8 wrote: »

If she is willing to have sex with men for money then yes, I would.
Collecting rubbish as a job is not demeaning or selling yourself short.
Massive difference there

I was listening to Newstalk and Sean Moncrieff t'other day and this woman was flogging her book.

http://books.usatoday.com/book/catherine-hakim-erotic-capital-the-power-of-attraction-in-the-boardroom-and-the-bedroom/r545665

Basically its capital, what ever way you use it. It is an asset. Many genuine, self-appointed escorts use their 'assets' to gain the money they need to do other things. Some do it cause they can and want to. I have no problem with them making a life/career choice that does not infringe on other peoples rights or freedoms and I don't believe you should either but I think that is as close to 'eye to eye' as we'll ever see on the issue.

And I should add, as it's the topic of the thread, that I equally find apathy towards the men that chose to visit these escorts.

AskMyChocolate · 03-09-2011 11:40pm

evry1sm8 wrote: »

If she is willing to have sex with men for money then yes, I would.
Collecting rubbish as a job is not demeaning or selling yourself short.
Massive difference there

Who are you to decide what a person finds demeaning and what they don't? I'm sure there are hundreds of men/women out there who would find doing a forty hour week cleaning toilets for €300 far more demeaning, than engaging in a few sexual acts for 3-4 hours for twice or three times the money.

Min · 03-09-2011 11:42pm

Nulty wrote: »

Oh, look! Another well formulated parameter has just passed you by!

ASSUME that my best friend, whom I have known all my life and consequently theirs too, decides she wants to become an escort. Do you think any less of her than you would my other best friend who lives in a council flat down the way and has no other option than to apply for a job collecting my rubbish on Monday mornings? Both are potentially perceived to be demeaning jobs but one person CHOSE their profession and the other was OBLIGED to enter theirs.

There is nothing wrong with collecting rubbish...the problem is not the prostitute, the problem is the person who uses them, if there was no demand there would be no prostitutes.
This is why the user should be targetted.

charlemont · 03-09-2011 11:45pm

Min wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with collecting rubbish...the problem is not the prostitute, the problem is the person who uses them, if there was no demand there would be no prostitutes.
This is why the user should be targetted.

So someone should be targeted for wanting a ride.

Nulty · 03-09-2011 11:48pm

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Who are you to decide what a person finds demeaning and what they don't? I'm sure there are hundreds of men/women out there who would find doing a forty hour week cleaning toilets for €300 far more demeaning, than engaging in a few sexual acts for 3-4 hours for twice or three times the money.

In fairness to the quoted poster she can only say what she would find demeaning and thats all I asked of her. If she would be happier cleaning toilets for e300 a week than selling her body (a tool given to you by God, the big bang or what ever fantasy deity you might believe in) for 5+ times that amount then shes entitled to that opinion. The line is crossed when she demands that her opinions be imposed upon other honest, hardworking, happy, privilaged prostitutes who enjoy gainful employment from the assets with which they have been bestowed.

Min · 03-09-2011 11:49pm

charlemont wrote: »

So someone should be targeted for wanting a ride.

It is what they do in Sweden. The user is the problem, if you need a prostitute to have sex then that's pretty sad.

Nulty · 03-09-2011 11:51pm

Min wrote: »

It is what they do in Sweden. The user is the problem, if you need a prostitute to have sex then that's pretty sad.

Need is not the issue here. I don't need a Big Mac. I choose a Big Mac because I want one. See the difference?

The butt of the issue here then is the difference between those who indulge in prostitution as a luxury item and those, like one poster mentioned above, invalids and para/quadrapeligics who require the services of a prostitute. Are parapalegics sad and pathetic just because they need a prostitute? Or are they unfortunate like a short guy/girl who needs a step ladder to reach the top shelf?

evry1sm8 · 03-09-2011 11:52pm

realies wrote: »

Whats your opinion on male escorts & prostitutes that many women use ?

The exact same! I think its degrading.

stovelid · 03-09-2011 11:53pm

No.

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 03-09-2011 11:53pm

Min wrote: »

if you need a prostitute to have sex then that's pretty sad.

Australian approach-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_wuaU6PELg

Sunnyisland · 03-09-2011 11:53pm

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FProstitution_in_Europe&ei=uK9iTti-J9CGhQeM_ZmXCg&usg=AFQjCNGq9mCkZtCroP1uGJ3ubyeDtFjTEg

Intresting reading.

Prostitution in the Republic of Ireland

Prostitution itself is not illegal in the Republic of Ireland, but the law criminalises many activities associated with it (solicitation in a public place, operating a brothel or other forms of pimping). However, female escort prostitution is widespread. Swedish type criminalizing legislation of the sex customer is being considered.[44]

Min · 03-09-2011 11:55pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Which is why if it was legalised, you'd be able to check if it was a "registered" service provider or not.

Not true, in Amsterdam organised crime is involved and they managed to register trafficked women and have them on display in the red light district as if they were legit.

evry1sm8 · 03-09-2011 11:56pm

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Who are you to decide what a person finds demeaning and what they don't? I'm sure there are hundreds of men/women out there who would find doing a forty hour week cleaning toilets for €300 far more demeaning, than engaging in a few sexual acts for 3-4 hours for twice or three times the money.

Well I dont.

I was answering the previous question from my opinion.
That is my answer, from my viewpoint only.

Nulty · 04-09-2011 12:07am

Min wrote: »

Not true, in Amsterdam organised crime is involved and they managed to register trafficked women and have them on display in the red light district as if they were legit.

A lot fewer I'd guess. That's the authorities problem, they're not doing a good enough job then are they? The theory is sound though, you can't argue that.

Fcuk, a moth just flew in through the window...

AskMyChocolate · 04-09-2011 12:07am

Min wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with collecting rubbish...the problem is not the prostitute, the problem is the person who uses them, if there was no demand there would be no prostitutes.
This is why the user should be targetted.

So, what you are saying, is that, if I come to an arrangement to provide services to a businesswoman, a widow, a disabled woman and earn €150 p/h for providing this service, and hopefully giving someone some pleasure I should find this demeaning, but if I am forced to clean your toilet for €8 p/h, because you're above doing it yourself, and live like a slave, I shouldn't find this demeaning in the slightest.

You also think these women should be targetted.

You have a strange value system. But, then again, I suppose what is one to expect from someone who deplores human trafficing but steadfastly defends the hierarchy that ran the Magdalene laundries and the industrial schools.

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:08am

Nulty wrote: »

Need is not the issue here. I don't need a Big Mac. I choose a Big Mac because I want one. See the difference?

The butt of the issue here then is the difference between those who indulge in prostitution as a luxury item and those, like one poster mentioned above, invalids and para/quadrapeligics who require the services of a prostitute.

Im not going to enter the argument of what suffices as a "need" to use a prostitute or not, but anyway...

Choosing a BigMac is NOT remotely the same as choosing to pay a woman for sex. You can go get yourself a burger without needing someone else to help you eat it.
And as for people using prostitutes as a luxury- can you not see how this idea in itself just de-humanises the prostitutes?
There's a difference between being human and being an animal.
Using someone elses body for self gratification with no consideration to their feelings on / during the act is animalistic IMO.

Bipolar Joe · 04-09-2011 12:10am

So we fuck animals, instead? You sicken me.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 04-09-2011 12:14am

Ok, so we're all right then

04-09-2011 12:14am

Would I care if my friend used escorts/prostitutes? Yes.

Would I judge the act of using escorts/prostitutes as wrong? Yes.

Would I judge my friend? No.

AskMyChocolate · 04-09-2011 12:14am

Nulty wrote: »

In fairness to the quoted poster she can only say what she would find demeaning and thats all I asked of her. If she would be happier cleaning toilets for e300 a week than selling her body (a tool given to you by God, the big bang or what ever fantasy deity you might believe in) for 5+ times that amount then shes entitled to that opinion. The line is crossed when she demands that her opinions be imposed upon other honest, hardworking, happy, privilaged prostitutes who enjoy gainful employment from the assets with which they have been bestowed.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. But that is all I said in my post. I just said she had no right to inflict her value system upon others or to decide what is demeaning, or wholesome/worthy, as this must always be subjective.

Nulty · 04-09-2011 12:15am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Im not going to enter the argument of what suffices as a "need" to use a prostitute or not, but anyway...

Choosing a BigMac is NOT remotely the same as choosing to pay a woman for sex. You can go get yourself a burger without needing someone else to help you eat it.
And as for people using prostitutes as a luxury- can you not see how this idea in itself just de-humanises the prostitutes?
There's a difference between being human and being an animal.
Using someone elses body for self gratification with no consideration to their feelings on / during the act is animalistic IMO.

I cannot make a big mac at 4am on O'Connell street.

It doesn't de-humanise anyone. That's a mad thing to say. Its a rational adult capitalising on their assets. Its an economic decision based on economic circumstances supported by the freedoms of personal choice. What de-humanises prostitutes is people like you calling them animals.

Rationale....that is certainly not something associated with animals.

pablomakaveli · 04-09-2011 12:17am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Here's another question:

Would you date / marry a former prostitute? Or one that is still working?

If i loved her enough maybe. No different to dating any women who has had a lot of previous partners.

If she was currently working then no but i wouldnt date any woman that was currently sleeping with other men either.

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:17am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

So, what you are saying, is that, if I come to an arrangement to provide services to a businesswoman, a widow, a disabled woman and earn €150 p/h for providing this service, and hopefully giving someone some pleasure I should find this demeaning, but if I am forced to clean your toilet for €8 p/h, because you're above doing it yourself, and live like a slave, I shouldn't find this demeaning in the slightest.

As human beings, the act of having sex is far more intimate and involves a lot more in the line of laying yourself bare (excuse the pun) then the act of cleaning a toilet

How is this beyond you?
Sex is an intimate act, cleaning is not!
Respect your body!

pablomakaveli · 04-09-2011 12:18am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Using someone elses body for self gratification with no consideration to their feelings on / during the act is animalistic IMO.

People who have one night stands are basically doing this as well. Would you criticise them too.

Ditch · 04-09-2011 12:19am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Bitter vitriol .....

Mickeroo wrote: »

You're clearly superior to every other female poster on here, well done on that.

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Thanks, what a nice thing to say

Every other female poster though, dont you think thats going a bit too far?

:eek:

http://youtu.be/kTB8l8aNOi4?t=23s

:rolleyes:

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:19am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. But that is all I said in my post. I just said she had no right to inflict her value system upon others or to decide what is demeaning, or wholesome/worthy, as this must always be subjective.

See my last response to this. I am fully aware that it is just my own opinion, given from my viewpoint only.

pablomakaveli · 04-09-2011 12:21am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

As human beings, the act of having sex is far more intimate and involves a lot more in the line of laying yourself bare (excuse the pun) then the act of cleaning a toilet

How is this beyond you?
Sex is an intimate act, cleaning is not!
Respect your body!

Sex is only as intimate as the people doing it want it to be. It can be meaningless and just for pleasure like with a one-night stand or it can be intimate and loving when its a couple.

You're views of sex seems a bit immature and naive.

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:24am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If i loved her enough maybe. No different to dating any women who has had a lot of previous partners.

If she was currently working then no but i wouldnt date any woman that was currently sleeping with other men either.

There is a difference there between someone sleeping with a "partner" and someone sleeping with random strangers for money!!! BIG difference. So yes it is different.

And why wouldnt you date a girl that was sleeping with other guys?
Honestly think about it. If sex is just a transaction that means so little that people pay / accept money for it, then why would it matter to you?
Would it in that case not be like having a girlfriend that "chose" to go to MacDonalds for a BigMac every now and then?

(sorry but I had to put that one in... how ridiculous!)

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:25am

Plus, as above, every prostitute you or anyone else uses is sleeping with other men, so why is it acceptable in that regard?

AskMyChocolate · 04-09-2011 12:27am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

As human beings, the act of having sex is far more intimate and involves a lot more in the line of laying yourself bare (excuse the pun) then the act of cleaning a toilet

How is this beyond you?
Sex is an intimate act, cleaning is not!
Respect your body!

How is getting down on my hands and knees to clean your toilet for a slave wage respecting either myself or my body?

Having sex for financial gain is not an intimate act.

How is this beyond you?

Nulty · 04-09-2011 12:29am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

There is a difference there between someone sleeping with a "partner" and someone sleeping with random strangers for money!!! BIG difference. So yes it is different.

And why wouldnt you date a girl that was sleeping with other guys?
Honestly think about it. If sex is just a transaction that means so little that people pay / accept money for it, then why would it matter to you?
Would it in that case not be like having a girlfriend that "chose" to go to MacDonalds for a BigMac every now and then?

(sorry but I had to put that one in... how ridiculous!)

Nice one

Ok, I admit I don't fully understand what sex with a prostitute would actually entail...Maybe it's more like a Bacon Double Cheese burger.

Mickeroo · 04-09-2011 12:29am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Im not going to enter the argument of what suffices as a "need" to use a prostitute or not, but anyway...

Choosing a BigMac is NOT remotely the same as choosing to pay a woman for sex. You can go get yourself a burger without needing someone else to help you eat it.
And as for people using prostitutes as a luxury- can you not see how this idea in itself just de-humanises the prostitutes?
There's a difference between being human and being an animal.
Using someone elses body for self gratification with no consideration to their feelings on / during the act is animalistic IMO.

Well for a start, a big mac is a lot worse for you than a prostitute even if you use protection :pac:

Provided the prostitute has chosen that occupation of their own free will then I don't see how it can possibly dehumanise them. There's no need to consider their feelings either no more than they consider the customer's as since they're there of their own free will it's fairly obvious they don't mind doing it and pocketing their fee either.

Dangerous Man · 04-09-2011 12:29am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

There is a difference there between someone sleeping with a "partner" and someone sleeping with random strangers for money!!! BIG difference. So yes it is different.

And why wouldnt you date a girl that was sleeping with other guys?
Honestly think about it. If sex is just a transaction that means so little that people pay / accept money for it, then why would it matter to you?
Would it in that case not be like having a girlfriend that "chose" to go to MacDonalds for a BigMac every now and then?

(sorry but I had to put that one in... how ridiculous!)

And guess what? None of the above is any of your fucking business. None of it.

Nulty · 04-09-2011 12:30am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Plus, as above, every prostitute you or anyone else uses is sleeping with other men, so why is it acceptable in that regard?

Emotional attachment.

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:31am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

People who have one night stands are basically doing this as well. Would you criticise them too.

How can you even ask this???

Think about it!!

The person having a 1-night stand isnt paying the other person to do something they may not want to do in the least but do for the money.

In a 1-night stand situation, BOTH people involved want to do what they are doing, they do not want money.

Sonics2k · 04-09-2011 12:34am

The fact of the matter is that Prostitutions has been around for thousands of years, and will never go away.

Now isn't it better to make it legal where it can be controlled and maintained by the Government and business'.

I'll be doing this from the Australian and U.S. system.

For the Prostitute:
1) They able to work in an actual place of business (a brothel). Here there are security, doormen, and CCTV.
2) Health and Safety. Protection can be enforced by the brothel. All employees must pass STI tests. Clients can be refused if they seem dangerous, dirty, drunk etc. Employees themselves would also have to be clean.
3) It's a safer business. Greatly reduces the chances of assault, abuse and rape. Can also be used to ensure all the employees are of legal age.
4) They pay tax, which goes to the Government etc (self-explanatory)
5) In the event they are assaulted. It will actually be reported and handled properly, instead of being ignored like it is now.

For the Client:
1) Greatly lowers the chance of catching an STI.
2) Greatly lowers the chance of getting robbed/assaulted.
3) No hassle, no lawbreaking.

This system is proven to be affective and far safer.

Now obviously some people object to it. And that's fair enough. Some people think the idea of paying for sex is wrong, some people here seem to think that even having casual sex is wrong. But hey, if you don't like it. Don't get involved with it.

However a system likes this is what ensures the safety of all those involved.

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:34am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Having sex for financial gain is not an intimate act.

How is this beyond you?

Its not.
I totally agree, thats why I dont like it

Nulty · 04-09-2011 12:36am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

How can you even ask this???

Think about it!!

The person having a 1-night stand isnt paying the other person to do something they may not want to do in the least but do for the money.

In a 1-night stand situation, BOTH people involved want to do what they are doing, they do not want money.

So it's the money that is bothering you? I'll pay you double. :pac:

Nulty · 04-09-2011 12:37am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Its not.
I totally agree, thats why I dont like it

Why do you care if other people do it then?

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:38am

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's no need to consider their feelings either no more than they consider the customer's as since they're there of their own free will it's fairly obvious they don't mind doing it and pocketing their fee either.

Over time it has the HUGE possibility to wear them down emotionally.
Lower their self esteem, affect their sense of self worth, not to mention the other risks.

Sonics2k · 04-09-2011 12:39am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Over time it has the HUGE possibility to wear them down emotionally.
Lower their self esteem, affect their sense of self worth, not to mention the other risks.

Read my last post.

If it was legal and they worked for an actual company (like in Oz/US) they can quit.

Mickeroo · 04-09-2011 12:39am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Over time it has the HUGE possibility to wear them down emotionally.
Lower their self esteem, affect their sense of self worth, not to mention the other risks.

Meh, that's potentially true of any job.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 04-09-2011 12:40am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Over time it has the HUGE possibility to wear them down emotionally.
Lower their self esteem, affect their sense of self worth, not to mention the other risks.

As does any job...
And then it again it can do the opposite and oay them well and make them feek empowered.
Prohibition solves nothing

pablomakaveli · 04-09-2011 12:45am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

How can you even ask this???

Think about it!!

The person having a 1-night stand isnt paying the other person to do something they may not want to do in the least but do for the money.

In a 1-night stand situation, BOTH people involved want to do what they are doing, they do not want money.

You said this

Using someone elses body for self gratification with no consideration to their feelings on / during the act is animalistic IMO.

A lot of one night stands can be viewed that way. A guy/girl goes out, find someone to sleep with purely for the pleasure of it and then they go on their merry way with no thought for the other person.

Just because money is involved doesnt change things much. People often sleep with others for trivial reasons like people who will sleep with someone famous or powerful even if they dont find them attractive. It's a fact of life.

Bipolar Joe · 04-09-2011 12:45am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Its not.
I totally agree, thats why I dont like it

OK, I've got you sussed. You're a douche.

Sex and affection is a mental need. Do you think less of me because I go to therapy a few times a week because it's a mental need?

AskMyChocolate · 04-09-2011 12:49am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

There is a difference there between someone sleeping with a "partner" and someone sleeping with random strangers for money!!! BIG difference. So yes it is different.

And why wouldnt you date a girl that was sleeping with other guys?
Honestly think about it. If sex is just a transaction that means so little that people pay / accept money for it, then why would it matter to you?
Would it in that case not be like having a girlfriend that "chose" to go to MacDonalds for a BigMac every now and then?

(sorry but I had to put that one in... how ridiculous!)

My God. Your analogy not only doesn't fit, but actually underlines the argument that others are making, and you can't even see it. You are incapable of rational thought and you are accusing other people of being ridiculous!:eek:

The correct analogy would be if your girlfriend/boyfriend was working in MacDonald's. In this case would you feel any jealousy, would it bother you, that she is cooking for somebody else , as cooking somebody dinner is a very social/romantic/intimate thing to do. The answer,obviously, is no as he/she is doing it to earn a living and feels no attachment to the customer.

If he/she was doing it for another man/woman on a social basis, this would be a far bigger issue and might constitute cheating, especially if the person was doing it behind your back.

The same rationale applies equally to prostitution. If I was going out with a prostitute/porn star, I knew what they did for a living and I made my choice. There is no cheating involved. If that person however sleeps with somebody else, behind my back, where there is no money involved, then that it is an act of intimacy and is cheating. Can you not see this?

evry1sm8 · 04-09-2011 12:58am

Nulty wrote: »

Emotional attachment.

Exactly.
Thats what it should be like, there should be some shared emotion when 2 people have sex. The way I see it anyway.

Emotions develop through sex too, so when they dont it can often leave people feeling empty. Prostitutes are just like everyone else, and im sure they often are left feeling empty too, after intimate acts they dont really have their heart in, with people they dont remotely know.
It can be damaging.

lagente · 04-09-2011 1:00am

Don't have sex with people you don't know. Simple as.
And kids easily come from sex, . . .. . . . .i think some people forget that a lot of the time.

Sonics2k · 04-09-2011 1:01am

evry1sm8 wrote: »

Exactly.
Thats what it should be like, there should be some shared emotion when 2 people have sex. The way I see it anyway.

I believe you're still living in the 1920's.

Believe it or not. Sex isn't always about emotions and love.

Sometimes it's just a shag.

Would you care if your friend told you they used escorts/prositutes

Comments