Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"New law could criminalise men for buying sex" (IT)

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    Yes and women too.

    If both men and women pay, then the payments cancel out? No?


  • Options
    #33
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Can you unpack that statement? Does it mean (what I think it means) that men in relationships pay, one way or another, for sex within the relationship?
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/housewife-charged-in-sexforsecurity-scam,1773/


  • Options
    #34
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,065 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    If both men and women pay, then the payments cancel out? No?


    We could also say that if a man pays a woman for sex, she then returns sexual favours than both of those things cancel out as well so. No?


  • Options
    #35
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    We could also say that if a man pays a woman for sex, she then returns sexual favours than both of those things cancel out as well so. No?

    I'm sure you can. But I thought you were talking about men and women in relationships, no?


  • Options
    #36
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    If both men and women pay, then the payments cancel out? No?

    Its generally women using sex and affection as leverage and relationship cash and asset transfers are for the most part male to female.

    I'm not saying that men never withold sex or use it as a reward, but I am saying that its generally women that will do that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Reward wrote: »
    Its generally women using sex and affection as leverage and relationship cash and asset transfers are for the most part male to female.

    You could be meeting the wrong type of woman.


  • Options
    #38
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    You could be meeting the wrong type of woman.

    No, using prostitutes regularly can be demonstrably cheaper than an engagement, marriage and divorce. An engagement ring, is what, a e1000 or whatever entry free before a man even signs off on the marriage contract. To use an extreme example, no number of prostitutes would have cost Paul McCartney what his wife charged him.

    Clarisse Thorn wrote an interesting piece about it called "Whore stigma makes no sense" she argues that sex for rewards is a fairly common system for women and that stigmatising prostitutes is making a false distinction.

    http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2010/12/17/whore-stigma-makes-no-sense/


  • Options
    #39
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Reward wrote: »
    No, using prostitutes regularly can be demonstrably cheaper than an engagement, marriage and divorce. An engagement ring, is what, a e1000 or whatever entry free before a man even signs off on the marriage contract.

    Think it is overstating the case somewhat to suggest that all marriages(/relationships) are a glorified form of "contract prostitution" although it is undoubtedly the case that quite a few are.


  • Options
    #40
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,065 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I'm sure you can. But I thought you were talking about men and women in relationships, no?

    What difference does it make whether in a relationship or not? It's the same thing.


  • Options
    #41
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    *backs out of the thread quietly*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Think it is overstating the case somewhat to suggest that all marriages(/relationships) are a glorified form of "contract prostitution" although it is undoubtedly the case that quite a few are.


    Not all but most, have you ever heard a woman complain that men are only after sex? We all have, many, many times.
    What does that mean if not, "men want sex without paying me for it in some way shape or form". Payment through whats called "commitment" for example, which usually entails cash and asset transfers and other things that are of value, emotional support and so on.

    If a man leads a woman to believe that he will provide for her in some way to obtain sex and she has sex with him but he doesn't fulfill his part of the bargain, she feels cheated, why is that?

    Is it because she has viewed the sex as something that she will be compensated for in some way shape or form in the future?

    What motivated the man to mislead her in order to obtain sex, was it the fact that she had set a price for sex in the first place?


  • Options
    #43
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Reward wrote: »
    through whats called "commitment" for example, which usually entails cash and asset transfers and other things that are of value, emotional support and so on.

    How does one put a cash value on emotional support ? In any case surely emotional support works (or should work) both ways ?


  • Options
    #44
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    How does one put a cash value on emotional support ? In any case surely emotional support works (or should work) both ways ?

    On going emotional support has a value and its something that women will commonly trade sex for, it should work both ways, but you rarely hear men complaining that they have been cheated out of sex because they weren't significantly paid for it in emotional support but, hearing women complaining that they have been "used for sex", which is just another way of saying not compensated sufficiently in some way shape or form, is very common. They have all sorts of shaming language for men that "use them for sex".


  • Options
    #45
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Reward wrote: »
    They have all sorts of shaming language for men that "use them for sex".

    While I would to an extent go along with your assertion that the "he used me for sex" line is a heavily overused one Im getting the impression that you have an over cynical view of how relationships work here.

    I really find it a bit of a streach that the majority of women (consciously or otherwise) operate some kind of accounting ledger with sex on one side and Cash/Gifts/Services rendered/emotional support/other benefits-in-kind on the other ?


  • Options
    #46
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    I thought I'd add a poll as a lot of people might prefer:
    (i) not to give their opinion publicly,
    or
    (ii) at least prefer not post in this particular thread,
    but might still like to have their say.

    Regarding the wording of the poll: one is restricted in the character count - I think I only had two characters left.

    I didn't click the option that votes would be visible which is why I have put anon (for anonymous) in front of it. I can't see them any. Perhaps there is a sys admin or somebody on boards.ie that can see but given the traffic on this site, I imagine they're not going to be particularly interested.

    ETA: Drat, I think it would be more interesting to have it:
    I am male and I would vote in favour
    I am male and and I would vote against
    I am male and I am unsure

    I am female and I would vote in favour
    I am female and and I would vote against
    I am female and I am unsure
    I can't seem to adjust the poll. If a moderator wants to (and there are 10 votes or less at the time), they could do it. If they don't want to, it's not the end of the world. BTW, I'm not looking to stop the poll because it is not going the way I wanted (at this moment in time, there are no votes different to how I voted).


  • Options
    #47
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    While I would to an extent go along with your assertion that the "he used me for sex" line is a heavily overused one Im getting the impression that you have an over cynical view of how relationships work here.

    I really find it a bit of a streach that the majority of women (consciously or otherwise) operate some kind of accounting ledger with sex on one side and Cash/Gifts/Services rendered/emotional support/other benefits-in-kind on the other ?


    I'm saying that its so entrenched most of us don't eve realise that its going on. Its not called the worlds oldest profession for nothing. Men are generally the demand, women generally control the supply. The term "giving it away" comes from the assumption that a woman should be charging, women shame and spread rumours about women that "give it away".

    Ok, think about this. Men generally make around 20% more taxable income than women yet women are by far the most powerful consumer group, lets exclude buying for the family now, every channel is selling luxury products to women, they spend far more on themselves than you do, the spending gap in the US shows that wives spend x5 more on themselves than their husbands. So how do women have more money to spend and receive more luxury items than men when men out earn them by 20%?

    Relationship cash and asset transfer is the answer.


  • Options
    #48
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    This thread is starting to turn into a "women do this,that and the other" rants that have become far too common in tGC of late for my liking.Keep it on the topic at hand,this is the only warning folks.


  • Options
    #49
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    nedtheshed wrote: »
    This thread is starting to turn into a "women do this,that and the other" rants that have become too common in tGC of late for my liking.Keep it on the topic at hand,this is the only warning folks.


    I'm generally answering others questions here rather than trying to derail the thread.

    Ill also say that when these groups are trying to control and limit the supply of sex (the laws that we are discussing) that its part of sexual economics. Prostitutes offend many women because they undercut them, IMO.


  • Options
    #50
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    While I would to an extent go along with your assertion that the "he used me for sex" line is a heavily overused one Im getting the impression that you have an over cynical view of how relationships work here.

    I really find it a bit of a streach that the majority of women (consciously or otherwise) operate some kind of accounting ledger with sex on one side and Cash/Gifts/Services rendered/emotional support/other benefits-in-kind on the other ?
    Call it cynical, but most people operate some kind of accounting ledger where it comes to relationships; we all weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and often when the cons outweigh the pros we end it.

    To deny that you would have to be living in a romantic fantasy where you will stay with someone no matter what - doesn't happen in the Real World, I'm afraid.

    It is certainly unfair to tar all women as being so mercenary, but it cannot be denied that a man's capacity as a provider is still a factor that women commonly consider when entering a relationship, largely because the role of remaining at home (and being unable to provide for oneself) is still overwhelmingly carried out by women. Traditionally, the trade-off for providing included sex - conjugal rights - to the point that up to only a few years ago rape within marriage was not even legally recognized.

    Returning to the OP; I can see the logic in the proposed law, in that it would likely be a more effective means of reducing prostitution and protecting the women working in it.

    However, the question has to be asked, who is protecting men? The cohabitation bill was pushed in large part to protect those people (i.e. women) who were most financially vulnerable. The recent paper on parental responsibility proposed giving all fathers 'guardianship', regardless of marital status, then removed even the right to be consulted on decisions regarding their children in favour of the custodial parent (i.e. women). Or who protects the underage boys who may be prosecuted for underage sex with their underage girlfriends, when the latter cannot? And family law still works strongly against men - in particularly in the case of divorce.

    Legally men in Ireland now have fewer rights than women. I've repeatedly asked if any law exists at this stage that discriminates against women. Examples of laws that exist that discriminate against men are ridiculously common.


  • Options
    #51
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It is certainly unfair to tar all women as being so mercenary, but it cannot be denied that a man's capacity as a provider is still a factor that women commonly consider when entering a relationship, largely because the role of remaining at home (and being unable to provide for oneself) is still overwhelmingly carried out by women. .


    The role of remaining at home is a choice and a privilege thats paid for by the partners work, for example a male friend of mine has not been able find a woman to support him in what he wants to do - be a house husband so he has no choice but to be a wage worker, its not something thats enforced and women are perfectly capable of providing for themselves in todays world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Reward wrote: »
    The role of remaining at home is a choice and a privilege thats paid for by the partner not something thats enforced and women are perfectly capable of providing for themselves in todays world.
    Yes and no. In women's defense, it's not really much of a choice, because given that it is still largely socially unacceptable for men to do so, women are still forced into that choice, ironically because men do not have the same choice.


  • Options
    #53
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Yes and no. In women's defense, it's not really much of a choice, because given that it is still largely socially unacceptable for men to do so, women are still forced into that choice, ironically because men do not have the same choice.

    I have responses for this, and stats. IMO this is down to women choices, privilege and ability to access resources without engaging the taxable income system, it just that female choices and privileges tend to be depicted and misrepresented as being burdens and proof of societal oppression.... but perhaps in another thread.

    I'll be interested to see the opposition that the genuine sex worker advocates put together for this proposed leglislation.


  • Options
    #54
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    However, the question has to be asked, who is protecting men? The cohabitation bill was pushed in large part to protect those people (i.e. women) who were most financially vulnerable. The recent paper on parental responsibility proposed giving all fathers 'guardianship', regardless of marital status, then removed even the right to be consulted on decisions regarding their children in favour of the custodial parent (i.e. women). Or who protects the underage boys who may be prosecuted for underage sex with their underage girlfriends, when the latter cannot? And family law still works strongly against men - in particularly in the case of divorce.

    Legally men in Ireland now have fewer rights than women. I've repeatedly asked if any law exists at this stage that discriminates against women. Examples of laws that exist that discriminate against men are ridiculously common.
    Yes, this is an underlying concern of mine in a lot of these threads. And this is the situation when 87% or whatever of the Dáil is male. If gender quotas in politics were to come in (part of Labour's manifesto as I recall), society could become more unbalanced (this law comes from Sweden where they have gender quotas in politics). Anyway, gender quotas is probably a discussion for another thread.

    But generally in politics, in academia (gender studies), in gender equality bodies, in the media, etc there are few people expressing views in support of men as a group.

    Being a man doesn't mean that person is speaking up for men. If there was a courtroom and only one side was represented, that side would more often "win" especially if this continued on reguarly [i.e. in effect, it's like a jury hearing lots of cases where a particular viewpoint is represented in different ways - it can have a cumulative effect so by the 50th trial or whatever where only one side spoke, the results (on average) might be even more unbalanced than the first trial]. If feminist views/views looking at things from a perspective of women are expressed, there should be also be opposite voices also heard (of course, it is not the case that other views would always be "opposite"). Hopefully then the best argument wins like in a court room where one has both sides speaking.


  • Options
    #55
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Im not a big fan of the idea of quotas for gender (or anything else). The majority of the electorate are female so if there arent enough Women in Leinster house/Westminster/Brussels its because not enough women are voting for them. It may not be an ideal state of affairs but it is democracy.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Yes and no. In women's defense, it's not really much of a choice, because given that it is still largely socially unacceptable for men to do so, women are still forced into that choice, ironically because men do not have the same choice.

    I know of a lot of households where both partners were working until the bloke was made redundant/lost his business. Indeed I was brought up in such a household. Although admitidedly I cant think of any household I know of where the guy ended up in such an arrangment entirely voluntairly.


  • Options
    #56
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Im not a big fan of the idea of quotas for gender (or anything else). The majority of the electorate are female so if there arent enough Women in Leinster house/Westminster/Brussels its because not enough women are voting for them. It may not be an ideal state of affairs but it is democracy.



    I know of a lot of households where both partners were working until the bloke was made redundant/lost his business. Indeed I was brought up in such a household. Although admitidedly I cant think of any household I know of where the guy ended up in such an arrangment entirely voluntairly.

    Women chose the home role, nobody has to get married, nobody has to have children or stay at home. Contrary to the spin, men aren't responsible for womens preferences.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461511/Women-aspire-to-be-housewives-without-any-of-the-housework.html


  • Options
    #57
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Getting back O/T one of the effects of criminalising those who pay for sex would be that for prostitutes their clientelle would then become limited to criminals (who in the nature of things would probably exhibit criminal tendencies in other areas too).

    Probably not going to do much in the way of affording greater protection to sex workers TBH


  • Options
    #58
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    What difference does it make whether in a relationship or not? It's the same thing.

    It's patently not the same thing. Sex in any relationship I've been in hasn't been dependent on any type of service supplied or monies paid. On either side. Sex for services/monies hasn't been explicit or implicit in any of my relationships. Am I unique? I'll lay you any money I'm not.


  • Options
    #59
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Getting back O/T one of the effects of criminalising those who pay for sex would be that for prostitutes their clientelle would then become limited to criminals (who in the nature of things would probably exhibit criminal tendencies in other areas too).

    Probably not going to do much in the way of affording greater protection to sex workers TBH


    Prohibition tends to have the opposite effect doesn't it? Criminalisation prostitution makes the industry more dangerous for everyone involved, its not really about protecting people at all, its about ending prostitution on ideological and puritanical grounds.

    Here is the organisation that are pushing for the legislation are involved with, they have no evidence that there is a trafficking problem in either the UK or Ireland.
    http://www.endprostitutionnow.org/support-the-campaign/our-supporters.aspx


  • Options
    #60
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It's patently not the same thing. Sex in any relationship I've been in hasn't been dependent on any type of service supplied or monies paid. On either side. Sex for services/monies hasn't been explicit or implicit in any of my relationships. Am I unique? I'll lay you any money I'm not.


    Have you never withheld or not withheld sex for punishment or reward or benefit from disproportionate relationship cash or asset transfer?

    Also, was the sex dependent on the receipt of ongoing emotional support or other non cash benefits?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,119 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Reward wrote: »
    Have you never withheld or not withheld sex for punishment or reward or benefit from disproportionate relationship cash or asset transfer?

    Also, was the sex dependent on the possibility of ongoing emotional support?

    You're having a laugh.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement