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
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Reward wrote: »
    they have no evidence that there is a trafficking problem in either the UK or Ireland.

    Again I wouldnt go that far although I would contend that the degree to which it takes place is often widely exxagurated.


  • Options
    #63
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    You're having a laugh.

    No. Its not unusual for sex to depend on ongoing emotional support, "commitment" which usually entails benefits and traditional entitlements, so its a fair question.

    I'm happy to take your word for it that you will have sex with men for no pay back in other ways whatsoever, "no strings" as the saying goes, I just wont go with claims that its the norm.


  • Options
    #64
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,067 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    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.


    OK, let me ask you this. First I'm going to make some assumptions about your good self. You are a married man in a loving marriage. Your wife tells you that after tonight, sex is out. She doesn't like it anymore, sees no reason for it and from now on in, up to the day you die, she will never have sex with you again. What would you do?


  • Options
    #65
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    I think this will ultimately end up hurting prostitutes anyway. You only have to look at kerb crawling. That is still illegal yet it hasn't been completly removed. All you have to do is visit any city or major town in this country and you will see street prostitution. I don't have any figures or data but I would say that street prostitution would be more hazardous than working as an independent escort. Street prostition is illegal yet has no effect upon the safety of those who work as street prostitutes. It strikes me that the whole ethos surrounding this is on an ideological or religous basis rather than the genuine health and safety of prostitutes. You only have to look at the ridiculous blasphemy law that was instigated by the same minister.


  • Options
    #66
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Reward wrote: »
    No. Its not unusual for sex to depend on ongoing emotional support, "commitment" which usually entails benefits and traditional entitlements, so its a fair question.

    I'm happy to take your word for it that you will have sex with men for no pay back in other ways whatsoever, I just wont go with claims that its the norm.

    Well, as mentioned earlier in the thread, emotional support and commitment are two-way streets. Not sure what "traditional entitlements" you're referring to.

    As for having sex with men for no payback, I'm afraid that's right out. Sorry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Again I wouldnt go that far although I would contend that the degree to which it takes place is often widely exxagurated.

    Yeah ok, scant evidence would have been more accurate, as the guardian article I used earlier pointed out, its used to go after consensual prostitution in the same way that WMD's were used to go after Saddam.

    Heres another one, Nick Davis exposing the same scam in the UK.

    "The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

    The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.

    Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails


  • Options
    #68
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    OK, let me ask you this. First I'm going to make some assumptions about your good self. You are a married man in a loving marriage. Your wife tells you that after tonight, sex is out. She doesn't like it anymore, sees no reason for it and from now on in, up to the day you die, she will never have sex with you again. What would you do?

    Curiousier and curiousier. It's such a hypothetical question that it's hardly worth applying any brain power to it. It's like asking me what I'd do if a comet was going to destroy the earth tomorrow. But if it helps in any way, I wouldn't be interested in having sex with a stranger, even for free.


  • Options
    #69
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Well, as mentioned earlier in the thread, emotional support and commitment are two-way streets. Not sure what "traditional entitlements" you're referring to.

    As for having sex with men for no payback, I'm afraid that's right out. Sorry.


    Having sex depending on attaching various strings, sex for secondary benefits that aren't sex, what ever they may be .... is trading sex for secondary benefits, a form of legal and socially acceptable prostitution, that largely flies under our radars, that what I'm talking about. If the condition is two way emotional support and commitment (women usually and demonstrably gain more financially from this) its still conditional sex (prostitution).


  • Options
    #70
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Reward wrote: »
    Having sex depending on attaching various strings, sex for secondary benefits that aren't sex, what ever they may be .... is trading sex for secondary benefits, a form of legal and socially acceptable prostitution, that largely flies under our radars, that what I'm talking about. If the condition is two way emotional support and commitment (women usually and demonstrably gain more financially from this) its still conditional sex.

    I'm sorry, but it's only "conditional sex" if the participant(s) consider it conditional. No one else has the right to place such labels on another person's activities.


  • Options
    #71
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but it's only "conditional sex" if the participant(s) consider it conditional. No one else has the right to place such labels on another person's activities.


    Right, we are not supposed to talk about it, and we are only supposed to call some forms of it prostitution, only the low commitment form of it is demonised and so we make a false distinction which keeps the high commitment and legal sex trade under the radar.

    The legal, high commitment form of prostitution is so ingrained, most of us are unaware of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,385 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Reward, do you only show love and affection to a woman in exchange for sex?


  • Options
    #73
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    Reward, do you only show love and affection to a woman in exchange for sex?



    No not at all, but many women will only exchange sex for secondary benefits and strings.... like love, affection, support financial or otherwise etc.

    "I'm not giving it away".

    "He used me for sex"

    Thats just the way it is.


  • Options
    #74
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Reward wrote: »
    Right, we are not supposed to talk about it...

    Yes. That's why people refer to it as their "private" life. It's nobody's business.
    Reward wrote: »
    The legal, high commitment form of prostitution is so ingrained, most of us are unaware of it.

    You can give your own sex life any label you want, but don't label mine "legal sex trade". I'm not involved in any sort of "trade".

    Thanks.


  • Options
    #75
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,385 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Reward wrote: »
    No not at all, but many women will only exchange sex for secondary benefits and strings.... like love, affection, support financial or otherwise etc.

    "I'm not giving it away".

    "He used me for sex"

    Thats just the way it is.
    Are you posting form the 19th century, by any chance?


  • Options
    #76
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Yes. That's why people refer to it as their "private" life. It's nobody's business.



    You can give your own sex life any label you want, but don't label mine "legal sex trade". I'm not involved in any sort of "trade".

    Thanks.


    I said Im happy to take your word for it that you have no strings sex with men, all I'm saying is that the norm for women is to trade sex for secondary benefits, "strings" if you like.


  • Options
    #77
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Reward wrote: »
    I said Im happy to take your word for it that you have no strings sex with men, all I'm saying is that the norm is a trade.

    I have no strings attached sex with men, or any sex with men. Sorry. Try elsewhere.


  • Options
    #78
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    Are you posting form the 19th century, by any chance?


    "I'm not giving it away" and "he used me for sex" are modern terms in common usage by females that refer to trading sex for secondary benefits.

    There is no other explanation for those terms.


  • Options
    #79
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Reward wrote: »
    "I'm not giving it away" and "he used me for sex" are modern terms in common usage by females that refer to trading sex for secondary benefits.

    There is no other explanation for those terms.

    Not giving it away tends be used as a justification for not having a one night stand or similar, not usually in a financial context.

    Used me for sex is a strange one al right, seeing as 2 people are involved and I presume voluntarily!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #80
    Pierced Off
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Pierced Off


    If our Government were to wake up and decriminalise prostitution, they could then tax it. A quick look at any of the miriad of internet sites advertising prostitutes in Ireland should give a rough idea of the amount of potential tax income that could be introduced into our revenue system thereby easing some of the burden on the already stressed out taxpayer. It would also enable the introduction of regulation and help to wipe out pimping and trafficking. A win win situation.


  • Options
    #81
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    K-9 wrote: »
    Not giving it away tends be used as a justification for not having a one night stand or similar, not usually in a financial context.

    Used me for sex is a strange one al right, seeing as 2 people are involved and I presume voluntarily!

    I'm not necessarily a financial context (but "commitment" and "security" usually entail an element of financial commitment).

    "Used me for sex" simply means that she believed the sex would be paid for in some form of commitment and/or security.

    I fully believe that true gender equality and independence involves men consciously recognising these ingrained systems instead of just acceping them as just the way it is.

    A legalised, regulated and non stigmatised prostitution is a necessary feature of male (and female) gender equality and liberation IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Reward wrote: »
    I said Im happy to take your word for it that you have no strings sex with men, all I'm saying is that the norm for women is to trade sex for secondary benefits, "strings" if you like.

    That is extraordinarily offensive, as most of what seems to be your 'take' on women and relationships is.


  • Options
    #83
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Giselle wrote: »
    That is extraordinarily offensive, as most of what seems to be your 'take' on women and relationships is.

    I'm sorry to have offended you, but men are as entitled to speak about these things as women are about say for example, male to female objectification.


  • Options
    #84
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Reward wrote: »
    I said Im happy to take your word for it that you have no strings sex with men, all I'm saying is that the norm for women is to trade sex for secondary benefits, "strings" if you like.

    The norm? What kind of horrible women have you been meeting? If I was in a relationship with a woman and she started to treat sex as some sort of currency, shed out be out the door in a flash. In my experience women like to have sex for the same reasons men do, because its fun/because it's the most intimate way to show love to one another.

    The picture you are creating here is one where most men will blindly do anything for sex and most women will gladly take advantage of that to get "secondary benefits". Thats a bland and cynical view of man/woman relationships.


  • Options
    #85
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Reward wrote: »
    I'm not necessarily a financial context (but "commitment" and "security" usually entail an element of financial commitment).

    "Used me for sex" simply means that she believed the sex would be paid for in some form of commitment and/or security.

    I fully believe that true gender equality and independence involves men consciously recognising these ingrained systems instead of just acceping them as just the way it is.

    A legalised, regulated and non stigmatised prostitution is a necessary feature of male (and female) gender equality and liberation IMO.

    I'd say many men would have to stop viewing women as sex objects or sex as something that can be bought to break those ties.

    I find it strange that you give out about women basically selling sex in a relationship yet want men to be able to legally avail of prostitution. Find that contradictory. Seems it's ok as long as it benefits men.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #86
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Standman wrote: »
    The norm? What kind of horrible women have you been meeting? If I was in a relationship with a woman and she started to treat sex as some sort of currency, shed out be out the door in a flash. In my experience women like to have sex for the same reasons men do, because its fun/because it's the most intimate way to show love to one another.

    The picture you are creating here is one where most men will blindly do anything for sex and most women will gladly take advantage of that to get "secondary benefits". Thats a bland and cynical view of man/woman relationships.


    No strings attached sex is not the norm, strings attached (sex dependent on some sort of commitment) is the norm.

    Trading sex for secondary benefits on some kind is the norm.


  • Options
    #87
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    Reward wrote: »
    I'm sorry to have offended you, but men are as entitled to speak about these things as women are about say for example, male to female objectification.

    A major difference would be that I might discuss the attitudes of some men, but you just discuss women in general.

    Your posts come across as embittered and woman hating.


  • Options
    #88
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'd say many men would have to stop viewing women as sex objects or sex as something that can be bought to break those ties.

    I find it strange that you give out about women basically selling sex in a relationship yet want men to be able to legally avail of prostitution. Find that contradictory. Seems it's ok as long as it benefits men.

    I'm not giving out about women, saying something that is true that women might not want me to say is not giving out about them.


  • Options
    #89
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Reward wrote: »
    "Used me for sex" simply means that she believed the sex would be paid for in some form of commitment and/or security..

    That kinda suggests the only reason a guy might be interested in a woman would be for sex.

    This is not always the case.


  • Options
    #90
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Giselle wrote: »
    A major difference would be that I might discuss the attitudes of some men, but you just discuss women in general.

    Your posts come across as embittered and woman hating.


    I'm sorry about that. I don't equate talking about the economics of sex candidly with woman hating I do however understand that it makes some people bristle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    That kinda suggests the only reason a guy miht be interested in a woman would be for sex.

    This is not always the case.


    Yes, just for sex without strings (no secondary benefits).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement