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

HavingCrack

Does anyone else feel there is a certain percentage of men (not women-I'll explain below) who are completely incapable of attracting a woman normally who wants to have sex with them and so turn to prostitutes for sexual release? Generally speaking women are capable of having sex whenever they want on a night out or whatever, they'll always have guys approaching them-in the main, so sex isn't as difficult to come by. Now my point is that prostitution acts as an 'escape valve' for these men. If this is taken away and they're left completely without sex I can begin to imagine some serious mental health problems rearing their heads, possibly in the form of violence.

Criminalising this group of men could have some serious implications I can imagine.

28064212

HavingCrack wrote: »

Does anyone else feel there is a certain percentage of men (not women-I'll explain below) who are completely incapable of attracting a woman normally who wants to have sex with them and so turn to prostitutes for sexual release? Generally speaking women are capable of having sex whenever they want on a night out or whatever, they'll always have guys approaching them-in the main, so sex isn't as difficult to come by. Now my point is that prostitution acts as an 'escape valve' for these men. If this is taken away and they're left completely without sex I can begin to imagine some serious mental health problems rearing their heads, possibly in the form of violence.

Criminalising this group of men could have some serious implications I can imagine.

It's a fallacious argument to approach prostitution as something that clients are "entitled" to. No-one has a right to pay for sex. If prostitution was fully legalised, and no-one wanted to do it, what would that group do?

However, if someone wants to sell their sexual services, they should be entitled to do so

HavingCrack

28064212 wrote: »

It's a fallacious argument to approach prostitution as something that clients are "entitled" to. No-one has a right to pay for sex. If prostitution was fully legalised, and no-one wanted to do it, what would that group do?

However, if someone wants to sell their sexual services, they should be entitled to do so

Sorry I don't understand your reply?? I never said clients were 'entitled' to prostitution I pointed out that that prostitution may act as a safety valve for a certain group of men, I never said they were entitled to it.

The Corinthian

HavingCrack wrote: »

Does anyone else feel there is a certain percentage of men (not women-I'll explain below) who are completely incapable of attracting a woman normally who wants to have sex with them and so turn to prostitutes for sexual release?

I suspect the motivations are more complex and varied. I've asked myself the question of what would motivate me to do so; the above reason might be one (were I horribly disfigured in an accident), as might be if I were in a sexless marriage I could not (afford to) leave.

I could imagine other motivations that others might have too, such as some form of Peter Pan compulsion, virgin-whore complex (which stops them having any meaningful sexual relationships at home) or even because it is too impractical (due to work commitments) to date or even find a f**kbuddy. Or that they have a fetish that they cannot get fulfilled at home. And then there are motivations that no doubt I've not even considered.

Then some guys do so because they are lonely and seek the intimacy - there was an interview with one such chap on the telly some time ago - and this may explain the so-called 'girlfriend experience' that is offered by some prostitutes.

28064212 wrote: »

It's a fallacious argument to approach prostitution as something that clients are "entitled" to. No-one has a right to pay for sex. If prostitution was fully legalised, and no-one wanted to do it, what would that group do?

I think the point is that they are "entitled" to sex as a basic human right. Ideally they should not have to pay for it, but if no other means is open, what then?

It's like the question of the husband who's wife no longer wants to have sex with him. Leaving her or having an affair and getting caught would result in his losing his children and becoming financially devastated as a result of divorce. Should he simply resign himself to a life of celibacy?

HavingCrack

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suspect the motivations are more complex and varied. I've asked myself the question of what would motivate me to do so; the above reason might be one (were I horribly disfigured in an accident), as might be if I were in a sexless marriage I could not (afford to) leave.

I could imagine other motivations that others might have too, such as some form of Peter Pan compulsion, virgin-whore complex (which stops them having any meaningful sexual relationships at home) or even because it is too impractical (due to work commitments) to date or even find a f**kbuddy. Or that they have a fetish that they cannot get fulfilled at home. And then there are motivations that no doubt I've not even considered.

Then some guys do so because they are lonely and seek the intimacy - there was an interview with one such chap on the telly some time ago - and this may explain the so-called 'girlfriend experience' that is offered by some prostitutes.

I agree completely there's a wide variety of motivation for visiting prostitutes but I concentrated on that in particular because I always suspect that particular sub group of clients are possibly a danger to others if their sexual needs are unfufilled. Actually I suppose anyone who is sexually frustrated is a possible danger to others...:eek:

strobe

If I was to vote I would vote against. The reason is, I believe prostitution should be legal. For the person buying it and the person selling it.

From wiki;

the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act of 1993 prohibits soliciting or importuning another person in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution (This offence applies to prostitute and client.). It also prohibits loitering for the purpose of prostitution, organizing prostitution by controlling or directing the activities of a person in prostitution, coercing one to practice prostitution for gain, living on earnings of the prostitution of another person, and keeping a brothel or other premises for the purpose of prostitution. Advertising brothels and prostitution is prohibited by the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act of 1994.

This is apparently the law as it stands. I have no problem with the bolded section and can see good reasons as to why it would be in place. I would view the underlined part as unnecessary and pointless.

So basically if I was to change the current laws on prostitution, it would be legal for a prostitute to advertise their services. It would be legal for people to use these services. It would be legal for prostitutes to set up brothels and use them as a facility to ply their trade and it would be legal to advertise this facility. But it would be illegal to "curb crawl" and illegal to solicit people on the street for prostitution. I think this is the best middle ground.

28064212

HavingCrack wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand your reply?? I never said clients were 'entitled' to prostitution I pointed out that that prostitution may act as a safety valve for a certain group of men, I never said they were entitled to it.

Your argument was that prostitution should be available because some perople might need it. That implies that there must be prostitutes to provide such a service, regardless of whether anybody actually wants to perform such a service or not. The question of whether prostitutes can act as a safety valve or not is completely irrelevant in a discussion on legalisation.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the point is that they are "entitled" to sex as a basic human right.

They are not. If nobody (including prostitutes) wants to have sex with them, should someone be forced to provide the service?

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's like the question of the husband who's wife no longer wants to have sex with him. Leaving her or having an affair and getting caught would result in his losing his children and becoming financially devastated as a result of divorce. Should he simply resign himself to a life of celibacy?

I don't see the relevance of the analogy. He's in a no-win situation because of gender-bias in the law, which is wrong

gbee

HavingCrack wrote: »

I who is sexually frustrated is a possible danger to others...:eek:

It'd be interesting to compare sexual violence figures post and pre Lap Dancing Clubs.

Your exact argument was raised in favour of granting them a licence. I've no opinion of figure one way or the other.

One problem is that for any individual who gets release and is satisfied there would be a proportional number who would remain frustrated and possibly compounding their desires and be an even more increased risk.

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

Your argument was that prostitution should be available because some perople might need it.

I think it is patently obvious that given there is demand for it that this is the case. And where there is demand, there will be supply.

They are not. If nobody (including prostitutes) wants to have sex with them, should someone be forced to provide the service?

Who said anything about forcing anyone? I think everyone, even those in favour of the legalization of prostitution would oppose anyone being forced.

I don't see the relevance of the analogy. He's in a no-win situation because of gender-bias in the law, which is wrong

But you didn't answer the question - I take it you are happy with the poor sod remaining celibate until someone decides to change the law then?

Even if the law changes, you'll still get situations like that unless you decide to adopt a law that is biased in favour of men. What then?

gbee wrote: »

It'd be interesting to compare sexual violence figures post and pre Lap Dancing Clubs.

I'd hardly consider Lap Dancing to be a safety valve - quite the opposite. Why people pay to get blue balls is beyond me.

One problem is that for any individual who gets release and is satisfied there would be a proportional number who would remain frustrated and possibly compounding their desires and be an even more increased risk.

I'd query the validity of that opinion.

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think it is patently obvious that given there is demand for it that this is the case. And where there is demand, there will be supply.

Probably. However demand is not a valid argument for legalising anything. I'm sure there's a demand for murder, doesn't mean they should be legalised.

But if people are willing to sell, then they shouldn't be criminalised without a very good reason.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who said anything about forcing anyone? I think everyone, even those in favour of the legalization of prostitution would oppose anyone being forced.

So if no-one wants to be a prostitute (unlikely, I agree), what do those people who 'need' them do?

The Corinthian wrote: »

But you didn't answer the question - I take it you are happy with the poor sod remaining celibate until someone decides to change the law then?

Sorry, I still don't get what you're saying here. Which law? Are you saying prostitution should be legal to provide him with an outlet? Or that he has some other option I'm not seeing?

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

Probably. However demand is not a valid argument for legalising anything. I'm sure there's a demand for murder, doesn't mean they should be legalised.

I wasn't using demand as a justification for it, only as a rebuttal for your justification against it.

So if no-one wants to be a prostitute (unlikely, I agree), what do those people who 'need' them do?

It's a bit like asking what happens if no one wants to be a sanitary worker. Or a coal miner. Or a cleaner. Or a Fianna Fail candidate in the next elections.

Sorry, I still don't get what you're saying here. Which law? Are you saying prostitution should be legal to provide him with an outlet? Or that he has some other option I'm not seeing?

I'm asking what are his options? Are you suggesting he should have none? Or what would you suggest? If he cannot go to a prostitute, what do you suggest?

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wasn't using demand as a justification for it, only as a rebuttal for your justification against it.

Where did I say I was against it? I just said it wasn't a valid argument. I'm fully behind the legalisation and regulation of prostitution.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a bit like asking what happens if no one wants to be a sanitary worker. Or a coal miner. Or a cleaner. Or a Fianna Fail candidate in the next elections.

Correct. And no-one is "entitled" to sanitary workers, coal miners, cleaners or FF candidates

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm asking what are his options? Are you suggesting he should have none? Or what would you suggest? If he cannot go to a prostitute, what do you suggest?

He can't go to a prostitute anyway, whether it's legal or not. He's in the exact same position as if it was an affair. If his wife finds out, it's game over. The problem does not lie with whether prostitutes are legal or not, the problem lies with the marriage laws in this country.

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

Where did I say I was against it? I just said it wasn't a valid argument. I'm fully behind the legalisation and regulation of prostitution.

OK, I misread what you said. I agree that demand alone is not sufficient justification.

Correct. And no-one is "entitled" to sanitary workers, coal miners, cleaners or FF candidates

Again, I never said anyone was "entitled" to a prostitute, only sex. My response was not to highlight this, but to point out that your hypothetical situation is as realistic as there being none of the other roles filled.

He can't go to a prostitute anyway, whether it's legal or not. He's in the exact same position as if it was an affair. If his wife finds out, it's game over. The problem does not lie with whether prostitutes are legal or not, the problem lies with the marriage laws in this country.

Actually it's quite a different situation. A prostitute is someone he would visit at his convenience, with no strings attached. An affair has lots of strings attached and comes with far greater risks.

However, returning to my question, that remains unanswered, what do you suggest for him?

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, I never said anyone was "entitled" to a prostitute, only sex.

that's a strange one. Surely someone is only entitled to participate in a consensual sexual relationship (or act). it's not quite the same as being entitled to sex, would you agree?

parker kent

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. To use an extreme example, no number of prostitutes would have cost Paul McCartney what his wife charged him.

That is pretty insulting I imagine for many married men and women. You are referring to disfunctional marriages, not the norm.

Edit: Sorry forgot Reward cannot post again in the thread, my mistake.

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, I never said anyone was "entitled" to a prostitute, only sex. My response was not to highlight this, but to point out that your hypothetical situation is as realistic as there being none of the other roles filled.

No-one is entitled to sex. They need a partner to consent. If that consent is contingent on money being exchanged, fine, but no-one is entitled to sex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it's quite a different situation. A prostitute is someone he would visit at his convenience, with no strings attached. An affair has lots of strings attached and comes with far greater risks.

However, returning to my question, that remains unanswered, what do you suggest for him?

Not get married? A prostitute is not a solution to that problem, it's an (arguably) easier method to do something which if caught will mean he loses. It's a no-win situation, as I said earlier, and the legalisation of prostitution does nothing to rectify that

If someone wants to sell their services, whether they be sexual or otherwise, they should be allowed to (unless there's a very good reason against it, e.g. it would infringe on someone else's rights). That's the only good reason prostitution should be legalised, and the only reason that's needed

metrovelvet

28064212 wrote: »

No-one is entitled to sex. They need a partner to consent. If that consent is contingent on money being exchanged, fine, but no-one is entitled to sex


Not get married? A prostitute is not a solution to that problem, it's an (arguably) easier method to do something which if caught will mean he loses. It's a no-win situation, as I said earlier, and the legalisation of prostitution does nothing to rectify that

If someone wants to sell their services, whether they be sexual or otherwise, they should be allowed to (unless there's a very good reason against it, e.g. it would infringe on someone else's rights). That's the only good reason prostitution should be legalised, and the only reason that's needed

I fail to see how using a prostitute for adultery is less risk of causing a divorce than using a non pro.

I also dont understand what 'entitled to sex' means.

mystique150

First of all some of the views expressed on this thread are disgraceful and I am surprised that a number of posters even consider prostitution and relationships to have similar attributes. I for one am sickened to think that buying an engagement ring could be compared to buying sex with a prostitute. In my opinion the engagement ring acts as a commitment to marriage and a life together, sex is only a component of a loving relationship, prostitution is a service. Furthermore, the original post has belittled men to little more than sex starved objects that can only function in society when there is a ready supply of sex on demand! An absence of which, results in women taking over the country and the ultimate demise of men into crumbling horny wrecks. Ireland may have reached 2011 but a few men here would be better off living in the Stone Age!

Yes, something needs to be done to protect women that work in the sex industry in Ireland. First of all, as has been mentioned many women have been trafficked into Ireland and many of those women are forced into prostitution through fear. These women did not grow up aspiring to become a prostitute. In fact it would have been the last thing on their minds. Exchanging sex for cash with such a person should be a crime, the woman coerced into selling the sex should not be punished. Obviously, those involved in trafficking the women should also be targeted. Subsequently, the demand for sex with these trafficked women would reduce due to a fear of prosecution and then the number of women trafficked into Ireland would ultimately decline. In this case, the woman selling the sex has not committed a crime.

I agree that not every woman is forced to become a prostitute but those that do so generally have mitigating circumstances such as drug addictions, poverty and a history of abuse. As I said these women didn’t aspire to sell their bodies to serve men and risk themselves to disease, insult and injury. Prostitution may be the oldest trade in the world but it is one that needs legislation to protect women, foolish men and the unknowing women they then go home and sleep with!

metrovelvet

mystique150 wrote: »

First of all some of the views expressed on this thread are disgraceful and I am surprised that a number of posters even consider prostitution and relationships to have similar attributes. I for one am sickened to think that buying an engagement ring could be compared to buying sex with a prostitute. In my opinion the engagement ring acts as a commitment to marriage and a life together, sex is only a component of a loving relationship, prostitution is a service. Furthermore, the original post has belittled men to little more than sex starved objects that can only function in society when there is a ready supply of sex on demand! An absence of which, results in women taking over the country and the ultimate demise of men into crumbling horny wrecks. Ireland may have reached 2011 but a few men here would be better off living in the Stone Age!

Yes, something needs to be done to protect women that work in the sex industry in Ireland. First of all, as has been mentioned many women have been trafficked into Ireland and many of those women are forced into prostitution through fear. These women did not grow up aspiring to become a prostitute. In fact it would have been the last thing on their minds. Exchanging sex for cash with such a person should be a crime, the woman coerced into selling the sex should not be punished. Obviously, those involved in trafficking the women should also be targeted. Subsequently, the demand for sex with these trafficked women would reduce due to a fear of prosecution and then the number of women trafficked into Ireland would ultimately decline. In this case, the woman selling the sex has not committed a crime.

I agree that not every woman is forced to become a prostitute but those that do so generally have mitigating circumstances such as drug addictions, poverty and a history of abuse. As I said these women didn’t aspire to sell their bodies to serve men and risk themselves to disease, insult and injury. Prostitution may be the oldest trade in the world but it is one that needs legislation to protect women, foolish men and the unknowing women they then go home and sleep with!

Its not that they consider prostitutes and relationship similar its that they see all women as similar; urinals.

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not that they consider prostitutes and relationship similar its that they see all women as similar; urinals.

A note to you and other posters: express your opinion on the subject at hand, and not on the views of other posters. If you can't do this, don't post. The poster in question has been dealt with - and you know that - and doesnt have the right to reply, so drop it. Now.

Scanlas The 2nd

28064212 wrote: »

Actually, the problem is your position that it's some kind of one-way street of a woman trading sex for some other benefit. That's virtually never the case. Many men gain secondary benefits as well, and many women enjoy sex as much and even moreso than men do. You simplify it down to some tit-for-tat arrangement, when the reality is infinitely more complex

Saying women like sex to is a bit too simple. I believe women's sex drive on average is narrow and deeper compared to a man's. Women have the potential for much more intense sexual pleasure than men IMO. This does not negate the viewpoint that "nice girls" in essence trade sex. I believe women on average have the ability to go longer periods without sex even though they are probably more deeply sexual than men. This allows them to use sex as a sort of bargaining tool. Also I believe sex becomes a chore for many women because they can only really access the full depth of their sexuality with a minority of men. Their simply aren't enough of these men to go around so a lot of women end of feeling like sex is a chore.

I believe the above point addresses the argument that "nice girls" don't trade sex because women love sex too.

Also it has been mentioned that their are other aspects and mutual benefits to relationships as well so "nice girls" don't trade sex.

The thing is there are numerous value exchanges taking place, sex trade in a marriage say is not explicit like the trade taking place with a prostitute. Just because a man gets love, affection and the enjoyment of her company does not mean an exchange of sex for other benefits is not taking place within this mix of value exchanges. When numerous variables exist you need to look at the relationship from a macro perspective in a similar way that Reward did with his stats.

If women for a large part aren't trading on sex the question has to be asked why do so many women get angry or annoyed with women who sleep around purely for their own enjoyment? Why do they call them "sluts?

I'd like to reiterate the point that just because a sex trade takes place in a relationship does not mean the couple don't love each other and enjoy each other's company.

Taking this into account I don't think it makes sense for two grown adults not to be allowed to make the decision to exchange sex for cash.

Macha

I'd have to agree that comparisons between marriage and prostitution are quite off the mark and seem to be based on the old gendered cliche that male/female relationships revolve around men wanting sex and needing women to give it to them, regardless of the method used. Total nonsense.

The Corinthian

tbh wrote: »

that's a strange one. Surely someone is only entitled to participate in a consensual sexual relationship (or act). it's not quite the same as being entitled to sex, would you agree?

Perhaps I misworded what I meant - entitlement to freely pursue sex is a basic human right. There are plenty of basic human rights that cannot be enforced in any absolute manner; for example a right to health care or education also cannot be met if the resources are unavailable, however neither do we seek to obstruct people's right to pursue them.

Naturally you cannot force someone to supply sex to fulfill the rights of another, any more than you can force someone to teach or give medical care, however if we obstruct access to education or medical care that could be attained then we are impinging upon the rights of the person seeking them.

28064212 wrote: »

Not get married?

Not much of a solution is it, especially after the fact?

Let me put it in another context. Consider a wife, with children, in an fundamentalist Islamic culture. When she married, her husband to be appeared to be a good man, then after marrying, his character changed and he became abusive. Legally she can divorce him, but would lose her children in doing so. Would your advice there also be "not get married"?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I fail to see how using a prostitute for adultery is less risk of causing a divorce than using a non pro.

I know a chap who had an affair. Naturally the woman he was having an affair with had expectations - meeting up was not simply when it suited him and when they did, it was not simply for sex but also to conduct a relationship. Additionally, as the affair progressed, she naturally became unhappy with being 'the other woman' and one day emailed his wife to inform her of the relationship. Naturally, the marriage collapsed and he ended up divorced.

It does not take a genius to figure out that if a man does not want to or cannot leave his marriage and is only seeking sex, a prostitute is a far less risky proposition.

I'm not making a moral judgment either way on this chap's actions, only using them to highlight the practicalities.

mystique150 wrote: »

I for one am sickened to think that buying an engagement ring could be compared to buying sex with a prostitute.

Last week I was having a drink with friends and the girlfriend of one discussed when (if) her boyfriend would propose to her. She suggested that she would accept a ring that cost two months salary as opposed to the traditional three. You'll have to admit, when you hear 'haggling' like that, it does paint a less than romantic picture of the motivations of some women.

First of all, as has been mentioned many women have been trafficked into Ireland and many of those women are forced into prostitution through fear.

It's also been questioned to what degree this even happens. If you read back it was pointed out that there has actually been very little evidence found of this occurring.

These women did not grow up aspiring to become a prostitute.

A lot of people do not aspire to become a lot of things when they grow up. What's your point?

Prostitution may be the oldest trade in the world but it is one that needs legislation to protect women, foolish men and the unknowing women they then go home and sleep with!

How do you suggest you legislate for that? In the interests of fairness would you consider legislation to protect men who have their 'conjugal rights' unilaterally removed?

metrovelvet

You cant compare the choices a western male has with an Islamic woman.

You can pay for exempting yourself from expectation but that does not guarantee your wife wont find out, and she does have a right to know what kind of yucky potential diseases you are bringing home and kissing your kids good night with.

Look what happenned to Charlie Sheen.

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not much of a solution is it, especially after the fact?

Let me put it in another context. Consider a wife, with children, in an fundamentalist Islamic culture. When she married, her husband to be appeared to be a good man, then after marrying, his character changed and he became abusive. Legally she can divorce him, but would lose her children in doing so. Would your advice there also be "not get married"?

Essentially, yes. What other option is there? Hire a prostitute who'll treat her nicely for a while? What's your solution?

Legalisation of prostitution is not a solution to either of those problems. It should be legalised, but not for those reasons. The problem is with the marriage/divorce laws, those are what need to change. Your approach is akin to saying "Our health system is broken. So lets legalise black market medicine". It doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it marginally easier to perpetuate the status quo

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

You cant compare the choices a western male has with an Islamic woman.

Why not? Both are trapped in a lose-lose situation, where the law actively obstructs any just solution or even accommodation. In both cases one could glibly suggest they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.

You can pay for exempting yourself from expectation but that does not guarantee your wife wont find out, and she does have a right to know what kind of yucky potential diseases you are bringing home and kissing your kids good night with.

I never said it was a guarantee, I was simply responding to your point where you could not see a difference between an affair and a prostitute in terms of risk of getting caught.

Also, I have only been discussing one possible scenario where a man might want to go to a prostitute - where sex is denied at home and he cannot afford to leave his wife.

In such a scenario, if a wife decides unilaterally that she no longer wants to have sex (and this can happen for reasons that are of no fault of the husband), what exactly does she expect him to do? Remain celibate? Have an affair (which is frankly no guarantee that he will not get an STI there either)? Does she bare no responsibility for the position she has placed her husband in?

Certainly she has every right to decide that she no longer wants to have sex, but why is it that only a woman's rights seem to be considered in these discussions?

Look what happenned to Charlie Sheen.

What happened to Charlie Sheen? AFAIK, his marriage fell apart principally due to domestic violence and there has been no mention that his wife (or wives at this stage) had ever unilaterally decided that they did not want to have sex with him. What is the relevance?

28064212 wrote: »

Essentially, yes. What other option is there? Hire a prostitute who'll treat her nicely for a while? What's your solution?

That there is a solution or not has never been my point - prostitution in that scenario is at best an accommodation, an imperfect solution.

My point was to highlight that there's more to this debate simply than the rights of the prostitutes and wives. That it is a more complex issue than simply viewing it in a black and white approach where men are automatically presumed to be the bad guys and women are always the victims.

metrovelvet

An Islamic woman has no choice but to get married if she wants to have a sex life or children.

Western men do not have to get married to have children or a sex life. They will not get stoned to death for adultery either or for children out of wedlock.

Ridiculous comparison. Not to mention losing your child to losing a few bob.

So yeah, to the western man, dont get married. Or get a divorce in a stale marriage. Plenty do and are ok, not getting stoned to death.

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

That there is a solution or not has never been my point - prostitution in that scenario is at best an accommodation, an imperfect solution.

But it's not. It's not a solution in any way, shape or form. You could equally say that the rising levels of one-night stands is a "solution", since he could go away for a weekend and have anonymous sex in the hope that no-one in a position to do him damage finds out. It's a band-aid on a bullet to the brain, it's a fatality either way. Bringing it in to a discussion on the legalisation of prostitution simply muddies the waters of both issues, without actually bringing anything to the table

The Corinthian wrote: »

My point was to highlight that there's more to this debate simply than the rights of the prostitutes and wives. That it is a more complex issue than simply viewing it in a black and white approach where men are automatically presumed to be the bad guys and women are always the victims.

Aside from addressing specific scenarios, I don't think I've used a single gender-based pronoun. It's always been "prostitute" and "client". All prostitutes are not women. All clients are not men.

In a discussion on the legalisation of prostitution, the only important point is that if a consenting adult wants to sell a sexual service, they should be allowed to. Everything else is irrelevant

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

An Islamic woman has no choice but to get married if she wants to have a sex life or children.

Irrelevant. Both cases the person was already married with an expectation of what this entailed. Both cases this expectation was annulled unilaterally by the other party. Both cases the person is effectively trapped.

Western men do not have to get married to have children or a sex life.

Well, apparently now if they decide to have a sex life with the same woman and live with her for five years, they do need to get married - more correctly, they automatically get married in all but name.

Ridiculous comparison. Not to mention losing your child to losing a few bob.

Actually, the Islamic wife would lose her children if she divorces. The Western husband would lose a few bob and lose his children.

So yeah, to the western man, dont get married. Or get a divorce in a stale marriage. Plenty do and are ok, not getting stoned to death.

No one mentioned anyone getting stoned to death. If you're going to attack the comparison, try doing so without straw man arguments please.

28064212 wrote: »

But it's not. It's not a solution in any way, shape or form.

It's probably the closest thing to a solution though, where no other options exist. Or is celibacy the only option?

Aside from addressing specific scenarios, I don't think I've used a single gender-based pronoun. It's always been "prostitute" and "client". All prostitutes are not women. All clients are not men.

I wasn't really pointing the finger at you. Throughout this thread, the topic quickly became gender decisive, with one side generalizing that all women are de facto prostitutes and the other generalizing that all women are victims and men unjustified fiends.

In a discussion on the legalisation of prostitution, the only important point is that if a consenting adult wants to sell a sexual service, they should be allowed to. Everything else is irrelevant

Perhaps, but you'll find that some here would disagree with you. For example, even in the scenario of a woman who rejects sex with her husband, it has been pointed out that she should have rights too, even though she is not going to catch anything from her husband, precipitated the need to look elsewhere for sex and is not part of the consenting exchange.

metrovelvet

Boloney.