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

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Boloney.

Well, that well considered rebuttal put me in my place...

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

I don't think it's any more of an solution than an anonymous one-night stand and carries many of the same risks, plus one or two others (money trail), and adds nothing to the argument for prostitution

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

She should have rights too. A marriage is not just about sex. If one partner decides to unilaterally withdraw anything, it affects the marriage, be it sex, fidelity, a salary, household duties, child-minding, conception abilities, emotional connection, or simply company (or many other facets of a standard marriage, not to mention the non-standard ones).

It is an extremely rare scenario where one partner would unilaterally withdraw sex completely and deny their partner the right to go outside the marriage for it. A much more common scenario is where sex is reduced by one partner, and the partner on the receiving end unilaterally decides to withdraw fidelity.

And none of it has any place in a discussion on prostitution

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

I don't think it's any more of an solution than an anonymous one-night stand and carries many of the same risks, plus one or two others (money trail), and adds nothing to the argument for prostitution

I agree with all except for the last point, which I shall address below.

She should have rights too.

I agree and was simply responding to your claim that "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". Everything else is not irrelevant, it would seem.

It is an extremely rare scenario where one partner would unilaterally withdraw sex completely and deny their partner the right to go outside the marriage for it.

Actually, it's not as rare as you would think. If you browse through the PI forum, you'll regularly find threads from husbands where this is precisely what has occurred.

And none of it has any place in a discussion on prostitution

No, because this discussion began only considering the rights of the prostitutes. The other parties involved directly and indirectly, such as the client and potential partner/spouse of the client were not considered at all and how you can have a meaningful discussion on the subject while considering almost all involved as irrelevant, is beyond me.

metrovelvet

28064212 wrote: »

I don't think it's any more of an solution than an anonymous one-night stand and carries many of the same risks, plus one or two others (money trail), and adds nothing to the argument for prostitution


She should have rights too. A marriage is not just about sex. If one partner decides to unilaterally withdraw anything, it affects the marriage, be it sex, fidelity, a salary, household duties, child-minding, conception abilities, emotional connection, or simply company (or many other facets of a standard marriage, not to mention the non-standard ones).

It is an extremely rare scenario where one partner would unilaterally withdraw sex completely and deny their partner the right to go outside the marriage for it. A much more common scenario is where sex is reduced by one partner, and the partner on the receiving end unilaterally decides to withdraw fidelity.

And none of it has any place in a discussion on prostitution

I would agree with this entirely. If there is a sex famine or feast it would be a reflection of the state of the marriage, and there are hills and valleys in every relationship.

At the same time, perhaps the standard models and expectations of marriage need to be looked at again within the marriage rather than seeking gratification from a whore.

tbh

I would agree with this entirely. If there is a sex famine or feast it would be a reflection of the state of the marriage

ok, how about this. A couple are married for 10 years, very much in love. One partner has a health issue which leaves them unable to have sex. There is a sex famine in that marriage, and that's no reflection on the marriage itself.

What should/could the partner do in that situation?

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Boloney.

Comments like that are not acceptible in this forum - I've warned you very clearly about that. This is the last time I'll say this to you: you can make your point, if you want to. You will not ridicule someone elses point of view in this fashion again.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, that well considered rebuttal put me in my place...

Same goes for you - report the post if you have a problem with it, but this tit-for-tat sniping at each other is going to stop.

metrovelvet

tbh wrote: »

ok, how about this. A couple are married for 10 years, very much in love. One partner has a health issue which leaves them unable to have sex. There is a sex famine in that marriage, and that's no reflection on the marriage itself.

What should/could the partner do in that situation?

Ok, well I might have an eccentric view on this but however. I would hope that s/he could discuss it, and if I were the cripple in the situation, I would feel I'd have no real option but to allow for an open marriage at that point. There are risks that come with that, but then there are risks that come with long term resentment and celibacy.

Maybe adopt a policy common in gay male relationships [never more than once with the same person and never in the house.]

It might work it might not... I dont know... if they both agree that prostitutes are the way to go then so be it but a relationship with a prostitute does not bear resemblence to marriage or heterosexual relationships or a solution to problems within them. That is my main bugbear with this thread.

But.... if you are doing this to avoid an expensive divorce, that you are sticking around with someone you dont care about because you are afraid of the financial implications, that makes YOU the prostitute.

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok, well I might have an eccentric view on this but however. I would hope that s/he could discuss it, and if I were the cripple in the situation, I would feel I'd have no real option but to allow for an open marriage at that point.

so your preferred option, if you were married to me, and you couldn't have sex with me, would be for me to find someone else to have sex with.
And that person, who I'd be having sex with, would presumably be doing it for reasons other than money, since you don't want me to go to a prostitute. Maybe someone I work with, maybe a friend of ours, maybe someone I see regularly.

Can you not see how that might not be the preferred option for some people?

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, it's not as rare as you would think. If you browse through the PI forum, you'll regularly find threads from husbands where this is precisely what has occurred.

Instances where the sex has been completely taken off the table? Where there's actually been a discussion and the partner has given a flat "no" and completely denied permission to go outside the marriage?

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, because this discussion began only considering the rights of the prostitutes. The other parties involved directly and indirectly, such as the client and potential partner/spouse of the client were not considered at all and how you can have a meaningful discussion on the subject while considering almost all involved as irrelevant, is beyond me.

Does a discussion on legalisation of hotels need to include discussions on the possibility that they could be used as places to cheat on partners? Your points are for a discussion about marriage and divorce, not prostitution. If a partner goes outside the marriage, whether he goes to a prostitute or a one-night stand is completely irrelevant

28064212

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe adopt a policy common in gay male relationships [never more than once with the same person and never in the house.]

Well, there's a good oul-fashioned stereotype for you. Such a policy is common in the swinger lifestyle full-stop, it has nothing to do with the orientation of the partners.

metrovelvet wrote: »

a relationship with a prostitute does not bear resemblence to marriage or heterosexual relationships or a solution to problems within them. That is my main bugbear with this thread.

Which was the opinion of one person, who was subsequently banned from the thread.

metrovelvet wrote: »

But.... if you are doing this to avoid an expensive divorce, that you are sticking around with someone you dont care about because you are afraid of the financial implications, that makes YOU the prostitute.

It really doesn't

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok, well I might have an eccentric view on this but however. I would hope that s/he could discuss it, and if I were the cripple in the situation, I would feel I'd have no real option but to allow for an open marriage at that point. There are risks that come with that, but then there are risks that come with long term resentment and celibacy.

You might, but you'd be surprised how many would not be so open and would want to retain the right to monogamy and not provide sex. As an example, there was a thread on this on PI a while back where the wife refused even to discuss the matter - I'll see if I can find it later on.

But.... if you are doing this to avoid an expensive divorce, that you are sticking around with someone you dont care about because you are afraid of the financial implications, that makes YOU the prostitute.

Why does the very real consequence that a man will effectively lose his children (at the very least on a day to day basis, if not more) continually get ignored? Is it easier to simply focus on the financial concerns as they are easier to dismiss?

28064212 wrote: »

Instances where the sex has been completely taken off the table? Where there's actually been a discussion and the partner has given a flat "no" and completely denied permission to go outside the marriage?

Yes. It happens and more often than you'd think; other than fining examples on PI, I know at least one guy in this situation - I can't what he's done about it, but I suspect he's turned to prostitutes.

Does a discussion on legalisation of hotels need to include discussions on the possibility that they could be used as places to cheat on partners?

Straw man.

Your points are for a discussion about marriage and divorce, not prostitution.

No, the scenario I gave regard the motivations for prostitution in a manner which was not the same cliched view than men are always in the wrong, and thus is relevant. I've already explained this.

metrovelvet

tbh wrote: »

so your preferred option, if you were married to me, and you couldn't have sex with me, would be for me to find someone else to have sex with.
And that person, who I'd be having sex with, would presumably be doing it for reasons other than money, since you don't want me to go to a prostitute. Maybe someone I work with, maybe a friend of ours, maybe someone I see regularly.

Can you not see how that might not be the preferred option for some people?

Look, I don't know because I don't know and we are not married. It would all depend on the context of those things of who you are and who I am and who we are together. Its impossible to say in theory.

How long is for, is it while someone is undergoing chemo? Or is it due to disability, a stroke, or oncoming death?

But if it were reversed, I wouldn't want to see prostitutes. I'd want something else.

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes. It happens and more often than you'd think; other than fining examples on PI, I know at least one guy in this situation - I can't what he's done about it, but I suspect he's turned to prostitutes.

He has a set of choices: celibacy, divorce or go outside the marriage and hope he doesn't get caught. Unfortunately, our divorce laws are archaic, and they need to be changed. But once he goes outside the marriage, the method he uses is completely irrelevant.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Straw man.

I don't see how. You're talking about one single possible use for prostitutes that has nothing to do with whether it should be legalised

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, the scenario I gave regard the motivations for prostitution in a manner which was not the same cliched view than men are always in the wrong, and thus is relevant. I've already explained this.

I still don't see the relevance, sorry

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

He has a set of choices: celibacy, divorce or go outside the marriage and hope he doesn't get caught. Unfortunately, our divorce laws are archaic, and they need to be changed. But once he goes outside the marriage, the method he uses is completely irrelevant.

Not at all, because different methods carry different levels of risk. I already touched on this earlier.

I don't see how.

You refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and then attacking it.

I still don't see the relevance, sorry

Well, if you can't, you can't. If you want clarification, please specify where, otherwise I won't be explaining it again.

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, I don't know because I don't know and we are not married. It would all depend on the context of those things of who you are and who I am and who we are together. Its impossible to say in theory.

This is exactly the point I'm making - you don't know every situation, so you can't say that all men who use prostitutes are x or y. Some of them may have reasons for using prostitutes which you would sympathise with.

How long is for, is it while someone is undergoing chemo? Or is it due to disability, a stroke, or oncoming death?

Say it's forever. Lets say, for example, that you have a car accident on our honeymoon which leaves you unable to have sex for some reason. You're my wife and I love you, but I'm, say, 22 years old. Is it fair that I should have to choose between having an ongoing affair, say, or engaging in a relationship with someone else that was more than simply sexual and financial? Personally, I would prefer, in that situation, to be able to purchase a sexual act from someone who was aware of the facts surrounding the transaction, and able and free to decide for herself if she wanted to do it.

But if it were reversed, I wouldn't want to see prostitutes. I'd want something else.

That's fine -thats you. But if, god forbid, something happened to my wife, I wouldn't want something else. If I wanted sex, I would want there to be no feelings involved, because the feelings I have are reserved for my wife alone. I would want to abstract the sexual act from any emotional commitment, and be upfront about doing it.

28064212

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at all, because different methods carry different levels of risk. I already touched on this earlier.

But they carry the same punishment. And the risk difference is, at best, minimal

The Corinthian wrote: »

You refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and then attacking it.

Disagree with the characterisation of it, but fine, I'll drop that analogy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, if you can't, you can't. If you want clarification, please specify where, otherwise I won't be explaining it again.

Ok, based on tbh's post, I think I see the argument

tbh wrote: »

Personally, I would prefer, in that situation, to be able to purchase a sexual act from someone who was aware of the facts surrounding the transaction, and able and free to decide for herself if she wanted to do it.

You (both) are saying that because reasonable circumstances exist where prostitution would be a desirable thing to have (objectively speaking), it should be legalised, correct?

IMO, that's a complete non-argument. It doesn't negate any argument against prostitution. It's simply an explanation for demand. You might as well say murder should be legalised because the world would have been better off if Hitl... Stalin was murdered (Godwin: avoided :pac:).

metrovelvet

tbh wrote: »

This is exactly the point I'm making - you don't know every situation, so you can't say that all men who use prostitutes are x or y. Some of them may have reasons for using prostitutes which you would sympathise with.

I have not contested the right or wrongness of prostitution either in a moral framework or in a legal/practical one. I have contested the placing it on the same page as your standard heterosexual marriage relationship and using accountancy and currency to define it.

tbh wrote: »

Say it's forever. Lets say, for example, that you have a car accident on our honeymoon which leaves you unable to have sex for some reason. You're my wife and I love you, but I'm, say, 22 years old. Is it fair that I should have to choose between having an ongoing affair, say, or engaging in a relationship with someone else that was more than simply sexual and financial? Personally, I would prefer, in that situation, to be able to purchase a sexual act from someone who was aware of the facts surrounding the transaction, and able and free to decide for herself if she wanted to do it.

You are going to do that from the age of 22 for the rest of your life?

tbh wrote: »

That's fine -thats you. But if, god forbid, something happened to my wife, I wouldn't want something else. If I wanted sex, I would want there to be no feelings involved, because the feelings I have are reserved for my wife alone. I would want to abstract the sexual act from any emotional commitment, and be upfront about doing it.

Well, that's you and it demands a mind body split that not everyone can do, nor should they be expected to. Sex isn't always that tidy. Nor does sex outside of the prostitute realm mean emotions and attachment. But you would be happy enough a male prostitute banging away at your wife rather than someone who cares about her well being and is understanding of her situation with you?

metrovelvet

28064212 wrote: »

But they carry the same punishment. And the risk difference is, at best, minimal


Disagree with the characterisation of it, but fine, I'll drop that analogy.


Ok, based on tbh's post, I think I see the argument

You (both) are saying that because reasonable circumstances exist where prostitution would be a desirable thing to have (objectively speaking), it should be legalised, correct?

IMO, that's a complete non-argument. It doesn't negate any argument against prostitution. It's simply an explanation for demand. You might as well say murder should be legalised because the world would have been better off if Hitl... Stalin was murdered (Godwin: avoided :pac:).

Its true. ITs like saying because morphine helps me with pmt it should be legal.

tbh

28064212 wrote: »

You (both) are saying that because reasonable circumstances exist where prostitution would be a desirable thing to have (objectively speaking), it should be legalised, correct?

No, the reason I made that statement was to support this point:

you don't know every situation, so you can't say that all men who use prostitutes are x or y

However, comparing murder and prostitution is a flawed argument, with respect, because of the concept of consent.
If both parties freely, and under no duress, give consent to exchange money in exchange for sex, that's not quite the same as what stalin did

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

But they carry the same punishment. And the risk difference is, at best, minimal

Now this is getting ridiculous - first you claim that "the method he uses is completely irrelevant", now it's only irrelevant if we're discussing consequences, because you've decided that risk cannot be considered (for some reason) and on top of this you have presumed that the risk difference is minimal - which frankly even looking at it from a distance it's pretty obvious that such a judgment would at best be an underestimate.

You (both) are saying that because reasonable circumstances exist where prostitution would be a desirable thing to have (objectively speaking), it should be legalised, correct?

I've never said this.

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its true. ITs like saying because morphine helps me with pmt it should be legal.

morphine is legal, assuming it's prescribed by a doctor.

metrovelvet

tbh wrote: »

morphine is legal, assuming it's prescribed by a doctor.

Its not legal to prescribe morphine for periods but it is illegal for me to buy it or vicoden even though either drug might make that time of the month a hell of a lot easier for everyone, and may even save some marriages, while we are on the subject of marital assistance.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

But you would be happy enough a male prostitute banging away at your wife rather than someone who cares about her well being and is understanding of her situation with you?

I would have thought that if only for sex, the last person anyone would want to substitute you for that role is someone who actually has feelings for your spouse/partner.

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not legal to prescribe morphine for periods

that's not true. It may be irresponsible, but it's not illegal. Anyway - too far off topic already.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would have thought that if only for sex, the last person anyone would want to substitute you for that role is someone who actually has feelings for your spouse/partner.

literally could not have said it better myself.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would have thought that if only for sex, the last person anyone would want to substitute you for that role is someone who actually has feelings for your spouse/partner.

Why? Its far better and safer for them if they are cared for.

tbh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? Its far better and safer for them if they are cared for.

"better" is a subjective term, and it would probably be as safe if prostitution were legal and regulated. I mean, you're pretty safe buying any other legal commodity or service, no?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? Its far better and safer for them if they are cared for.

And far more likely that your spouse/partner will also form an emotional attachment and leave you.

With an affair, the person involved is not doing it for money. If they're already emotionally involved, they won't be doing it for the sex either. And so being the other (wo)man is not going to work for long.

This may simply mean that the affair will be short lived, but what happens if the lover decided to win over your spouse/partner? After all, they care about them and it would be natural for them to want to do so.

In short, the chances of your spouse leaving you, due to this, would be several times higher because there will be someone actively seeking them to do so. With someone who does not care (and this need not be a prostitute, btw), no such pressure or manipulation would be employed.

metrovelvet

Well there is risk in everything. But if my crippled husband insisted I see prostitutes there would be a far far greater risk of me leaving him.

caseyann

Worked in Sweden so why not here,will stop the trafficking of women also.