People who hire hookers?

hatrickpatrick

On topic, personally I find the idea of sex with a woman who's doing it for any reason other than finding me hot and wanting to enjoy the pleasure of it ridiculously depressing. One of the reasons for instance that I've never understood the people who give ultimatums in sexless relationships - IMO, if the only way you can convince your girlfriend to sleep with you is by telling her it's the only way to save your relationship, your relationship is already over. Who honestly enjoys sex with a woman who's simply going through the motions in order to get something from you (be it money, a continuing relationship, whatever) instead of because you're rocking her f*cking world?

I don't think anything consensual can be morally wrong, but I'm just saying if you can't get sex, personally I'd imagine sorting yourself out while fantasising about sex with a woman who's enjoying it and is physically infatuated with you would be far more enjoyable than actual sex with a woman who's bored at best and actively not enjoying herself at worst. That's just me though.

That's not to suggest that there are no prostitutes who really enjoy the sex and aren't just essentially actresses, but I'm presuming they are in the minority.

Lyaiera

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not unworthy, just don't trust them.

With the consequences of marriage being so punitive for men specifically, there's been a move in Western society twoards what has been called a marriage strike as more and more men simply refuse to get into a legally binding situation that could be devastating to them down the line.

It's not that visible in Ireland yet, where divorce is still only about 16% (same odds as losing a game of Russian roulette, btw), but it's a serious concern elsewhere (where I live it's over 50%). And it's getting worse which is why some countries are introducing cohabitation laws that force people into a form of that legally binding situation once they've been living together long enough. So men are increasingly opting out.

So it is depressing, I agree, but that's what happens when you seek equality by only improving the situation for one gender.

Good for them. If they don't want a relationship they shouldn't have one. It's win/win for everyone.

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

Good for them. If they don't want a relationship they shouldn't have one. It's win/win for everyone.

No one said they don't want a relationship, they just don't want a relationship which involves a one-sided contract. Personally I reckon unmarried couples are more likely to have healthy relationships as you can't take somebody for granted when they can easily dump you for f*cking things up, but that's just my opinion. I know I'd never get lazy in a relationship if she could dump me no hassle and find someone who treated her right.

Lyaiera

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No one said they don't want a relationship, they just don't want a relationship which involves a one-sided contract. Personally I reckon unmarried couples are more likely to have healthy relationships as you can't take somebody for granted when they can easily dump you for f*cking things up, but that's just my opinion. I know I'd never get lazy in a relationship if she could dump me no hassle and find someone who treated her right.

How is it a one-sided contract? It's pretty clearly set out, if one person in the relationship is supported (and needs continued support) they will be awarded continued support from the other person. If no-one needs support, no-one will be awarded continued support. If the relationship didn't last very long this will also be balanced.

Playboy

Mostly men use hookers... Criminalise it

Mostly men are breadwinners/higher earners - divorce? hand over the cash and the kids thanks

See a pattern?

Man sees hooker because wife won't sleep with him. Mans life is ruined if caught.. Criminal record, divorce, limited access to kids, support wife and kids, gets fired due to criminal record when he actually needs two jobs to pay for his family and himself. It's a pretty harsh sentence for someone who just wanted some intimacy and reached a consenual agreement with another adult.

Cienciano

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

On topic, personally I find the idea of sex with a woman who's doing it for any reason other than finding me hot and wanting to enjoy the pleasure of it ridiculously depressing. One of the reasons for instance that I've never understood the people who give ultimatums in sexless relationships - IMO, if the only way you can convince your girlfriend to sleep with you is by telling her it's the only way to save your relationship, your relationship is already over. Who honestly enjoys sex with a woman who's simply going through the motions in order to get something from you (be it money, a continuing relationship, whatever) instead of because you're rocking her f*cking world?

I don't think anything consensual can be morally wrong, but I'm just saying if you can't get sex, personally I'd imagine sorting yourself out while fantasising about sex with a woman who's enjoying it and is physically infatuated with you would be far more enjoyable than actual sex with a woman who's bored at best and actively not enjoying herself at worst. That's just me though.

That's not to suggest that there are no prostitutes who really enjoy the sex and aren't just essentially actresses, but I'm presuming they are in the minority.

Different people enjoy different things. Some people think a one night stand is disgusting. As long as both adults are consenting, it doesn't matter.

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

How is it a one-sided contract? It's pretty clearly set out, if one person in the relationship is supported (and needs continued support) they will be awarded continued support from the other person. If no-one needs support, no-one will be awarded continued support. If the relationship didn't last very long this will also be balanced.

That's exactly the problem though. You can marry someone for support, then cheat on them or treat them like crap, dump them, and keep the perks of being with them without actually having to be with them.
I think most would agree that in that scenario, one person is getting royally screwed over. If someone cheats on you, you should be able to end your involvement with them, no questions asked. That's my view anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Cienciano wrote: »

Different people enjoy different things. Some people think a one night stand is disgusting. As long as both adults are consenting, it doesn't matter.

Sure, I'm just saying that for me, sex with someone who isn't having their mind blown by pleasure is fairly boring and I'd much rather do it with someone who's genuinely into it.

gormdubhgorm

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, because trafficked prostitutes are really getting paid €200 an hour....

The truth is not all prostitutes are trafficked there are a lot who are just normal every day girls, some even third level educated. The Ruhama agenda is an ultra catholic one and wants to portray men and women in a certain light.

Alexis Sanchez2

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The truth is not all prostitutes are trafficked there are a lot who are just normal every day girls, some even third level educated. The Ruhama agenda is an ultra catholic one and wants to portray men and women in a certain light.

It's very rare that any evidence of trafficking is found after thorough investigations have been done all over Europe.

LorMal

Littlekittylou wrote: »

We live in a graceless culture but not a graceless world.

Cornucopia of Heaven From death,
from fire, from quake, from anguish
From drought that blocks, from self that locks,
From sin, from toil, from pride, from hate,
From plenty turned to nothing, starving,
From world rebelling, fair made foul
Christe eleison,Sing, creation.
Sing, dead bones,
Long for what has died to live.

This too will pass.

What do you think of the people you are asking the question to?

People who hire hookers. Well I have stereotypes and perceptions.

But I am not fake good ..I am really trying to be good. That makes conclusions harder.

Must admit kitty, the more I read your posts, the more I like you. This one is bizarre - Palestrina’s Kyrie Eleison??

dark crystal

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The truth is not all prostitutes are trafficked there are a lot who are just normal every day girls, some even third level educated. The Ruhama agenda is an ultra catholic one and wants to portray men and women in a certain light.

Of course. I never said all prostitutes were trafficked.

Steve_Carella

I am a person who has paid for sex. I've done it before. more than once, and I'll probably do it again. Why? Because I have no choice. I'm a single man in my mid 40s who has not been blessed with good looks. I have a lot of things going for me but unfortunately my looks are the stumbling block - and it's a big stumbling block. It's nearly ten years since a woman has wanted to be with me so my options are quite simply pay for sex or go without. For me, paying for it is the lesser of two evils. It's a pretty basic release. There's no connection, there's no feeling and it's far from ideal. But needs must, and it's a service like any other. Unsatisfying sex or no sex? 99 times out of 100 I'll go the no sex route. But not every single time.

So as long as nobody is being harmed and it's taking place between two consenting adults, then I see no difference between it and any other situation where services are exchanged for payment.

ceadaoin.

Playboy wrote: »

Mostly men use hookers... Criminalise it

Mostly men are breadwinners/higher earners - divorce? hand over the cash and the kids thanks

See a pattern?

Man sees hooker because wife won't sleep with him. Mans life is ruined if caught.. Criminal record, divorce, limited access to kids, support wife and kids, gets fired due to criminal record when he actually needs two jobs to pay for his family and himself. It's a pretty harsh sentence for someone who just wanted some intimacy and reached a consenual agreement with another adult.

He had already made a consensual agreement not to seek intimacy with someone else, it's called marriage. Do you think men shouldn't have to support their kids if their marriage ends? The 'main breadwinner' as you say leaves and the family should be made destitute is how it should be?

hatrickpatrick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He had already made a consensual agreement not to seek intimacy with someone else, it's called marriage. Do you think men shouldn't have to support their kids if their marriage ends? The 'main breadwinner' as you say leaves and the family should be made destitute is how it should be?

Surely it depends why he leaves? Kids shouldn't suffer I agree, but I don't see why anyone should have to continue supporting an unfaithful partner. Financial security is just a byproduct of being in a relationship with someone, if you throw away the relationship it should also mean you throw away that security. Otherwise, you leave people wide open to being exploited.

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely it depends why he leaves? Kids shouldn't suffer I agree, but I don't see why anyone should have to continue supporting an unfaithful partner. Financial security is just a byproduct of being in a relationship with someone, if you throw away the relationship it should also mean you throw away that security. Otherwise, you leave people wide open to being exploited.

A person should have to support their kids regardless of why the marriage ends surely? With regards to spousal support, that would depend on the circumstances. I don't know how often that is awarded? Is it not usually just for a set period to allow the other person to find a means of supporting themselves? The fact is though, many women's careers end up taking a backseat once kids come along. Even more so when the partner is a high earner as those type of jobs often entail long hours and trips abroad which just isn't compatible with full on 50/50 parenting. I think the cases of women marrying a man simply to be supported are few and far between. Usually it just ends up that way.

The Corinthian

Lyaiera wrote: »

Good for them. If they don't want a relationship they shouldn't have one. It's win/win for everyone.

That's a daft response, TBH.

Other than the fact that you would interpret what I wrote as men not wanting relationships shows you didn't actually understand what I wrote, I think you need to do the math.

If out of ten people - five men and five women - who would previously have wanted to marry and start a family, two men elect not to, that leaves two women with no available husband-to-be.

Women will, and already are, inevitably losing out because the pool of men even willing to marry, let alone with them, has shrunk to well below the number needed to cater for the pool of women willing to marry. That is the growing reality.

Still a win-win?

Lyaiera wrote: »

How is it a one-sided contract? It's pretty clearly set out, if one person in the relationship is supported (and needs continued support) they will be awarded continued support from the other person. If no-one needs support, no-one will be awarded continued support. If the relationship didn't last very long this will also be balanced.

Sure, never works out one-sided at all...

Saralee4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surely it depends why he leaves? Kids shouldn't suffer I agree, but I don't see why anyone should have to continue supporting an unfaithful partner. Financial security is just a byproduct of being in a relationship with someone, if you throw away the relationship it should also mean you throw away that security. Otherwise, you leave people wide open to being exploited.

The end of a marriage is rarely black and white. It is rare that you will get someone being unfaithful in a completely happy marriage.

How do you know why the person was unfaithful? While being unfaithful is not the right thing to do in a marriage, sometimes people for reasons within the marriage will turn to someone else for comfort. Every situation is going to be different.

Say for example, woman refuses her husband sex for 5 years. Or a man is cold and abusive to wife and she feels unloved for many years or even a husband has an affair and the wife forgives him, a couple of years later the wife has an affair and the husband just can't get past it so they divorce. It's not as simple as blaming one person.

Alexis Sanchez2

Saralee4 wrote: »

The end of a marriage is rarely black and white. It is rare that you will get someone being unfaithful in a completely happy marriage.

How do you know why the person was unfaithful? While being unfaithful is not the right thing to do in a marriage, sometimes people for reasons within the marriage will turn to someone else for comfort. Every situation is going to be different.

Say for example, woman refuses her husband sex for 5 years. Or a man is cold and abusive to wife and she feels unloved for many years or even a husband has an affair and the wife forgives him, a couple of years later the wife has an affair and the husband just can't get past it so they divorce. It's not as simple as blaming one person.

You will need to define what a "completely happy" marriage is. On what basis do you think people aren't unfaithful in the so called completely happy marriage?

FTA69

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He had already made a consensual agreement not to seek intimacy with someone else, it's called marriage.

Ha! There are loads of people trapped in utterly loveless and sexless marriages and your solution is to adopt the black-and-white moralising of the sanctity of marriage? Regardless of the dubious moral grounding of your point, it's just totally unrealistic to expect things like affairs etc not to come up in situations where men and women are left feeling completely unloved.

It's very easy to be judgemental when you're not in that situation yourself.

LDN_Irish

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You shouldn't. But for obvious reasons the poster doesn't want to link to an escorts service. That would be against the rules of most forums and I'm guessing this one isn't an exception.

I've no dog in this race and because you're so reluctant to Google it, I've done it for you and there are 406 escorts advertised on the site in Dublin alone.

well said, wtf!!! I think access to that site is now illegal anyway or may be.. provide a link?? give over will ya. sure anyone who watched prime time in the last year will not only know of said 400 hookers in Dublin alone, but you'll see undercover stings which even visit same hookers. also during that primetime show, the escort Ireland site went down apparently for people googling on their I phones, laptops, I pads..ha ha ha ha

The Corinthian

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He had already made a consensual agreement not to seek intimacy with someone else, it's called marriage.

Actually, it used to work both ways - he made a consensual agreement not to seek intimacy with someone else, but she made a consensual agreement that he would receive it with her.

Of course the rules changed and the latter was dropped so as to eliminate the blight of marital rape, however the former expectation somehow remained.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

A person should have to support their kids regardless of why the marriage ends surely?

This is actually already the case. Child maintenance is separate to spousal maintenance and is the same regardless of whether one was married or not.

With regards to spousal support, that would depend on the circumstances. I don't know how often that is awarded? Is it not usually just for a set period to allow the other person to find a means of supporting themselves?

No, it's not temporary. Spousal maintenance continues until either the former spouse receiving it remarries or either dies. Additionally you can go back to the well, as it were, forever too - this particular case in the US raised more than a few eyebrows, but the same legal principle applies in Ireland.

As to assets, it should be noted also that countries that have inherited English common law also allow for claims by a spouse on assets that predate the marriage. This means that you could have bought a house, paid it off, then married, they move in and your spouse will be entitled to claim towards that property. This often presents a serious issue where it comes to farms, that may have been inherited, long before the marriage.

Another point is the onus on the 'provider' in the relationship to maintain the former spouse to the same level of lifestyle as during the marriage. Of course, this is often not possible, but this onus remains, implying a need by the 'provider' to make an extra sacrifice towards this end.

It should be further noted that the onus to maintain the former spouse to the same level of lifestyle is not reciprocated; if the other party was a 'homemaker', there is no onus on them to compensate for the loss of their services.

Add children to the mix and the party with custody of the children (the mother 92% of the time) will get possession of the family home and effectively not be expected to get a job (if in receipt of social welfare there may be pressure on her to do so once the children reach a certain age, but if not she can stay at home as long as she likes as the onus on the 'provider' in the relationship to maintain the former spouse to the same level of lifestyle as during the marriage.

The fact is though, many women's careers end up taking a backseat once kids come along. Even more so when the partner is a high earner as those type of jobs often entail long hours and trips abroad which just isn't compatible with full on 50/50 parenting. I think the cases of women marrying a man simply to be supported are few and far between. Usually it just ends up that way.

Why does it end up that way though?

To suggest that women are forced into that role would be dishonest. For a start it ignores the biases in law that literally force men to have to make a case in court just to have visitation rights to their children. Or for all the social pressures on women to care for the children, you can hardly ignore the social pressures on men to be good 'providers'.

And then there are our own attitudes; both men who assume that it will be the woman who'll do the bulk of the child care and women who assume the same.

Over the years, I found that the topic of who would stay at home to care for any future kids would crop up in relationships I've been in. I've mooted that I could, also because I would be in a much better position to still work freelance from home. In all but one case this was rejected out of hand, once as if the idea of a father being at home with the kids was a ridiculous notion.

So, to a degree, if that's the spouse's choice despite an alternative, it's a bit much to suggest that she was forced into it and should be compensated.

But overall, as you can see from the above and the link from my previous post, marriage really does not look terribly attractive to men any more. I'll fully admit that the reverse was once true, but reform has been one-sided and this has resulted in an institution that men are increasingly opting out of.

There appears to be some attitude by some that it's good ridends to such men, or the problem is with them for not wanting to put themselves in that sort of situation, but frankly such criticisms are the product of immature idiots who want to have their cake and eat it and are pissed that some men have elected not to play by those rules.

Not all women are like this, and many find disgusting how the system has evolved, but unfortunately they appear to be eclipsed by those who think otherwise in the media and politics.

nokia69

is 400 a lot for a city of Dublins size

Frank O. Pinion

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Care to provide a link?

Like others have said it's very easy to go to the Escort Ireland site and see for yourself. But, as you seem to have a problem with doing so, according to that site there's 380 escorts in Dublin alone currently available for your entertainment.

Mallagio

Escort Ireland..... mate of mine used that for the first time last year, he went to the apartment a few minutes before his time and was let in by a heavy.

Bird walked out looking the part bar the oversized bulge in her knickers lol, mate somehow excused himself without a kicking from the heavy !!

mariaalice

The reason why some one night stands are often the start of a life long relationship is because both parties entered the sexual encounter with an openness's to the......I - you and not I - it, in other words the possibility of love. I realism most of the time its just about sex.

The death Nell of any relationship is cynicism and contempt and what make someone cynical in the first place?

Where does the development of the thinking that every relationship is some thing that has to be paid for and or a burden or a nuisance come from.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

Where does the development of the thinking that every relationship is some thing that has to be paid for and or a burden or a nuisance come from.

From all but the last century or so of human history.

Life isn't a RomCom.

mariaalice

Sindrole wrote: »

What does cynicism mean to you? When I hear people use the term I think they are usually just naive to reality.

That's very difficult one to answer as regards intimate relationship's this is the way I see it.

Say in a marriage one of he couple gets Multiple sclerosis and the other in he relationship ends up having to care for the sick spouse for many years, The cynic will say its only guilt that's keeping them in that relationship not love because the cynic is often closed off to the possibility love existing in such a situation as they often view intimate relationships as a ..what's in it for me and that their only view of relationships.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

Say in a marriage one of he couple gets Multiple sclerosis and the other in he relationship ends up having to care for the sick spouse for many years, The cynic will say its only guilt that's keeping them in that relationship not love because the cynic is often closed off to the possibility love existing in such a situation as they often view intimate relationships as a ..what's in it for me and that their only view of relationships.

No one has closed off the possibility of love. If someone is in a relationship, then love is more than likely a large part of it (extreme cynicism aside). They will take care of the other person for love, not because family law says they have to.

What is closed off is the myth of happily ever after. People fall out of love, even though they once were in it.

It is not naive to believe in love. It is naive to believe it will always last forever.

galljga1

Escort Ireland: bit of an eye opener to me. The nearest one to me is in Kilcock. Not exactly a great place for an escort to set up camp.