Man, 65, convicted of purchasing sex in landmark prostitution case

One eyed Jack

^ reason, logic and I would add the basic rules of courteous conversation and debate alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At the risk of offending your sensitivities, I’m simply going to point out to you one fact which you appear to be constantly overlooking - I am the arbiter of what I consider is complete nonsense, not you, and so when I am of the opinion that you’re talking complete nonsense, your opinion that you’re making any sense, is simply adding to the same nonsense.

Yet this is a discussion form - regardless of how much you try to dodge out of discussion. Not a blog site. If you can't show something to be nonsense then your opinion is no more relevant here than those you deride others for having. As if somehow everyone else is expressing opinions but you are the keeper of reality.

You are just dodging here. Simple as. If you want to return to the topic of the actual thread rather than this tangent of personal nothingness - I will be here.

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly what the new law is intended to do though. It doesn’t criminalise people for selling themselves any more, it now criminalises bad people who want to exploit and abuse people who want to sell themselves.

Think of it like this - the Gardaí have better things to be doing than raiding the homes of people who are discreet about their business. They’re aware of the business, and as long as everyone is discreet about it, Gardaí and detectives turn a blind eye. When it becomes an issue however is when there are groups of strangers turning up in the neighbourhood like it’s an Airbnb, or there are a group of women holed up in a dingy flat that’s uninhabitable, and every so often they’re moved out and a new group of ‘tenants’ are moved in, and the neighbours smell something fishy going on because they are drawing attention to themselves.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of resources for Gardaí and detectives to investigate what’s going on, because they have numerous records of neighbours complaints, enough to build up a profile where 9 times out of 10 they’re fairly confident of what’s going on in the property.

Buyers aren't trying to exploit someone. they're trying to hire a service. Traffickers etc expolit women. Now there will be some buyer who doesn't care. And I'm not defending them. However at the moment every buyer is a criminal.

I think the best way to go is to have stricter laws on coercion and trafficking, greater resources for women who are trafficked, and either decriminalisation of the industry or regulation which creates safer environments.

One eyed Jack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ah seriously your really not winning this debate at all, your "arguments" are awful. I dont even need to point out the stupid contradiction in the above sentence

What debate? This isn’t a debate? It’s about as meaningful a discussion as the Prime Time programme that was on recently about transgenderism - i.e - it’s After Hours, not the Humanities forum or the Legal Discussion forum. There’s no contradiction in what I said btw, there may be a misunderstanding of what I said on your part though. It’s very simple - the law doesn’t criminalise prostitutes, it criminalises people who use prostitutes.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the law doesn’t criminalise prostitutes, it criminalises people who use prostitutes.

See that is now at least accurate and true. Much better than your previous nonsense of "it now criminalises bad people who want to exploit and abuse people who want to sell themselves".

As I said we already have laws against abuse. And against trafficking. And against many forms of exploitation. And against violence. And against rape.

What this law does therefore is criminalize those who were not already criminals under the laws above - people who simply want to have sex and pay for it without abusing or exploiting anyone.

Which likely makes no sense to those who simply think the moment you pay for it it is automatically abuse and-or exploitation. But that itself is a total nonsense position based on nothing but holier than thou sexual morality.

One eyed Jack

Grayson wrote: »

Buyers aren't trying to exploit someone. they're trying to hire a service. Traffickers etc expolit women. Now there will be some buyer who doesn't care. And I'm not defending them. However at the moment every buyer is a criminal.

We disagree there - they’re generally trying to exploit someone who they know needs the the cash.

I think the best way to go is to have stricter laws on coercion and trafficking, greater resources for women who are trafficked, and either decriminalisation of the industry or regulation which creates safer environments.

We have strict laws on coercion and trafficking already, and we already had strict laws on prostitution. They’ve just gotten better is all where the intent is to protect people from other people who wish to exploit their circumstances. Decriminalisation and regulation doesn’t create safer environments, it creates super-brothels and encourages sex-trade tourism.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We disagree there - they’re generally trying to exploit someone who they know needs the the cash.

Only the same way as we do when we hire a masseuse or a plumber or any other service or trade. We require something of someone else - who is doing it for the money - and we are happy to give them the money to do it.

No matter how many times you are asked you simply can not answer the simple question of why sex work is different from all the rest. That magic penis wand again I guess.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Decriminalisation and regulation doesn’t create safer environments, it creates super-brothels and encourages sex-trade tourism.

Neither of which are - even if likely at all rather than just your opinion from nothing - automatically bad things. You say them as if they are. But why should we think so?

Austria!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Think of it like this - the Gardaí have better things to be doing than raiding the homes of people who are discreet about their business. They’re aware of the business, and as long as everyone is discreet about it, Gardaí and detectives turn a blind eye.

Is a law that good when even its supporters seem to admit it's better if it's not usually enforced?

One eyed Jack

Austria! wrote: »

Is a law that good when even its supporters seem to admit it's better if it's not usually enforced?

It’s good that it exists. I never said anything about it being better that it’s not enforced, I would rather it didn’t need to be enforced, but obviously when it’s a matter where the the law in the area is found to be lacking, then it’s a good idea to make laws to remove doubt where people imagine the law doesn’t apply to them or they are above the law.

professore

https://valerietarico.com/2016/01/23/15-screwed-up-catholic-ideas-that-may-affect-your-sex-life-even-if-youre-not-religious/

This is the worldview ....

Seems that the good ole 3rd wave feminists like Zappone took out the rules that affected women and doubled down on the ones affecting men.

Austria!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s good that it exists. I never said anything about it being better that it’s not enforced, I

Ok sorry. What was your point about how it wouldn't usually be enfored in the bit I quoted?

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

As if somehow everyone else is expressing opinions but you are the keeper of reality.

Ah jaysus. Don't go there....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We disagree there - they’re generally trying to exploit someone who they know needs the the cash.

Every employer knows their employees need cash.

The rest of your post is just the same empty unevidenced assertions repeated yet again. Think we've reached the end of the road with that sort of vacuous posting tbh.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah jaysus. Don't go there....

He can go there all he likes, it still won’t change the reality that I think his opinions are nonsense. I also don’t harbour any illusions that the feeling isn’t mutual.

Every employer knows their employees need cash.

The rest of your post is just the same empty unevidenced assertions repeated yet again. Think we've reached the end of the road with that sort of vacuous posting tbh.

The employer/employee relationship is nothing like a prostitute and the people who use prostitutes? Or were you making the comparison to the relationship between a pimp and their prostitutes? I’m absolutely certain the idea of a fair days pay for a fair days work doesn’t apply in the latter, whatever about the former. There are so many numerous differences in regular employment that do not exist in the prostitution industry that to try and compare the two as though there is any equivalencies whatsoever is just silly.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He can go there all he likes, it still won’t change the reality that I think his opinions are nonsense. I also don’t harbour any illusions that the feeling isn’t mutual.

whooooooosh

The employer/employee relationship is nothing like a prostitute and the people who use prostitutes? Or were you making the comparison to the relationship between a pimp and their prostitutes? I’m absolutely certain the idea of a fair days pay for a fair days work doesn’t apply in the latter, whatever about the former. There are so many numerous differences in regular employment that do not exist in the prostitution industry that to try and compare the two as though there is any equivalencies whatsoever is just silly.

I prostitute myself for my employer 5 days a week, it just doesn't involve my genitals.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

the penis is a magic wand that literally changes reality.

That's always been my chat up line anyway:D

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I prostitute myself for my employer 5 days a week, it just doesn't involve my genitals.

I love the way you try and slip that in as though it’s only a trivial difference :pac:

And then you want to make wisecrackers about how I appear to have a poor grasp of reality. Jog on lads.

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I love the way you try and slip that in as though it’s only a trivial difference :pac:

And then you want to make wisecrackers about how I appear to have a poor grasp of reality. Jog on lads.

Not everyone has such a puritanical uptight view of sex as you do. Do you read a chapter of the Bible before having sex with your wife?

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

Not everyone has such a puritanical uptight view of sex as you do. Do you read a chapter of the Bible before having sex with your wife?

I don’t know where you pulled that idea from? Not sure I want to know tbh, you’d still think I had puritanical views about sex if I said it.

Here’s the thing though, who is more likely to have puritanical views about sex - the guy who doesn’t have any fear about telling a girl what gets him off, or the guy who pays a prostitute to do what he says and don’t judge him and keep it to herself so he can maintain his public image of respectability and virtue?

StereoSound

He should have went to Thailand

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He can go there all he likes, it still won’t change the reality that I think his opinions are nonsense. I also don’t harbour any illusions that the feeling isn’t mutual.

Indeed which is why a different measure is required. And one useful one is the fact that I appear to be capable of not just calling your positions nonsense - as you do mine - but actively explaining how and why they are - which you refuse to do in return.

This is no small difference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The employer/employee relationship is nothing like a prostitute and the people who use prostitutes?

They are not identical but it is another example of your nonsense to declare them "nothing like" each other. However there are better analogies to be used but alas you have mostly ignored those.

The one used often - including by me - is people offering free lance massage. There is a number of reasons this is a useful analogy. Firstly the free lance aspect makes their pay structure similar. Secondly it is useful because in both lines of work they might be compelled by money to take on a client that is repulsive to them. Thirdly the analogy is useful because in both cases the worker is using parts of their body to manipulate - usually but not always in pleasurable ways - the body of the client to the point sometimes the _only_ difference is that the genitals are involved in one and not the other.

So the question becomes - the specific question you refuse to even attempt to answer so far - why is it "abuse and exploitation" to pay one but not the other to do their work? And the answer in the absence of you actually offering one _seems_ to be nothing more than you personal moral high horsing about sex and what forms of sex _you_ personally approve of.

Finally you keep railing on pimps a lot but no one - not just you so not singling you you _this_ time at all - is offering any data on their prevalence or role specifically in Irish Sex Worker Society. However I am also unclear what people specifically mean by "pimp" or why they are automatically a bad thing. I suspect that - much like you contrive openly to do with sex work - people are taking the worst examples of "pimp" and acting like it represents the whole. There are genuine services an _honest_ pimp could offer assuming they do not extract an extortionate fee for them or engage in any form or coercion or abuse.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I love the way you try and slip that in as though it’s only a trivial difference

Mora accurately I think he is putting in openly to highlight the way _you_ are slipping that distinction in as if it is in every case _more_ than a trivial difference. When in fact the only difference is _your_ personal opinion on what sex is and should be and which types of sex you personally approve of.

It is you thinking it is non-trivial and then projecting that onto sex work and sex workers who do not at all share your opinion - that is the core source of what makes your nonsense nonsense. Not just my simply calling it nonsense, as is your MO.

Jog on indeed.

Well First Off...

All the more reason to start learning PUA!

Well First Off...

paleoperson wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-65-convicted-of-purchasing-sex-in-landmark-prostitution-case-899086.html

And whose fault is that when you're the ones who made it highly illegal and trying to scare off less criminal people even more, durrr?! You don't have criminal gangs running boxing clubs because boxing isn't illegal.

Is there any possible legitimate reason why prostitution should be illegal?

How was he busted?

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know where you pulled that idea from? Not sure I want to know tbh, you’d still think I had puritanical views about sex if I said it.

Here’s the thing though, who is more likely to have puritanical views about sex - the guy who doesn’t have any fear about telling a girl what gets him off, or the guy who pays a prostitute to do what he says and don’t judge him and keep it to herself so he can maintain his public image of respectability and virtue?

A guy who thinks all women detest sex except in the context of a "loving" relationship with a guy who worships them - when the opposite is often true. The plot of 50 shades is basically prostitution and rough sex. Many relationships are an exchange of sex for resources. Prostitution is just a more honest acknowledgement of that.

If you don't believe this quit your job and try "finding yourself" and see how quickly your partner is turned off. It doesn't work like that if the woman does it.

You will say I'm cynical but I used to be like you until life showed me otherwise. You are probably young and inexperienced so I was probably unduly harsh on you.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

A guy who thinks all women detest sex except in the context of a "loving" relationship with a guy who worships them - when the opposite is often true. The plot of 50 shades is basically prostitution and rough sex. Many relationships are an exchange of sex for resources. Prostitution is just a more honest acknowledgement of that.

If you don't believe this quit your job and try "finding yourself" and see how quickly your partner is turned off. It doesn't work like that if the woman does it.

You will say I'm cynical but I used to be like you until life showed me otherwise. You are probably young and inexperienced so I was probably unduly harsh on you.

You’re not being harsh at all prof, I’m not that sensitive, you’re still wrong though. I don’t know what your experiences are like but I can understand why you’d be cynical whereas I wouldn’t be - because our attitudes to other people and our experiences differ greatly. I used hear that “marriage is just legalised prostitution” stuff when I was a teenager, coming from other teenagers. I know you’re not a teenager and you have daughters of your own. I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t regard them in the same company as prostitutes if they ever get married.

You say “it doesn’t work like that” if the woman quits her job to pursue her dreams. You’re right, it doesn’t work like that. What usually happens is that women quit work to raise the couples children and they’re often simply too exhausted to have sex. They’d love to have sex, they regularly fantasise about it, as is evidenced not just by sales of 50 shades, but by the huge increase in recent years of sex toys for women, but they just don’t have the energy or the interest to go at it full throttle.

To be perfectly honest with you, I’ve been married, now I’m separated after 20 years together, and it had nothing to do with anything lacking in the bedroom or me quitting any of my previous jobs or career changes. Throughout that time my wife worked in the home and raised our son, and now we’re separated I have no issues whatsoever with supporting her financially and in any other way I can while she pursues further education at third level. It’s also a good example to set for our son that his parents aren’t bitter, cynical, miserable people whose lives and attitudes to life and how we treat other people doesn’t revolve around money.

Guy:Incognito

Information is more accessible than ever. The people saying that there are no happy prostitutes and they are all victims of trafficking can head to Twitter. Theres plenty in there. Irish based that they could ask.

Well First Off...

So are all those women on EscortsIreland actually undercover?

sbsquarepants

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every employer knows their employees need cash.
.

Exactly, nobody disputes this or thinks it's in any way morally reprehensible in any line of work other than sex work.

Personal example - I'm not a car person, my car was due the NCT a few weeks ago and was barely visible beneath the dirt. I couldn't be arsed washing it, so I paid some Romanian lad behind the garage near where I live to do it, while me and my daughter sat it in eating crisps!

Did I "exploit" him? You could argue that I did, but he was happy with the money and I was happy with the clean car. I would say I didn't. I paid him for a service, he didn't "want" to do it, I didn't care - that's why I had to pay him. The flip side is I didn't want to pay him, but he wouldn't do it for free! We compromised and came to an arrangement we could both live with, so no problem as far as I'm concerned.

Now if instead of a dirty car, I had a raging horn, and if instead of a power washer he had a fanny. What morally would be the difference in the transaction.

I can't see one. If any one else can feel free to point it out to me!

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I love the way you try and slip that in as though it’s only a trivial difference :pac:

Whereas god botherers are obsessed with other people's genitalia and what consenting adults do with them. :rolleyes:

And then you want to make wisecrackers about how I appear to have a poor grasp of reality. Jog on lads.

It was actually a crack at another sex-obsessed god botherer who thankfully hasn't posted in this thread yet.

Ulysses Gaze

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

whooooooosh




I prostitute myself for my employer 5 days a week, it just doesn't involve my genitals.

Depends whether or not you have an employer that busts your balls on a regular basis.

Also with the death of overtime, you can't even charge for "extras" now.

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know you’re not a teenager and you have daughters of your own. I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t regard them in the same company as prostitutes if they ever get married.

I know they will be looking for a man who is making a good living above everything else.

You say “it doesn’t work like that” if the woman quits her job to pursue her dreams. You’re right, it doesn’t work like that. What usually happens is that women quit work to raise the couples children and they’re often simply too exhausted to have sex. They’d love to have sex, they regularly fantasise about it, as is evidenced not just by sales of 50 shades, but by the huge increase in recent years of sex toys for women, but they just don’t have the energy or the interest to go at it full throttle.

Not buying that part... The attraction dies. Plain and simple. Any and every excuse is made. When another man comes on the scene - or if another woman shows interest in her man watch how "too tired" goes out the window.

To be perfectly honest with you, I’ve been married, now I’m separated after 20 years together, and it had nothing to do with anything lacking in the bedroom or me quitting any of my previous jobs or career changes. Throughout that time my wife worked in the home and raised our son, and now we’re separated I have no issues whatsoever with supporting her financially and in any other way I can while she pursues further education at third level. It’s also a good example to set for our son that his parents aren’t bitter, cynical, miserable people whose lives and attitudes to life and how we treat other people doesn’t revolve around money.

That's an honourable thing to do and for sure your kids shouldnt be involved. But bear in mind kids are very perceptive.

Life doesn't revolve around money until you don't have any. If you stop paying you might see a different side to your ex wife.

Do you think things would have been different if she had a career?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whereas god botherers are obsessed with other people's genitalia and what consenting adults do with them. :rolleyes:

It was actually a crack at another sex-obsessed god botherer who thankfully hasn't posted in this thread yet.

I don’t think you can lay obsessing over their genitalia or the genitalia of others solely at the feet of god botherers HD. No matter how many times you want to ascribe objections to prostitution to god bothering types, the facts are that far more people object to prostitution nowadays on the basis that the industry overwhelmingly exploits women.

The Swedish Model which is being adopted across Europe originated as the name suggests in a secular country where there are far more progressive types than god botherers, whereas in predominantly god botherer countries they appear to operate under a legal system in which prostitution flourishes and they force gay men to have surgery to give them the appearance of women.

Think the ould god botherer guff hasn’t been relevant in Irish society for the last 30 odd years anyway HD, you need to get with the times where pimping out women is generally frowned upon nowadays, and that’s why more people in society don’t want to go back to the days of treating women like shìte.