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

professore

statesaver wrote: »

How does the man know it’s consensual ?

Maybe if it was legal and regulated with sex worker unions then the man would know?

But Nooo Bury it underground, the Irish solution to everything. Anyway I'm off to bed.

statesaver

professore wrote: »

Maybe if it was legal and regulated then the man would know?

How ? The women is playing, acting a role to get money for sex. How does anyone know if she is forced to become a prostitute.

The exploitation of women is illegal in most countries

Gimme A Pound

Don't see any of the Catholic guilt thing - most people here, myself included, don't believe the man paying for sex should be prosecuted. Those with more of a negative outlook are concerned about abuse but not about the religious/moralistic.

Why do you think men paying for sex with men won't be prosecuted?

professore wrote: »

We should make adultery illegal too and make examples of people engaging in that. Hell why not bring back the stocks altogether? This stinks of the old shame of Catholic Ireland, laundries and all.

Can't wait to see the first prosecutions for men buying sex from other men or women buying sex... Oh wait that will never happen.

Men pay for sex no matter whether in a relationship or from a professional. I'm still paying for sex I had 21 years ago! Yet only some forms of consensual sex are illegal.

Trafficking and coercion is of course abhorrent and should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law but there are plenty of women willing to sell their bodies - why make it illegal to buy? I just can't understand the logic behind that.

What a strange world we live in.

In what way are you paying for sex? Does your partner know that's how you feel (or just about your very negative attitude towards women in general - you always seem to have a dig to throw in; what men do you speak for who have to pay for sex no matter what?)

Irish Guitarist

The concern for the womens plight might more sense if rapists, child molesters and fuckers with tens of thousands of videos of child porn on their computers weren't given suspended sentences all the time.

wonski

What is the point of this law if one prosecution was made since April 2017?

Obviously the number of people paying for sex in that time was much higher. That's a detection and prosecution rate not far of 0%.

paleoperson

statesaver wrote: »

How ? The women is playing, acting a role to get money for sex. How does anyone know if she is forced to become a prostitute.

The exploitation of women is illegal in most countries

If we're going by that logic how do we know someone in the theater or film industry isn't forced to do it? The person is acting, playing a role to get money for what they do. How does anyone know if they are forced to become an actor.

I have to admit, in a way it's kind of amusing to me to see certain people flail around trying to come up with some kind of reasonable, coherent reason why prostitution is bad...

I reckon it must be some kind of fundamental instinct in them - something about sexual control. Just as strong as the old sexual prudes and headmasters and priests of the old days - intolerance of others having sexual activity where it's considered to be "unworthy". It helps keep population down. Throughout history you had this, there would be "shaming" of women especially. It's the entire reason "sex" and "immorality" are connected at all. It's an in-built animalistic, jealous instinct. Not that there's anything wrong with animal instincts per se, just that you should keep it to yourself, not taking it out on others in an embarrassing way and putting some completely different mask over it that has been shown over and over to not be the case.

One eyed Jack

paleoperson wrote: »

I reckon it must be some kind of fundamental instinct in them - something about sexual control. Just as strong as the old sexual prudes and headmasters and priests of the old days - intolerance of others having sexual activity where it's considered to be "unworthy". It helps keep population down.

That’s an interesting perspective alright, and I see the same fundamental instinct in some people that they seek out people who they can easily control knowing that they have a price as it were. In fact it’s generally the type of person who likes to paint themselves as an upstanding member of the community who are particularly interested in controlling the behaviour of other people, and imagine that they’re paying for it so they can do as they like in the knowledge that the person they’re exploiting and abusing will never speak out against them. I’m pretty certain keeping the population down didn’t feature in their motivations :pac:

Throughout history you had this, there would be "shaming" of women especially. It's the entire reason "sex" and "immorality" are connected at all. It's an in-built animalistic, jealous instinct. Not that there's anything wrong with animal instincts per se, just that you should keep it to yourself, not taking it out on others in an embarrassing way and putting some completely different mask over it that has been shown over and over to not be the case.

And that’s exactly how we have arrived at the point where we have legislation which doesn’t aim to criminalise those people who are selling themselves, the vast majority of whom are women, but rather focuses on the people who seek to exploit and abuse other people, the vast majority of whom in these cases happen to be men, those who were previously given to portraying themselves as upstanding members of the community, yet behind closed doors they were a different story.

It is they, rather than their victims, who should be rightfully shamed and punished for their behaviour which they sought to mask from public view while they portray themselves as upstanding members of the community who have themselves convinced they are doing nothing wrong. There’s nothing to be jealous of in a person who tries to hide behind the mask of an upstanding member of society while using their position to exploit and abuse more vulnerable members of society for their own sexual gratification. It’s those people who should be embarrassed by their actions, attitudes and behaviour, not the people who they seek to take advantage of, and that’s exactly who these laws are intended to punish, not the victims of their criminal activity, but the perpetrators themselves.

If anyone is attempting to put a different mask on prostitution, it’s those people who see nothing wrong with the prostitution industry (it’s not a profession, a profession implies that there is an awarding body which has standards which must be met in order for anyone who wants to qualify as a prostitute to use the term. There are no qualifications required), in spite of it being shown time and time again that this is simply not the case for the vast majority of people who get involved in prostitution with the intent of selling themselves in order to make money.

ChikiChiki

Regulate and legalise the industry ffs. It will kill the traffickers.

Our country is a basket case. Progressive in somthings and remains in the stone age in others.

As for naming and shaming, well thats a life ruined.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My opinion is based upon the evidence which you have chosen to dismiss.

I have not dismissed it, I have directly discussed and refuted it. You have dismissed that. Again with your projections.

The facts which you dismiss, not opinions, are as follows:

1) You claimed the article discussed reasons for having such a law, but quoted stuff that contained no reasons at all.

2) You claimed the prosecution being discussed here evidences _your_ claim the law is discouraging exploitation and abuse. But the fact the man was prosecuted shows it did not discourage him from anything at all, let alone exploitation and abuse.

3) You claimed the prosecution being discussed here evidences _your_ claim the law is discouraging exploitation and abuse. Yet you have not shown anyone here was being exploitated, abused, or anything at all really.

That is all fact, not opinion. And it is not "dismissing" anything so much as directly refuting bogus claims that you are basing on nothing but opinion while shouting "opinion" at me. Projection again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m more interested in how the laws will have a positive effect on society and particularly the positive effect they will have on people who are subjected to exploitation and abuse, and preventing that from happening.

And I am entirely invested in preventing abuse and exploitation too. So we are at least united in that goal. The problem is that on this - and other threads on the subject - you have not shown a single argument or reason why this relatively new law will achieve that.

We have discussed this before as I say and you and others failed to show how such a law helps anyone in fact - except perhaps the egos of those biased against sex work. The law certainly offers no tools whatsoever to help society or the police target the legitimate concerns we do have. Whereas I and others presented many - and can do so again if challenged - arguments and ideas on how a fully legal and regulated industry does and can.

The problem appears - speaking of "opinion" and yours in particular - to be with those who merely assume that _any_ sex engaged in for financial reasons is de facto exploitation and abuse to be prevented. Rather than focusing on what actually is abuse and exploitation (much of which, as I said, we already have laws for) - all of it is automatically deemed to be. And SIn-SOut is the result of that algorithm.

elperello

elperello wrote: »

Indeed if "respectable" men were abusing women I think they would deserve to be caught and made an example of.

Indeed and this is one of the reasons that I think this law is the _exact opposite_ of a law that protects people from being vulnerable and exploited as OEJ would put it.

Why?

Well who is the market base for a sex worker in a land where sex work is legal and regulated to buy and sell? Everyone potentially.

Who is the market base for them in the presence of this law? Well specifically people who do not abide by the law.

Result?

The law does not discourage exploitation and abuse. Rather it discourages the _law abiding_ citizen from purchasing sex and selects the consumer of sex work specifically and initially on the criteria that they are already the kind of people to break laws.

So rather than discourage abuse and exploitation - such a law specifically selects for the sub group of society more likely to engage in abuse and exploitation.

Thanks to the Jacks of the world - and their feux concern for the well being of sex workers - for that one! It seems it is not abuse or exploitation they want to limit or reduce. But simply sex they personally do not approve of. At whatever cost to the actual people we should actually be protecting.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The problem is...

I and others presented many - and can do so again if challenged - arguments and ideas on how a fully legal and regulated industry does and can.

The problem...

The problem for you, is that people aren’t interested in your opinions. People with a better knowledge of the industry than you have tried to present better arguments than yours in support of prostitution, one of the more laughable arguments being presented by Amnesty Ireland’s own Colm O’ Gorman that it was a violation of prostitutes human rights :pac:

Suffice to say, they haven’t succeeded, and they aren’t likely to be successful in the face of international pressure to eliminate the prostitution industry, precisely because far more people are aware of the damage it causes to society than the small number of people who have tried to present arguments in support of the prostitution industry which aren’t in any way based upon reality, but are rather, ironically enough, based upon a fantasy which only exists entirely in their own minds.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem for you, is that people aren’t interested in your opinions. People with a better knowledge of the industry than you have tried to present better arguments than yours in support of prostitution, one of the more laughable arguments being presented by Amnesty Ireland’s own Colm O’ Gorman that it was a violation of prostitutes human rights

Again the only one interested in "opinions" here is you. I am discussing the facts and the arguments. "opinions" is just the word you hide behind when you have no rebuttal to offer to facts and the arguments presented.

I am not interested in your deflection of my arguments by bringing up the arguments of people who are not me either. I do not know the substance of that persons argument and can only assume you are likely to distort and straw man it whatever it is. Whatever his argument or point was you are not at all likely to present the honest steel man version of it or represent it coherently.

Certainly however I would see controlling who can consent to sex with who and on what grounds as erring into the subject of human rights though. Shouting "laughable" at that is not likely to engage maturely with the discussion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

international pressure to eliminate the prostitution industry, precisely because far more people are aware of the damage it causes to society than the small number of people who have tried to present arguments in support of the prostitution industry which aren’t in any way based upon reality, but are rather, ironically enough, based upon a fantasy which only exists entirely in their own minds.

Except the fantasy appears to be yours not theirs when you talk of "damage it causes to society" without actually showing any. Your bias against sex you personally do not approve of likely makes you _want_ there to be damage you can decry - but until you have shown there is any you are the only one engaging in fantasy and not for the first time on this thread projecting what only you are doing onto others who are actually not.

As I said in my very first post on this thread in fact - all the "damage" I see people try to put at the door of prostitution turns out to be "damage" that is caused by making it illegal and underground in the first place. But by all means expand on the "damage" you think there is rather than just saying "damage" and running away as if the word itself does all the work for you. How does consensual sex between consenting adults - with or without money changing hands - damage anyone except your own sensibilities about sex you personally do or do not approve of?

One eyed Jack

Here you go tax, knock yourself out -


Amnesty International Promotion of the global sex industry

Amnesty prostitution vote rebuked


Fact is, you’re simply out of touch with reality on this issue and have to resort to fantasy to support your arguments in support of prostitution. The law already doesn’t criminalise people who sell themselves, it seeks to support them and protect them from people who would wish to exploit and abuse them. The law criminalises those people, like the man in this case who was perfectly aware of the law, and now that he has been found guilty, it will show other people who would wish to exploit and abuse people that they are placing themselves at risk of prosecution and conviction, even if they aren’t concerned for anyone else’s welfare above their own -

Chief Superintendent Declan Daly of the National Protective Services Bureau said the Garda would be conducting operations throughout this year to enforce the legislation and target people engaging in the purchase of sex.

“Those persons considering the purchase of sexual services should be aware that in addition to the possibility of prosecution and conviction, that such activity promotes organised crime and encourages the human trafficking of victims for the purposes of sexual exploitation,” said Chief Supt Daly.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/meath-man-is-first-to-be-convicted-of-paying-for-sex-1.3765853?mode=amp

professore

statesaver wrote: »

How ? The women is playing, acting a role to get money for sex. How does anyone know if she is forced to become a prostitute.

The exploitation of women is illegal in most countries

But prostitution is legal in many progressive EU countries. It's illegal in the more backward countries.

Also on consent how does anyone know someone else is really consenting to anything?

professore

Matilda Proud Burglar wrote: »

In what way are you paying for sex? Does your partner know that's how you feel (or just about your very negative attitude towards women in general - you always seem to have a dig to throw in; what men do you speak for who have to pay for sex no matter what?)

I have a realistic view of human dynamics - men want sex from women, women want commitment and resources from men. Anything else you can get from friends and family.

If most men in long term relationships quit their job in the morning to pursue their dream of being a zen master how long do you think it would be before their partners left them? Women do this all the time. Very few men do because the pressure is there to provide.

Also kids result from sex and they cost a fortune. And if you're married and you get divorced it's a hefty cost to end it. So yeah men pay for sex. It's a tongue in cheek comment. Of course there's more to it than that in many (but not all) cases.

Feminists think sex is the only real power they have over men, and prostitution removes that power. And they are obsessed with control over society and mens behaviour in particular. Public shaming being their weapon of choice. Just as many religions are obsessed with controlling women's sexuality.

That's why they are against prostitution so much, and ironically strongly pro abortion - as the latter is mainly about women's sexuality.

It's soon going to be all academic anyway, soon there will be VR and sex robots better and more enthusiastic than than any prostitute.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here you go tax, knock yourself out

With what? Someone elses arguments? Again you are deflecting by wholly ignoring all the points and arguments I have made - and shifting the conversation into discussing points someone else made that only you brought up. However it is comical to me that you proved _exactly_ what I just said. That rather than present accurately and honestly the opinion and position of the person in question - you present other peoples attack on it. I said explicitly you were unlikely to represent that persons position accurately, openly and honestly. And you delivered exactly on what I predicted. Ta for that.

However - not to engage in the same dodge tactics you yourself rely on so heavily - I will deal with the claims in the link in another post separate to my reply to you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fact is, you’re simply out of touch with reality on this issue and have to resort to fantasy to support your arguments in support of prostitution.

Nope that is you that is out of touch and using fantasy. And rather than just shout "Fantasy" at you as you do to me here - I actually said _what_ was fantasy about your position specifically. So you are, yet again, projecting on to others what only you have engaged in.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law already doesn’t criminalise people who sell themselves, it seeks to support them and protect them from people who would wish to exploit and abuse them.

And that it actually achieves that in any way is where the locus of your compelte fantasy and lack of touch with reality lies. You have literally - and I mean literally literally as in the old sense of the word - not yet presented a single argument showing it in any way is actually doing that. And you have entirely ignored the points about why it doesn't. So rather than act like you and simply assert my position without any arguments and then run away - I will present some of the arguments for my position. Again.

The first thing the law we have does is reduces the customer base such sex workers have. Rather than discouraging abuse and exploitation as your fantasy asserts - it just discourages _some_ people from seeking the services of sex workers. Which is not at all the same thing outside your fantasy world. Reducing their customer base does not reduce the potential for abuse and exploitation - it increases it. Why? Because the less customer base they have - the less selective they can be in who they accept as a client.

The second thing it does in that same sense is make their day to day work actively harder to do. Why? Because seeking business when your product is illegal to buy is significantly harder than seeking business when it is not.

The third thing the law does is select specifically for the sub group of society who are _more_ likely, not less, to be abusive and exploitative. Why? Because under that law anyone seeking sex workers is going to be, by definition, someone who is already prone to breaking the law. The law selects _out_ of the customer base of the sex worker all the law abiding citizens. So rather than reduce the potential for harm, abuse, and exploitation - this law actively selects for people more likes to engage in such things. Well done you people.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law criminalises those people, like the man in this case who was perfectly aware of the law, and now that he has been found guilty, it will show other people who would wish to exploit and abuse people that they are placing themselves at risk of prosecution and conviction, even if they aren’t concerned for anyone else’s welfare above their own

Except it does not send that signal at all. We have a _single_ prosecution here in the time since the law was enacted. And he got a fine of 200 euro which is not significantly different than the price of a sex worker for an hour or two anyway. So at best the signal it appears to be sending is that you are very unlikely to be prosecuted for seeking sex workers - and even if you are the fine is likely to be relatively minor.

Further though it is _not_ as your fantasy asserts showing that those who "wish to exploit and abuse people that they are placing themselves at risk of prosecution" rather what it shows is that those who wish to engage with a sex worker are placing themselves at risk of prosecution. Which is an _entirely_ different thing. Not for the first time - as I said in a previous post - the more you talk the more it appears you are trying to conflate those two entirely different things. As if you think paying a sex worker for sex is _already_ "abuse and exploitation". Is that what you think - as the mask appears to be slipping there.

professore

It's similar to drugs, they should be decriminalised and regulated too. It works in other countries plus you cut out vicious criminal gangs from a big source of income.

It's MUCH safer for the women too. But those in favour of this law don't care about the welfare of these women.

Unlike others I don't feel particularly sorry for the man in question, he knew the law and broke it. I just think its a backward law.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here you go tax, knock yourself out

Response to the Blog Opinion Piece from "amnestyirelandexposed".

There is a host of problems and concerns with this article cited above. The first being that they attack not the final position of Amnesty but a "draft" document under development. Amnesty themselves said "It is important to stress that given that the consultation process is still on-going, no decisions have been made. No policy has been adopted by Amnesty International" and that voting on the draft "will not determine the final wording of the policy - instead, if passed, it will give Amnesty's International Board the go-ahead to develop and agree a policy in the near future."

That aside however they massively misrepresent the content of that document and the position of Amnesty. I will detail the problems here:

1) The first is the claim that Amnesty "supports full decriminalisation of pimping, brothel owning, and the buying of sex". That is not accurate. Their actual claim was that they support "decriminalization of consensual sex work, including those laws that prohibit associated activities—such as bans on buying, solicitation and general organization of sex work". So it is not "full" decriminalisation of the buying of sex but specifically that of consensual sex. And it is not the full decriminalising of pimping but of general laws around organisation of sex work.

2) There is nothing in the links here to suggest what you claimed above that their position is that criminalising sex work is itself an attack on their human rights. Rather they make it very clear that the criminalisaing of sex work _leads to_ attacks on their human rights. For example they say "The policy consultation process was supplemented by Amnesty International’s existing human rights research which highlights violations and abuses against sex workers" and that their position is designed to identify "the most prominent barriers to the realization of sex workers’ human rights and
underlines states’ obligations to address them" and that we need to address "barriers that criminalization creates to the realization of the human rights of sex workers". Quite a different position - as I openly said I expected - than the one described by you. In fact they 100% explicitly and clearly state - bully for you I guess - the following: "This policy does not argue that there is a human right to buy sex or a human right to financially benefit from the sale of sex by another person."

3) Despite the claims of your link when you download and read the PDF of _actual_ Amnesty positions on the matter - there is no support of pimping specifically within it at all. They just refer to legalising things that generally relate to the organisation of sex work. And they offer specific examples of this in the document "such as prohibitions on renting premises for sex work" and laws that "force sex workers to operate covertly" and states that their position "calls for sex workers to be protected from individuals who seek to exploit and harm them". Your distortions are manifold alas.

4) In fact the only thing your link here says that I in fact 100% agree with is that merely decriminalising sex work is a bad move. People opposed to positions such as that of Amnesty often point to countries where they merely decriminalised it and the effect was not good. Which is why I and many others do not recommend merely decriminalising it. Nor does Amnesty however so your link is attacking them on a basis they they themselves are not even espousing. No we recommend legalizing it and regulating it and regulating it well and with useful tools and procedures. None of which the countries decried by opinion pieces like your one here actually did or do.

So quite the fail of distortions, non-facts, and blatant missing of the point(s) there from that link I am afraid. Got any better ones?

Pa8301

Corporate Finance101 wrote: »

The most common form of payment for sex is chores commitment and allowing oneself to be bullied.

Most men are not sexually attractive to women, as a result many women must settle down with men they don't find sexy if they want a family. This is partly why sex in marriage is usually boring or only a few times per month at best. The other reason is that when you become familiar with a member of the opposite sex by living with them for years, they seem like siblings, the attraction mechanism is switched off.

I would say women are the more practical gender, so they use their sexuality in subtle ways to control their partner. This is why women hate seeing openly promiscuous women, the more freely available sex is the less power women can exert in relationships.

This is also why so many women feel the need to tell men that they wouldn't be able to attract younger women for example. They just have to go out of their way to tell them, because the more men who believe they are attractive and can attract good looking women, the less power women have to control men in relationships.

Howya buddy!

paw patrol

i'm glad to see the gardai have their priorities in order.
crying our that the feuds are draining resources yet finding the time to bust an auld man getting a ride.
what bravery.

Still no word from them on my car damaged in a hit and run (on cctv with offenders reg) 6 months later.

gold medal award.

Discodog

I think that people will have to be very careful.

7A. (1) A person who pays, gives, offers or promises to pay or give a person (including a prostitute) money or any other form of remuneration or consideration for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a prostitute shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction—

Buy your girlfriend a present & you could be breaking the law. If she accepts it then she is a prostitute.

Seems very harsh on women as well as men.

Mrsmum

Reading this thread, I think there might well be such a thing as toxic masculinity after all, just going by how men are describing their own relationships. It seems where women think they are in a loving partnership, men apparently are just paying for sex. You would swear women bring nothing to relationships beyond sex. Most households now are running on two incomes and even regarding presents I very much doubt men are not getting Christmas and birthday presents same as women are. But no, lest pretend otherwise so men can feel the big man. Thank God, like in the ad the creeps are in the minority. One would pity their partners.

Dravokivich

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Regulate and legalise the industry ffs. It will kill the traffickers.

Our country is a basket case. Progressive in somthings and remains in the stone age in others.

As for naming and shaming, well thats a life ruined.

It wont stop trafficking. Theres been incidents of trafficking in both construction and fishing here. Sex trafficking gets more presence because of the emotive response from the idea of a woman being abused by a perverted sex obsesses loser of a man. Not that I'd be one to minimise the severity of it. It would no doubt be very traumatic. But legislation to support legitiamisation of sex work and purchase of sex will not help people who are trafficked for it. Just as legislation to criminalise the purchaser won't.

Dravokivich

Mrsmum wrote: »

Reading this thread, I think there might well be such a thing as toxic masculinity after all, just going by how men are describing their own relationships. It seems where women think they are in a loving partnership, men apparently are just paying for sex. You would swear women bring nothing to relationships beyond sex. Most households now are running on two incomes and even regarding presents I very much doubt men are not getting Christmas and birthday presents same as women are. But no, lest pretend otherwise so men can feel the big man. Thank God, like in the ad the creeps are in the minority. One would pity their partners.

They aren't saying that with intent to trivialize their relationships. They are for all purposes acting in jest. Satire is still a thing right?

Muckka

Mrsmum wrote: »

Reading this thread, I think there might well be such a thing as toxic masculinity after all, just going by how men are describing their own relationships. It seems where women think they are in a loving partnership, men apparently are just paying for sex. You would swear women bring nothing to relationships beyond sex. Most households now are running on two incomes and even regarding presents I very much doubt men are not getting Christmas and birthday presents same as women are. But no, lest pretend otherwise so men can feel the big man. Thank God, like in the ad the creeps are in the minority. One would pity their partners.

I totally agree with you there, I know for a fact infidelity is rampant in this country.
My friend is on grindr, it's a gay dating app, or used for hooking up.
He told me the amount of married guy's on it is shocking.
He often walked around Limerick on a Saturday and passed married guy's out with their families, and said married guy was on his knees at my friend's house a few nights before.
My friend didn't know this guy was married.
He said he dread's walking around the crescent shopping centre, in case he bump's into one of these men.

It's sad really, theres a lot of married men on plenty of fish too, grindr, tinder, fabswingers..
.
I myself don't have any partner and I do my own thing, I'm 44 happy out with my hobbies and friends and family.
I have been treated badly by a few NPD's in the past, one was tripping the night fantastic with guy's behind me, the other was bedding her exe..
.
If your partner is funny about their phone privacy and goes out a lot just be wide ladies that's all I can say.

If your gut is feeling something's wrong, your guts usually right

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

It wont stop trafficking. Theres been incidents of trafficking in both construction and fishing here.

Yea that is what baffles me about the rhetoric around banning prostitution to attack trafficking related to prostitution. I ask myself straight away why it is only a policy with sex work and not the other places where trafficking occurs.

You mention construction and fishing. I had no idea about those to be honest. First I have heard of it. But what I do not see is people calling for laws banning construction or fishing.

If memory serves there was a scandal last year because people working in "nail bars" were being trafficked to do that work. I can not recall many people at all screaming that offering "nail bar" services - or purchasing services from one - or both - should be illegal.

Given the number of crimes committed in any number of industries - why is it pretty much only sex work and drugs where the significant response is to attack the industry as a whole rather than the criminal elements within it? Why ban prostitution because children are trafficked into it and not ban clothing because children are trafficked into clothing production?

Mrsmum

Dravokivich wrote: »

They aren't saying that with intent to trivialize their relationships. They are for all purposes acting in jest. Satire is still a thing right?

I sincerely hope you are correct. Maybe in some cases, not so sure about others.

I was "caught" myself ...........got the day in court but my defense was that I wasn't paying her for sex, I was paying her to fnck off afterwards :pac:

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

I sincerely hope you are correct. Maybe in some cases, not so sure about others.

Yea I too believe it is a minority - and the majority of people expressing that position are doing it as satire. Perhaps it is just emotional bias but I can nto believe the majority of people are in romantic sexual relationships and see everything that have to do in that relationship purely as a currency for getting sex.

Nor can I believe that most men would even want to have sexual relations with their partner if they believe their partner is only having sex as a means to a currency.

If I thought my partners were only having sex with me as a currency and not because they actually wanted to be having sex with me - I not only would not want to have sex with them - I would not even want to be in this relationship with them at all.

Dravokivich

Mrsmum wrote: »

I sincerely hope you are correct. Maybe in some cases, not so sure about others.

They are joking. You can't take everything simply at face value here in AH. They are spinning off a joke that's damn near as old as time. "Why buy the cow..."