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

Grayson

professore wrote: »

Hey this is just the feminist view of the world - i.e. all relationships are about power, with an oppressor and victim. Some of us have a better view on things - but there are many who think like this. I'm not one of them.

I have never seen any feminist argue that all relationships have a victim in them.

Whatever about legalising prostitution, whatever drugs you're on should be regulated.

Tell me how

Equity Risk Premium wrote: »

Most men in relationships can't get sex unless they pay for it with commitment and "good behaviour".

Some men who pay for sex can't get sex without paying, others can.

Post Count 1 :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm with TaxACruel - I couldn't find any of these reasons you're on about either.

Just because you don't like something is not a valid reason for it to be illegal. I don't like cheese - I don't want to see it
outlawed (Well, I do actually, but I can't see it happening, it would be quite the imposition on others!)

And funnily enough, that satisfies my criteria at least as to why something should be made illegal. Now understandably of course it wouldn’t do to introduce laws based solely upon my opinion, any more than it would do to make laws based solely upon any one individual or small lobby group of individuals in society. However when a general consensus is reached across a number of EU Member States to introduce what is commonly referred to as “The Swedish Model”, that’s quite a bit more than just me who doesn’t like the idea.

Why is it always hookers?

Why does no one traffic plumbers, mechanics or electricians for example.

Half the worlds population comes equipped with a vagina, it's not like they are some ultra scarce commodity.

Plumbers, mechanics and electricians aren’t in short supply, and while their industries are enormously profitable (I feel like I’m being shafted by the electrician and the plumber and the painters I have in to do work recently, not even so much as a courtesy reach around :pac:), they aren’t nearly as profitable as the sexual exploitation industry which is more akin to modern day slavery. It’s profitable because it operates in a black market economy, and would still operate in a black market economy if it were legalised and regulated. Any prostitutes I know don’t want it legalised and regulated because this hurts their bottom line - it’s not as profitable any more and they are now on the hook to pay tax.

I can see their point - I don’t like paying tax myself, and I have an even greater objection to public money being spent on facilitating people who wish to exploit other people for their own sexual gratification - as you point out, women are not a scarce commodity, but the number of women who are subjected to horrific abuse and exploitation for the benefit of those who really don’t want to be paying them in the first place and would get away with it if they could, is very small, and that’s why they are in such high demand, and their pimps who are mainly men are there to cash in on the exploitation of those people who are mainly women and young girls by providing them to men who would wish to abuse and exploit women and young girls. These men are, thankfully for society at large, in a tiny minority.

I can't believe there are actually people out there who believe that Ruhama give a flying fúck about womens rights!

I’d imagine they give as much a fcuk about women’s rights as Colm O’ Gorman and Amnesty Ireland/International give a fcuk about women’s rights. Colms talk of prostitutes rights ignores the fact that first and foremost, the people he’s talking about are women, and second of all, women in Ireland are not being denied their human rights - being a prostitute has never been a human right, and the exploitation of women and young girls is a violation of their human rights. One would think Amnesty International would be all over that, but obviously not, they choose to take the side of the people who would wish to exploit women and young girls and make significant profits from their suffering at the hands of people who wish to abuse and exploit them.

Women’s right to be a prostitute isn’t one I’m familiar with, and so the existence of a small number of women who voluntarily sell themselves is akin to the number of gay men who voted against marriage equality. There’s always a small handful who claim to represent the majority, when in reality the only people they represent are themselves.

Do you think regulation could help?

I know it wasn’t directed at me but no, I don’t think regulation could help. I don’t imagine Ireland is any different to any other society in that regulation could possibly work here where it hasn’t worked in other countries.Of course that too depends upon what your objectives are, and one of the biggest criticisms of the Swedish Model (or the Nordic Model) is that the social supports weren’t put in place to support the law. I couldn’t see Government here investing resources in young women’s welfare that they aren’t supporting already, and still a small number of women will consider prostitution as a viable solution to what is more often only temporary financial insolvency due to financial mismanagement due to poor education which means they have poor employment prospects, you know, in actual careers where they do actual work and are gainfully employed and entitled to and protected by employment rights and legislation, as opposed to being at the whims of their pimps subject to sexual exploitation and abuse.

And what do you think the punters would rather go for - some safe warm pleasure dome style facility in town, filled with exotic beauties waiting to fulfil your every fantasy (for a small fee of course;)) or a quick knee trembler with some 6 toothed brass monkey under a canal bridge?

Knee trembler with some 6 toothed brass monkey under a canal bridge does appear to be by far the more popular option as opposed to the local girls in your area who want to meet you advertised online, or the mega-brothels in other countries. Let’s be real - Wayne Rooney could have had his pick of the bunch, and he went for... well, she was no looker :pac:

Feminists?

Hardly!

‘Twas Candie who mentioned the feminist nuns, I don’t think she was serious either. But you’re quite right in pointing out that there isn’t simply one particular movement opposed to prostitution, there are many, whereas the lobby groups publicly campaigning against prostitution laws, are very few, and scratch beneath the surface of any of those organisations too and you don’t be long uncovering corruption and the shady fcuks profiting from the exploitation of women.

Outlaw Pete

I'd rather shag Palmela Handerson than pay for it but sure if people want to sell their bodies, let them.

I consider minimum wage jobs to be more exploitative of humans as at least with prostitution the money's good.

Regulate it I say and then sure we can charge tax on it.

The only aspect of it all I wouldn't agree with being legal is the selling or solicitation of it in a public place. Amsterdam is a disgrace as a result of their laws in that regard. Beautiful city ruined.

Feisar

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'd rather shag Palmela Handerson than pay for it but sure if people want to sell their bodies, let them.

I consider minimum wage jobs to be more exploitative of humans as at least with prostitution the money's good.

Regulate it I say and then sure we can charge tax on it.

The only aspect of it all I wouldn't agree with being legal is the selling or solicitation of it in a public place. Amsterdam is a disgrace as a result of their laws in that regard. Beautiful city ruined.

To be fair it's not like the whole city is ruined, it is in one area.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'd rather shag Palmela Handerson than pay for it but sure if people want to sell their bodies, let them.

I consider minimum wage jobs to be more exploitative of humans as at least with prostitution the money's good.

Regulate it I say and then sure we can charge tax on it.

The only aspect of it all I wouldn't agree with being legal is the selling or solicitation of it in a public place. Amsterdam is a disgrace as a result of their laws in that regard. Beautiful city ruined.

It might be public, but it's confined to very small areas. It's entirely possible to go to amsterdam and never walk through the red light district unless you're actually looking for it.

Prague shocked me though. On the equivalent of O'Connell st you have women soliciting and trying to pick pockets too.

^ Yea but quite often I would limit the same criticism to things outside the sex trade too. People selling wares or services in public or on the street in an unregulated fashion can be a blight in any area. Not just sex workers. People selling watches, toys, fruit and veg, second hand clothes and much more when they show up to do so can be just as unsightly and obscene at times. Sometimes more so with their tables and rubbish and clutter. Whereas a sex worker is often nothing more than a woman dressed up to attempt to look appealing.

But once again it is one of those "Why single out one industry" questions for me. There should be a general policy on selling products and wares in public. I would be as against freelance masseuses walking up and down a street trying to find consumers as I would sex workers.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

^ Yea but quite often I would limit the same criticism to things outside the sex trade too. People selling wares or services in public or on the street in an unregulated fashion can be a blight in any area. Not just sex workers. People selling watches, toys, fruit and veg, second hand clothes and much more when they show up to do so can be just as unsightly and obscene at times. Sometimes more so with their tables and rubbish and clutter. Whereas a sex worker is often nothing more than a woman dressed up to attempt to look appealing.

But once again it is one of those "Why single out one industry" questions for me. There should be a general policy on selling products and wares in public. I would be as against freelance masseuses walking up and down a street trying to find consumers as I would sex workers.

That can backfire though. Remember when they wouldn't allow Ann Summers on O'Connell st? they said it would lower the tone.

It was probably the classiest store front on the street.

^ Sorry I am confused here now. Thats a store though, right? I have no issue with stores. I am talking solely of people plying wares or services on the street.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

^ Sorry I am confused here now. Thats a store though, right? I have no issue with stores. I am talking solely of people plying wares or services on the street.

ah right. I just meant that what people consider tasteful is a very strange area to get into.

I like street sellers. I love outside markets., However there does need to be some regulation around them.

Oh yea I love markets myself when properly permitted and regulated. Especially on the mainland of EU. If I go to a new city there I always try and do it on their market day so I can get their specific local market and experience local life through that. Some really nice examples of it in France and Germany especially. Especially at Christmas.

Regulated right public selling of wares and services is great. Done badly it is a mess and unsightly. I would not single sex work out for specific censure or exceptions in that regard. It should be treated like petitioning for any other permission to sell wares publicly.

Guy:Incognito

biko wrote: »

It seems many men think it's most commonly consensual interactions.

Do you think foreign women travel to Ireland because they want to have sex with strangers for money?

Well they travel here to work as nurses while irish people are describing it as horrifically low paid and akin to slave labour.

biko wrote: »

would you yourself have sex with strange men/women for money? Remember these customers most likely cannot get sex unless they pay for it, but you have to "put out".

Are you implying that every prostitute in the world is forced to do it?

monkeybutter

Grayson wrote: »

It might be public, but it's confined to very small areas. It's entirely possible to go to amsterdam and never walk through the red light district unless you're actually looking for it.

Prague shocked me though. On the equivalent of O'Connell st you have women soliciting and trying to pick pockets too.

it's like have a toilet in your bedroom though, the stank spreads out

beautiful city though, full of mank

Berserker

Muckka wrote: »

I suppose they're not going to name the person who was selling the sex no.

No, the law doesn't work that way here. Changed last year or the year before.

Sleepy wrote: »

Poor man. While I'm sure the €200 fine wasn't nice, being named and shamed in the press is the real punishment here imo.

Yeah, probably going to cause a serious amount of damage to him personally and professionally.

Vic_08 wrote: »

And prosecuting one punter in two years will do what exactly about those terrible crimes?

Recall discussing these changes a while back and I expected to hear about a raft of convictions, given that prostitution is widespread in Ireland, apparently. What proof do the guards need under the new law? I would have thought that they'd need to witness the exchange of money and make an arrest on that basis? Sounds like it's going to be a token arrest every now and again. Given Ireland's move to the left socially, I'm surprised that a move towards legalisation hasn't gained traction. Can't think of a single politician who promotes this though.

whisky_galore

monkeybutter wrote: »

it's like have a toilet in your bedroom though, the stank spreads out

beautiful city though, full of mank

Don't get the appeal of Prague, beautiful yes, but boy does it get seedy when the sun goes down.

Muckka

There's a few ways this can go, he could have a thick skin and take it on the chin.

Get a slagging off the lads down the pub, and his female friends slagging him off for being a twat for getting caught.

Eventually it'll all level out and every one will get over it.

It hindsight it's no big deal, I'm sure plenty of lads have been with brazzers and it's probably becoming normalised now.

Could a woman who takes regular trips of the light fantastic with a man for his financial power be called a prostitute ?
Or does she just admire his work ethic and enjoys his physical company.

Sugar daddies..... have ye heard of those ?

Isn't there a legitimate website advertising sugar daddies for women going to college looking for financial security ?

Hmmmm

professore

Grayson wrote: »

I have never seen any feminist argue that all relationships have a victim in them.

Whatever about legalising prostitution, whatever drugs you're on should be regulated.

You need to do some reading. This underpins all feminist theory.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

professore wrote: »

You need to do some reading. This underpins all feminist theory.

That all relationships feature a victim? All? Think about what you’re saying here. That in any couple any given feminist knows, they regard one half of the couple to be a victim, the other an oppressor?

Muckka

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That all relationships feature a victim? All? Think about what you’re saying here. That in any couple any given feminist knows, they regard one half of the couple to be a victim, the other an oppressor?

I can see what you mean.
The third wave femminists will always take the women's side though.
If she was the one who was unfaithful, they'ed probably say it was because he was this that or the other.

Usually when a woman contemplates a premarital affair, and she shares her immoral desire with a third wave femminist.

The third wave Femminists usually tell her to follow her heart.

But when the tables are turned, there's outrage and he should be burnt at the stake.

A regular femminist would probably say it's up to yourself,but remember there's consequences and maybe you should break up with him first or try and sort out the relationship.

According to third wave femminists the woman is always the victim.

It's a fact.

professore

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That all relationships feature a victim? All? Think about what you’re saying here. That in any couple any given feminist knows, they regard one half of the couple to be a victim, the other an oppressor?

I'm not the one proposing this theory, it's the third wave feminists. I agree it's ridiculous.

Intersectional feminism is literally this theory.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

professore wrote: »

I'm not the one proposing this theory, it's the third wave feminists. I agree it's ridiculous.

Okay so at least you’ve clarified that it underpins third wave feminist theory, not all feminist theory. Even so, I’d stuggle to believe that every woman who calls herself a feminist today subscribes to the oppressor/victim idea of relationships in relation to any relationship they know of.

professore

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Okay so at least you’ve clarified that it underpins third wave feminist theory, not all feminist theory. Even so, I’d stuggle to believe that every woman who calls herself a feminist today subscribes to the oppressor/victim idea of relationships in relation to any relationship they know of.

Well if she understands the theory that's what she should believe. It's not a cherrypicking belief system. Control or be controlled.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

professore wrote: »

Well if she understands the theory that's what she should believe. It's not a cherrypicking belief system.

Or she could be subscribing to another strand of feminist theory. Earlier feminism, maybe. We’ve clarified that not all feminist theory holds that viewpoint, right?

James Brown

KevinCavan wrote: »

Was it some beauty fresh out of Templemore in a short and fishnets that snared him?;-)

LeBash

I'd say we would legalise it if it went to referendum. I don't get the problem at all, he wanted to blow a load, she wanted money and was happy enough to allow him do it for the money.

Is there anything more sickening than people trying to force their morals on others? If you have a problem with prostitutes, then just don't visit them. Those people are so organised though that they get sh1t done regardless of it not being the will of the majority and I think half of it is immature politicians not willing to debate it in case they are painted as perverts in public.

Yamanoto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I answered your hypothetical question. You can infer what you like from my answer.

You quite evidently did not.

As per usual, obfuscation and evasiveness are all you appear to offer. It's always marked you out as one of the most disingenuous contributors in this neck of the woods.

One eyed Jack

Yamanoto wrote: »

You quite evidently did not.

As per usual, obfuscation and evasiveness are all you appear to offer. It's always marked you out as one of the most disingenuous contributors in this neck of the woods.

It’s a hypothetical question posing a hypothetical scenario. I can’t give you the definitive answer you appear to be looking for as reality just isn’t so simple that the “yes/no” answer you’re looking for. I can’t give you a simple answer to your question because I have nothing to base it on given that in the real world circumstances are far more complex and my opinion would vary depending upon the circumstances of each and every individual case.

The law however, does not have the luxury of appreciating the nuance in each and every individual case, nor does the law have the luxury of individual and subjective morality. It has to be objective and as broad as possible to account for all circumstances. It would depend upon those circumstances what laws do, or do not apply.

You may as I said interpret my answer as being disingenuous, but I’m giving you my honest answer. I’m not going to be upset, nor will I have any sympathy for anyone who falls foul of this law, as they are aware of the law, and they are entirely responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviour should they find themselves being convicted of an offence under the law.

Rezident

whisky_galore wrote: »

Ruhama and prudes in govt have it all arseways. The demand will always be there.
The choice is either bring the industry into the light and legitimise it or drive it further underground where it can't be monitored at all.

The demand for heroin will always be there but that does not mean you should legalize it, as that will certainly increase the problem.


The truth is most prostitutes are not exactly in an ideal situation and people with money taking advantage of them, is, well, taking advantage.


If prostitution was ok then people would be ok with their mother or sister or daughter being a prostitute. Vegans going mad at the meat industry, have you any idea how women are abused in the prostitution "industry" or are you wilfully blind to that? You cannot have one side of it without the other.

whisky_galore

Rezident wrote: »

The demand for heroin will always be there but that does not mean you should legalize it, as that will certainly increase the problem.


The truth is most prostitutes are not exactly in an ideal situation and people with money taking advantage of them, is, well, taking advantage.


If prostitution was ok then people would be ok with their mother or sister or daughter being a prostitute. Vegans going mad at the meat industry, have you any idea how women are abused in the prostitution "industry" or are you wilfully blind to that? You cannot have one side of it without the other.

Apples and oranges.
Properly organised, no one needs to suffer or die, unlike heroin.

What was it Mark Twain said, nothing so needs reforming more than other people's habits. It's the world's oldest profession and it isn't going anywhere and neither police nor government or you in your nice little life can stop it.

One eyed Jack

whisky_galore wrote: »

Apples and oranges.
Properly organised, no one needs to suffer or die, unlike heroin.

What was it Mark Twain said, nothing so needs reforming more than other people's habits. It's the world's oldest profession and it isn't going anywhere and neither police nor government or you in your nice little life can stop it.

It couldn’t be the worlds oldest profession, because it isn’t a profession in the first place -


any type of work that needs special training or a particular skill, often one that is respected because it involves a high level of education.


Cambridge Dictionary


Tailoring, would appear to be the worlds oldest profession.

In saying that, I do of course understand the context in which the phrase is generally intended, but all too often people appear to interpret it literally as if to lend prostitution some form of legitimate occupation or social recognition it doesn’t deserve and certainly doesn’t possess, such as the idea of referring to it euphemistically as “sex work”.