Prostitution

03-01-2010 09:33PM

panda100 wrote: »

It has everything to do with prostitution because mainstream pornography aka womens bodies being used to sell things, is moulding our conceptions of what sex is.

Porn is not used to sell things beyond the porno product itself. Mainstream Male hetro porn uses men and women (or women on women) for the most part performing various sexual positions. Female porn does the same. Gay porn does something similar, although I must admit I've only seen a few such products in the past.

Porn does not create the conceptions of what sex is. Sex does that. Our experiences in real life do that. The partners we have through life and the lessons in sex that they show us do that. Obviously, you've never tried to reenact a position from a porno, or had it done to you... guaranteed to fail, and laughter by both parties.

Porn is not a good lesson for sex. Its almost as bad as the sex scenes in Hollywood movies.

Heterosexual male sexuality is placed above everyone elses sexuality and forced upon us all of us from birth. We are led to believe that (hetero)men are sexually dominant and that male sexuality is uncontrollable, superseding female sexuality.

And you're blaming Hetro men for that? Word to the wise, we don't really have much control over it. In fact, its probably gone on so long, only because nobody objected for quite some time. Now the perception is changing..

With prostiution women have little or no control over what sex acts they perform and they place male pleasure over their own, it speaks volumes about our societys atititude to gender equality and sex, and it is a seriously warped repressed attitude.

You really have no idea of what an encounter with a prostitute is like... They determine what acts are allowed and what are not. If they don't do anal, they don't do it. Most prostitutes list what is allowed when the session is booked, or their mama's do it. Generally speaking, prostitutes control the experience from start to finish. And they place the worth of cash over that of their own pleasure... Nothing to do with gender equality.

AARRRGH · 03-01-2010 09:43PM

I agree.

If you really believed in gender equality, you would believe some women are capable of choosing to have sex for money.

Assuming otherwise is assuming women are limited.

panda100 · 04-01-2010 03:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You really have no idea of what an encounter with a prostitute is like... They determine what acts are allowed and what are not. If they don't do anal, they don't do it. Most prostitutes list what is allowed when the session is booked, or their mama's do it. Generally speaking, prostitutes control the experience from start to finish. And they place the worth of cash over that of their own pleasure... Nothing to do with gender equality.

Oh believe me I do.
You dont have any 'favourites' down you aint going to get any clients. That is the first thing a client asks you other then wanting to see your pics.
Whats sad in all this is men are growing up thinking good sex = young,blonde hair,big tits and skinny stomachs. How wrong they are!

You can charge an extra €50 for anal so of course your going to do it because this is ALL about money,the escorts pleasure is secondary to the clients request and pleasure.

JohnK · 04-01-2010 03:55PM

panda100 wrote: »

[...]because this is ALL about money,the escorts pleasure is secondary to the clients request and pleasure.

So its kinda like every other job then? Lets be honest here, every job no matter what it is will always be about the what the client wants because its the client whos paying.

panda100 · 04-01-2010 04:42PM

JohnK wrote: »

So its kinda like every other job then? Lets be honest here, every job no matter what it is will always be about the what the client wants because its the client whos paying.

Of course, the customer is always right. However,most jobs dont have the health and saftey risks of constantly having a strangers d*ck in your vagina.

aidan24326 · 04-01-2010 05:14PM

panda100 wrote: »

You can charge an extra €50 for anal so of course your going to do it because this is ALL about money,the escorts pleasure is secondary to the clients request and pleasure.

The escort isn't in it for pleasure, she's in it for the money. It's her job. If she enjoyed a particular encounter I imagine that's a bonus. I would have thought that's rather obvious.

panda100 wrote: »

Of course, the customer is always right. However,most jobs dont have the health and saftey risks of constantly having a strangers d*ck in your vagina.

And who exactly is forcing them to do it? The girls involved presumably know there are some risks, they choose to do it anyway because in most cases they're probably making pretty good money out of it. And that's a choice they are entitled to make. Of course I'm talking about slightly higher class escorting conducted from appartments, not lower end streetwalking which is often done to feed drug habits and the like. That's a different ballgame.

JohnK · 04-01-2010 05:14PM

panda100 wrote: »

Of course, the customer is always right. However,most jobs dont have the health and saftey risks of constantly having a strangers d*ck in your vagina.

Many types of jobs have serious risks associated with them so as with any other job its important that you take whatever precautions are relevant to minimize the risks you face.

Certainly prostitutes and their customers have a risk of STDs/STIs however they dont have a monopoly on risky jobs* and neither is it only through prostitution that people are at risk of catching anything; plenty of people** have gotten infected with various things through perfectly legal sex with complete strangers they met in the pub.

And on the topic of health and safety for prostitutes, surely legalisation would provide more protection for them since they could then get proper information on the risks associated with the job as well as better and more frequent sexual health checks which could be tailored to their higher level of sexual activity with multiple partners. Even aside from sex related infections it could offer benefits for something like the recent swine flu outbreak – with legalisation prostitutes could have been put on list of people who got the first batches of the vaccine since their job puts them in very close contact with large numbers of people.

* Off the top of my head doctors, nurses, vets, sanitation workers etc. These groups all work in areas where on a daily basis they come in contact with people, animals and things riddled with disease from many unknown sources.

** I’d go so far as to say the vast majority but I have no facts or sources to back it up.

04-01-2010 08:36PM

panda100 wrote: »

Oh believe me I do.

Really? Because your previous comment flouted complete ignorance on the subject. Lets see what else you have to say..

You dont have any 'favourites' down you aint going to get any clients. That is the first thing a client asks you other then wanting to see your pics.

And you're getting this information from where?

9 out of 10 times the pictures provided of any escort will be fake. In my whole experience I have met two women who matched their photo's and both were older than their pics by a good 5-8 years... Secondly, whats favourites got to do with anything?

Let me tell you from personal experience and from chats with friends, the first thing thats asked is "Do you do a good GFE?" perhaps followed closely by "How long have you been in the country?"

Whats sad in all this is men are growing up thinking good sex = young,blonde hair,big tits and skinny stomachs. How wrong they are!

Ahh, lovely stereotyping by females. I've never found that attractive in a woman. In fact, I have quite a few friends who feel the same way. Probably the reason I turned to prostitutes in my 20's.. the only real way to meet a woman with small breasts, nice tight ass, and long black hair.

You can charge an extra €50 for anal so of course your going to do it because this is ALL about money,the escorts pleasure is secondary to the clients request and pleasure.

Some escorts will, and some won't. Just as many escorts won't kiss. Some will charge for every piece of clothing taken off, some will just take them off.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that escorts in Ireland have complete power. There's such a shortage of quality escorts, that they can set the threshold for pricing, the conditions of the encounter, whats allowed, and whats not allowed. From start to finish they are in complete control over the situation, and any action by a customer to deviate will result in the escort calling the whole thing off or asking for more money...

The escorts pleasure is gained through gaining money.. but at the end of the day, they will decide what is allowed. Not the customer.

panda100 wrote: »

Of course, the customer is always right. However,most jobs dont have the health and saftey risks of constantly having a strangers d*ck in your vagina.

In australia, escorts working out of brothels receive training which allows them to inspect a man's cock, and allows them to reject a customer based on the appearance of the skin. Many problems can be seen through the pigments of the skin on a mans cock and balls.

In addition there is the aspects of showering before (and after) sex, wearing condoms provided by the escort, etc. Whether or not a woman allows any part of unprotected sex is between her and the customer..

And the customer is not always right in this case. the escort/prostitute decides who is right.

Despite what you seem to believe, prostitutes are not slaves. They have free will, and the ability to decide the manner that any object is placed near her body...

irish_bob · 04-01-2010 09:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Because your previous comment flouted complete ignorance on the subject. Lets see what else you have to say..

And you're getting this information from where?

9 out of 10 times the pictures provided of any escort will be fake. In my whole experience I have met two women who matched their photo's and both were older than their pics by a good 5-8 years... Secondly, whats favourites got to do with anything?

Let me tell you from personal experience and from chats with friends, the first thing thats asked is "Do you do a good GFE?" perhaps followed closely by "How long have you been in the country?"

Ahh, lovely stereotyping by females. I've never found that attractive in a woman. In fact, I have quite a few friends who feel the same way. Probably the reason I turned to prostitutes in my 20's.. the only real way to meet a woman with small breasts, nice tight ass, and long black hair.

Some escorts will, and some won't. Just as many escorts won't kiss. Some will charge for every piece of clothing taken off, some will just take them off.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that escorts in Ireland have complete power. There's such a shortage of quality escorts, that they can set the threshold for pricing, the conditions of the encounter, whats allowed, and whats not allowed. From start to finish they are in complete control over the situation, and any action by a customer to deviate will result in the escort calling the whole thing off or asking for more money...

The escorts pleasure is gained through gaining money.. but at the end of the day, they will decide what is allowed. Not the customer.

In australia, escorts working out of brothels receive training which allows them to inspect a man's cock, and allows them to reject a customer based on the appearance of the skin. Many problems can be seen through the pigments of the skin on a mans cock and balls.

In addition there is the aspects of showering before (and after) sex, wearing condoms provided by the escort, etc. Whether or not a woman allows any part of unprotected sex is between her and the customer..

And the customer is not always right in this case. the escort/prostitute decides who is right.

Despite what you seem to believe, prostitutes are not slaves. They have free will, and the ability to decide the manner that any object is placed near her body...

they may not be slaves but its common knowledge that escort agencies are ran by organised crime in some shape or form , while they may not have a pimp beating them or threatening them for money , they do have to give a sizeable chunk of thier earnings to some ner do wells

04-01-2010 10:53PM

irish_bob wrote: »

they may not be slaves but its common knowledge that escort agencies are ran by organised crime in some shape or form , while they may not have a pimp beating them or threatening them for money , they do have to give a sizeable chunk of thier earnings to some ner do wells

And what is your point? The continued illegality, and condemnation of this industry ensures that organised crime will have serious influence over this area...

You agree that they are not slaves... your add on but doesn't relate to their freedom but rather the amount of money they must pay for "protection", and the "license" to work certain areas..

97i9y3941 · 07-01-2010 02:32AM

dont know why some people against it,personally i think if the gov did legalise it they prob be thinking why didnt we do this all along,look at the tax income we making,and dont say its inmoral income,they already make a fortune from the cigs and booze and gambleing...

The Corinthian · 07-01-2010 01:08PM

panda100 wrote: »

Whats sad in all this is men are growing up thinking good sex = young,blonde hair,big tits and skinny stomachs. How wrong they are!

I'd agree with this. Most men realize this as we grow older, also because we witness said women with blonde hair, big tits and skinny stomachs grow older too. Beauty is temporary, a good blow job is forever.

panda100 wrote: »

Of course, the customer is always right. However,most jobs dont have the health and saftey risks of constantly having a strangers d*ck in your vagina.

If prostitution is voluntary, then there are economic reasons for someone to engage in it, despite he health and safety risks - generally that they will earn far more than they could in other attainable professions. It's why people went off to contract in Iraq at the height of the insurgency - you literally could earn five to ten times what you could back home - but with a very real risk.

irish_bob wrote: »

they may not be slaves but its common knowledge that escort agencies are ran by organised crime in some shape or form , while they may not have a pimp beating them or threatening them for money , they do have to give a sizeable chunk of thier earnings to some ner do wells

Where something is illegal and in demand, then it will be supplied by criminal elements and lack any kind of regulation - prohibition in the US being a case in point. Where prostitution is not illegal, it tends to be regulated and no more infiltrated by criminals than any other industry.

Personally, I've never availed of one, but would not be against it on any moral grounds, only on the basis of my ego. If it can be a reasonable industry, on a practical level, for someone to work in is possibly another matter.

Morally, I get the impression that much of the moral opposition is born of the the fantasy that sex and love are inseparable. In reality, as Brendan Behan once noted, the only difference between sex for money and sex for free is the former generally costs less.

If you coldly do the maths on it you'll find this is actually the case.

Macha · 15-01-2010 10:06AM

New research on the reasons men go to prostitutes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes

Interesting how some men argue that they need access to prostitutes so that they don't rape anyone yet over half of them are in relationships.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-01-2010 01:51PM

taconnol wrote: »

New research on the reasons men go to prostitutes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes

Interesting how some men argue that they need access to prostitutes so that they don't rape anyone yet over half of them are in relationships.

That's spinning that a paragraph a wee bit taconnol!

Eadaoin_ · 15-01-2010 01:58PM

Yea get of your hight horse! Its the oldest profession in the world! And if both parties are adults and want to do it then its up to them.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 02:49PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's spinning that a paragraph a wee bit taconnol!

Indeed. I'd love to know who carried out this "major international research project" - S.C.U.M.? The Guardian really is becoming the liberal equivalent of the Mail, TBH.

15-01-2010 02:59PM

The report is located at:

http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/

"At Eaves, we put the needs of women first. We are determined to give a voice to the most excluded women in society and provide direct, innovative services to support and empower women to help themselves."

I guess I've gotten too cynical when a group that focuses on women, does research on the apparent feelings that men have with soliciting prostitutes. I can't help imagining that they would have a certain message to promote above all others. i.e. that women (prostitutes) are victims and other such negative impressions/perceptions.

I'm mildly suprised that the guardian couldn't even be bothered to host the document on their own servers. Reminds me of offers we received as a business to pay money to journalists to have certain articles written to promote our business.

Macha · 15-01-2010 03:22PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's spinning that a paragraph a wee bit taconnol!

Ahem maybe a little bit

What I got from the article was basically that there are lots of different reasons why men visit prostitutes and you can't make wide generalisations about them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed. I'd love to know who carried out this "major international research project" - S.C.U.M.? The Guardian really is becoming the liberal equivalent of the Mail, TBH.

That's a bit of an over-the-top statement.

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess I've gotten too cynical when a group that focuses on women, does research on the apparent feelings that men have with soliciting prostitutes. I can't help imagining that they would have a certain message to promote above all others. i.e. that women (prostitutes) are victims and other such negative impressions/perceptions.

Yeah, unfortunately I do think it tends to lend a certain bias to such studies, either imagined or real.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 03:40PM

taconnol wrote: »

That's a bit of an over-the-top statement.

Not that much over-the-top, as it turned out.

And I do still think the Guardian has gone down hill.

Macha · 15-01-2010 04:32PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not that much over-the-top, as it turned out.

Comparing S.C.U.M to Eaves4Women is hardly fair.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I do still think the Guardian has gone down hill.

Yeah it has a bit.

T runner · 15-01-2010 04:36PM

Eadaoin_ wrote: »

Yea get of your hight horse! Its the oldest profession in the world! And if both parties are adults and want to do it then its up to them.

How does one know if the prostitute is "consenting" or an "adult"?

If the "prostitute" is a sex slave does that mean the consenting client is guilty of rape?

How do you know that the money a client pays to a prostitute does not fund sex trafikers/trafficking and other human rights abuses and crimes?

The sex trafficking/crimes and slavery needs to be stopped.

To achieve this either:

Paying money for sex should be criminalised.
De-criminalise prostitution, with licences.

15-01-2010 06:39PM

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah, unfortunately I do think it tends to lend a certain bias to such studies, either imagined or real.

I don't get why you need to put in the last part. You agree that there is a certain bias in the article. I agree. Simple. No need for any mention of the possibility imagining things.

T Runner wrote:

How does one know if the prostitute is "consenting" or an "adult"?

If the "prostitute" is a sex slave does that mean the consenting client is guilty of rape?

Done to death in this thread. Read back a few pages and you'll be able to see the discussion on it, unless you actually have something new to add?

How do you know that the money a client pays to a prostitute does not fund sex trafikers/trafficking and other human rights abuses and crimes?

I don't. Just as I don't know that the money I spend on buying cigarettes down the road, doesn't fund it, or the charity I give to beggars on the street...

Unless you have some evidence which shows a high proportion of income from "normal" prostitution ends up supporting these activities?

Although from a business sense, I can't see the point of taking custom away from a higher charging (and somewhat normal) industry towards a highly illegal & expensive industry..

From what I have read about sex trafficking, its aimed at a highly select clientele who know before hand the status of the women in question... The risks involved are quite high considering all you need is one client deciding to inform the authorities, and those in charge will face multiple criminal charges.

The sex trafficking/crimes and slavery needs to be stopped.

Totally agree. However, I've never liked the way posters seek to automatically link them to mainstream prostitution.

To achieve this either:

Paying money for sex should be criminalised.
De-criminalise prostitution, with licences.

Well, actually the prostitute can be arrested at the moment for the transaction of giving sex for money... TBH, I'm not sure if the customer is charged with anything.

Making the payment for sex illegal just continues to keep it underground and more difficult to monitor.

Macha · 15-01-2010 07:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get why you need to put in the last part. You agree that there is a certain bias in the article. I agree. Simple. No need for any mention of the possibility imagining things.

I was talking about the research, not the article. And I haven't read enough of the research to see if it is biased or not. So I'm not going to say it definitely is biased when I'm not sure. So I did see a need to add it.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 07:58PM

taconnol wrote: »

I was talking about the research, not the article. And I haven't read enough of the research to see if it is biased or not. So I'm not going to say it definitely is biased when I'm not sure. So I did see a need to add it.

I think it is pretty safe to say that the 'research' is biased. It is, after all, published by an organization that are concerned solely with women's issues - so why would they be interested in men's issues unless it allowed them to "put the needs of women first"? That is called a bias.

Outside of the Guardian article's author, who tellingly did not reveal the origin of this "major international research project", who actually recognizes the validity of this survey?

Regardless of the subject matter (prostitution) I find some of the so-called 'research' being pushed by such pressure groups to be offensive hate propaganda. Doesn't go quite as far as S.C.U.M. and explicitly call for the gendercide of men - it just infers that all men are rapists and allows the reader to come to their own conclusion...

Macha · 15-01-2010 08:33PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think it is pretty safe to say that the 'research' is biased. It is, after all, published by an organization that are concerned solely with women's issues - so why would they be interested in men's issues unless it allowed them to "put the needs of women first"? That is called a bias.

That is called a version of the argument of authority. Why don't you read the research before you dismiss it based on who did the research. It will have a methodology available for any who want to question it.

Again, you reach for S.C.U.M. It's so easy yet so lazy to reach for the lunatic fringe.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 08:47PM

taconnol wrote: »

That is called a version of the argument of authority. Why don't you read the research before you dismiss it based on who did the research. It will have a methodology available for any who want to question it.

For the same reason I would not bother studying the research on a survey on racial studies commissioned by Storm Front.

And no, I do not see Eaves4Women as particularly different to Storm Front.

Again, you reach for S.C.U.M. It's so easy yet so lazy to reach for the lunatic fringe.

And pushing the old "all men are rapists" line is not lunatic fringe?

Macha · 15-01-2010 09:03PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

And no, I do not see Eaves4Women as particularly different to Storm Front.

First S.C.U.M and now Storm Front? Eaves is an organisation that provides shelter for women suffering from domestic violence and victims of trafficking.

If you can't see how warped it is to compare that to Storm Front, I don't know what to say. We've gone from that to an organisation that to a white supremist neo-nazi website?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And pushing the old "all men are rapists" line is not lunatic fringe?

Did I say that it wasn't?

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 09:17PM

taconnol wrote: »

If you can't see how warped it is to compare that to Storm Front, I don't know what to say. We've gone from that to an organisation that to a white supremist neo-nazi website?

Pushing propaganda though pseudo-academic implication such as "all men are rapists" is hate propaganda and if the ideology of an organization stretches to hate and/or promotion of hate of any other group, then what exactly is the difference between them and Storm Front at the end of the day? The label Fem-nazi didn't appear out of nowhere.

Did I say that it wasn't?

Yet you give credence to a report that implies it.

Macha · 15-01-2010 09:22PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pushing propaganda though pseudo-academic implication such as "all men are rapists" is hate propaganda and if the ideology of an organization stretches to hate and/or promotion of hate of any other group, then what exactly is the difference between them and Storm Front at the end of the day? The label Fem-nazi didn't appear out of nowhere.

Where in the report does it say that "all men are rapists"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet you give credence to a report that implies it.

No, I did not give credence to the report. As I already said, I haven't read it. I'm simply questioning your out-and-out dismissal of it. Big difference.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 10:17PM

taconnol wrote: »

Where in the report does it say that "all men are rapists"?

I said it implied it, something you noted yourself when you introduced this report.

No, I did not give credence to the report.

Other than introducing it:

Interesting how some men argue that they need access to prostitutes so that they don't rape anyone yet over half of them are in relationships.

I didn't exactly note a lot of scepticism in that 'finding' from you - looks like credence to me.

As I already said, I haven't read it. I'm simply questioning your out-and-out dismissal of it. Big difference.

You questioned it and I gave an answer why: It's an ideologically driven group. They have agendas. The reports they produce are designed to drive those agendas. Truth is at best an altruistic by-product.

Prostitution

Comments