Have you ever been to a Brothel

MOC88 · 28-06-2013 10:26PM

dotsman wrote: »

So, you think it's fun to act like a complete a$$hole to people you have never met? Do you get some fcuked up sexual thrill from this? Have you ever even met a woman you could respect as a person? What age are you?

Yes.
Yes.
No.
5.

RealExpert · 28-06-2013 10:33PM

SV wrote: »

Nope, never been that desperate for the ride.

View the whole paying for sex thing as extremely seedy.

Dont forget even if you are married you are still paying for it!

Holyjebus · 28-06-2013 10:34PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If you use that logic. What do they women think of themselves?

And men generally don't announce it to the world so how do you know nice guys don't?

My attitude to it changed when I worked in Australia for a while. Every friday some of the guys would head to the "Pros". Seem as me heading for a beer after work sort of thing.

I'd ask them why not just go out and pull. They would say, they know exactly what they would get as they were paying for it.

They also would say I was paying for it too, albeit in a more indirect way.

I thought the same while living in Australia, lived with a houseful of men who would often pop into the local brothel on the way home from work for a quickie and they thought nothing of it and in the end, neither did I and I'm a woman

I would say it's a whole lot easier than chatting up a woman all night and buying her drink and still ending up with nothing!

28-06-2013 10:36PM

MOC88 wrote: »

Yes.
Yes.
No.
5.

Pug160 · 28-06-2013 11:35PM

MOC88 wrote: »

No, but before I head out I think its hilarious to look up the numbers of local escorts and ring them and ask them how much to do freaky **** and see how long before they hang up... some of them are really prepared to work for their money. And no, I never take them up on the offers

What you have written is cause for concern. The amateur psychologist in me says that you're trying to dehumanise those women because you don't see them as equals and you might have some psychological issues going on. Prank calls are one thing but what you're doing sounds more personal and degrading.

It's cause for concern in the same way someone who is cruel to animals is as it could potentially be part of a bigger problem. That's the way I see it anyway.

daRobot · 28-06-2013 11:41PM

Pug160 wrote: »

What you have written is cause for concern. The amateur psychologist in me says that you're trying to dehumanise those women because you don't see them as equals and you might have some psychological issues going on. Prank calls are one thing but what you're doing sounds more personal and degrading.

It's cause for concern in the same way someone who is cruel to animals is as it could potentially be part of a bigger problem. That's the way I see it anyway.

+ 1

They're human beings doing a less than desirable role. Leave them the fcuk alone.

Thom Merrilin · 28-06-2013 11:49PM

Pug160 wrote: »

What you have written is cause for concern. The amateur psychologist in me says that you're trying to dehumanise those women because you don't see them as equals and you might have some psychological issues going on. Prank calls are one thing but what you're doing sounds more personal and degrading.

It's cause for concern in the same way someone who is cruel to animals is as it could potentially be part of a bigger problem. That's the way I see it anyway.

I would consider someone who is cruel to animals as the bigger problem itself, rather than being part of one.

Czarcasm · 28-06-2013 11:51PM

Pug160 wrote: »

What you have written is cause for concern. The amateur psychologist in me says that you're trying to dehumanise those women because you don't see them as equals and you might have some psychological issues going on. Prank calls are one thing but what you're doing sounds more personal and degrading.

It's cause for concern in the same way someone who is cruel to animals is as it could potentially be part of a bigger problem. That's the way I see it anyway.

At least Pug you freely admit to your armchair psychologist diagnosis over the internet! The guy makes a couple of harmless prank calls, that's all there is to it.

You're trying to psychoanalyse him for making prank calls to people who earn their living selling their bodies to strangers, and you don't see the ironic stance in your position?

Pug160 · 29-06-2013 12:01AM

Thom Merrilin wrote: »

I would consider someone who is cruel to animals as the bigger problem itself, rather than being part of one.

I said potentially. Being cruel to animals is a problem of course. But as much as I love animals I don't see them as equal to humans. So if someone were to go out and kill a cat then a few years later kill a human, the bigger problem was that the person wasn't simply cruel to animals - they had even bigger, more deadly issues. Admittedly, abusing prostitutes over the phone may not seem as bad as being cruel to animals, but it's the same in theory. There could be bigger problems. That's all I was trying to say.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 12:05AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're trying to psychoanalyse him for making prank calls to people who earn their living selling their bodies to strangers, and you don't see the ironic stance in your position?

Are you implying there's something wrong with a woman who sells her body for a living? These women provide a vital service in society. Men possess a strong sexual drive (i.e the reason we are all alive) and some men either lack the ability to form relationships or are unwilling to.

I'm shocked and appalled at the illogical and ill-informed viewpoints on prostitution demonstrated by some in this thread. There is a massive stigma against males who use prostitutes in this country, and it's something that should really change.

Thom Merrilin · 29-06-2013 12:09AM

Pug160 wrote: »

I said potentially. Being cruel to animals is a problem of course. But as much as I love animals I don't see them as equal to humans. So if someone were to go out and kill a cat then a few years later kill a human, the bigger problem was that the person wasn't simply cruel to animals - they had even bigger, more deadly issues. Admittedly, abusing prostitutes over the phone may not seem as bad as being cruel to animals, but it's the same in theory. There could be bigger problems. That's all I was trying to say.

There 'could' always be bigger problems, Adrian Bayley is a perfect example - committed first rape over 20 years before raping and murdering Jill Meagher. There is generally a long history of violence and abuse before cases as serious as murder. I dunno.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 12:10AM

Pug160 wrote: »

I said potentially. Being cruel to animals is a problem of course. But as much as I love animals I don't see them as equal to humans. So if someone were to go out and kill a cat then a few years later kill a human, the bigger problem was that the person wasn't simply cruel to animals - they had even bigger, more deadly issues. Admittedly, abusing prostitutes over the phone may not seem as bad as being cruel to animals, but it's the same in theory. There could be bigger problems. That's all I was trying to say.

You could potentially be a poop eater... I said potentially.

Pug160 · 29-06-2013 12:11AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

At least Pug you freely admit to your armchair psychologist diagnosis over the internet! The guy makes a couple of harmless prank calls, that's all there is to it.

You're trying to psychoanalyse him for making prank calls to people who earn their living selling their bodies to strangers, and you don't see the ironic stance in your position?

They're not harmless in the same way other prank calls are - that's the distinction. And quite honestly, your second paragraph gives me a glimpse into your own character.

So let me get this right: You're a defender of women and equal rights but if they're prostitutes that all goes out the window? They're fair game?

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 12:13AM

Pug160 wrote: »

So let me get this right: You're a defender of women and equal rights but if they're prostitutes that all goes out the window? They're fair game?

He promotes promiscuity, yet disapproves of prostitution. What you're dealing with here is basically illogicality personified.

blade1 · 29-06-2013 12:19AM

baraca wrote: »

Upmarket brothels do exist you know, There not all seedy shitholes.

Seedy ****holes?
Are they something you can ask for in a brothel?

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 12:32AM

fatbatman wrote: »

Are you implying there's something wrong with a woman who sells her body for a living?

Implying? Let me make myself clear then. Yes, there's a hell of a lot wrong with a person selling their body for a living (I say person, because you may not have realised it, but men, and teenagers both male and female sell their bodies for a living too).

These women provide a vital service in society.

They do not. Sex is freely available to anyone who wants it. Sex workers package sex up like it's a finite resource and charge for it. They're not "providing" anything out of the goodness of their hearts, and certainly the illusion of a finite resource created from an infinite one is of no benefit to society.

Men possess a strong sexual drive (i.e the reason we are all alive)

No, the reason we are all alive is because men AND women chose to procreate. Procreation is the last thing any sex worker wants to do, and certainly the last thing anyone who avails sex workers services wants to happen.

and some men either lack the ability to form relationships or are unwilling to.

It's the latter rather than the former, for both men AND women.

I'm shocked and appalled at the illogical and ill-informed viewpoints on prostitution demonstrated by some in this thread. There is a massive stigma against males who use prostitutes in this country, and it's something that should really change.

At this point is there any need to point out to you that women also avail of the services provided by sex workers? In your eagerness to point out the "shocking attitudes" towards sex workers in this country, you yourself are perpetuating that "shocking attitude" by referring to sex workers as "prostitutes".

There's a whole thread on this issue that's been done to death already if you'd care to inform yourself before you mouth off without a clue about what you're talking about -

Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 12:53AM

Pug160 wrote: »

They're not harmless in the same way other prank calls are - that's the distinction. And quite honestly, your second paragraph gives me a glimpse into your own character.

Pug trust me, if all a sex worker had to worry about was a couple of prank calls, their lives would be a hell of a lot easier! Prank calls like the poster described are considered harmless compared to some of the more vicious and actual REAL hate filled phone calls they have to deal with, not to mention unsatisfied customers who can make their lives a living hell through physical intimidation when phone calls aren't enough.

So let me get this right: You're a defender of women and equal rights but if they're prostitutes that all goes out the window? They're fair game?

Seriously Pug, you're a nice guy so I'm not gonna rip you a new one, but don't give up the day job - your psychoanalytical skills are severely lacking if you think I see myself as any sort of a "defender" of women's rights or any of that other nonsense. I care about people, but if all you care about are labelling people, then I suppose for your convenience I'm both a humanitarian and a philanthropist.

I wouldn't think of anybody, and that includes sex workers (sex workers is the preferred term, not "prostitutes") as fair game, for any sort of ridicule or derision. They are members of society just as entitled to dignity and respect as anyone else.

The issue is not so black and white as "sex worker = bad", "sex worker = good". Too often in these merely academic or intellectual discussions, it's the people we talk about, and we tend to forget the person, ie- we tend to label a whole group rather than focus on the individual.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 12:54AM

Implying? Let me make myself clear then. Yes, there's a hell of a lot wrong with
a person selling their body for a living (I say person, because you may not have
realised it, but men, and teenagers both male and female sell their bodies for a
living too).

What is wrong with a person selling their body for a living?

They do not. Sex is freely available to anyone who wants it. Sex workers package
sex up like it's a finite resource and charge for it. They're not "providing"
anything out of the goodness of their hearts, and certainly the illusion of a
finite resource created from an infinite one is of no benefit to society.

Sex is not freely available to anyone who wants it, hence the existence of prostitution and the very high numbers of MAJORITARILY male customers who avail of said services.

No, the reason we are all alive is because men AND women chose to procreate.
Procreation is the last thing any sex worker wants to do, and certainly the last
thing anyone who avails sex workers services wants to happen.

Sex is an animalistic drive at it's base level. Do you think animals, including the apes we humans descended from, sat down and had a good think about whether they wished to procreate or not?

It's the latter rather than the former, for both men AND women.

How do you know this? You're REALLY claiming ALL people are able to get free sex at a moment's notice, really?

At this point is there any need to point out to you that women also avail of
the services provided by sex workers? In your eagerness to point out the
"shocking attitudes" towards sex workers in this country, you yourself are
perpetuating that "shocking attitude" by referring to sex workers as
"prostitutes".

There's a whole thread on this issue that's been done to death already if
you'd care to inform yourself before you mouth off without a clue about what
you're talking about -

Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

Male sex workers are either gay or bi, if they weren't they wouldn't receive any kind of sustainable business. A woman paying for sex is an extremely rare occurrence relative to a man doing the same.

Furthermore, I see no qualms with referring to someone who sells sex as a prostitute. Words exist solely for communicative purposes, and if people deem them "offensive" that's their problem.

Pug160 · 29-06-2013 01:21AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Pug trust me, if all a sex worker had to worry about was a couple of prank calls, their lives would be a hell of a lot easier! Prank calls like the poster described are considered harmless compared to some of the more vicious and actual REAL hate filled phone calls they have to deal with, not to mention unsatisfied customers who can make their lives a living hell through physical intimidation when phone calls aren't enough.

I wouldn't think of anybody, and that includes sex workers (sex workers is the preferred term, not "prostitutes") as fair game, for any sort of ridicule or derision. They are members of society just as entitled to dignity and respect as anyone else.

.

They're not just prank calls though. A prank caller has thousands upon thousands of companies, services and individuals to prank. But choosing a prostitute suggests that it's more personal, especially considering the sexual detail involved, as well as the time wasting. The poster then proudly states that he never takes them up on the offers, as if to imply that they're worthless or certainly not worthy. The more vicious calls and physical assaults could be from the very people who start out doing what the poster here is doing. The call in itself is not a big issue but it's what it may represent. It's not something that should be dismissed as just a harmless prank call. The women who are providing sexual services should not be any fairer game for abuse than women taking calls at takeaways or call centres or any other businesses.

Your previous response to me tells me that you don't see them as equals. You can try to claim otherwise but I think it is quite clear what you think.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 01:24AM

Pug160 wrote: »

choosing a prostitute suggests that it's more personal

Or maybe it's just the fact that not many other places can you find mobile numbers on the internet given out by someone with an investment into staying on the line to those who call... I think you're reading WAY too much into this.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 01:25AM

fatbatman wrote: »

What is wrong with a person selling their body for a living?

Sex is not freely available to anyone who wants it, hence the existence of prostitution and the very high numbers of MAJORITARILY male customers who avail of said services.

Read the thread I linked you to, it'll save me repeating myself.

Sex is an animalistic drive at it's base level. Do you think animals, including the apes we humans descended from, sat down and had a good think about whether they wished to procreate or not?

Next time you spot an ape paying for sex, be sure to let me know, will you?

How do you know this? You're REALLY claiming ALL people are able to get free sex at a moment's notice, really?

Read the thread I linked you to, it'll save me repeating myself.

Male sex workers are either gay or bi, if they weren't they wouldn't receive any kind of sustainable business.

I am neither gay nor bi, and it's a very lucrative business for heterosexual males, but you wouldn't be so ill informed if you read the thread I linked you to,

A woman paying for sex is an extremely rare occurrence relative to a man doing the same.

More ill informed opinion. Read the thread I linked you to, it'll save me repeating myself.

Furthermore, I see no qualms with referring to someone who sells sex as a prostitute. Words exist solely for communicative purposes, and if people deem them "offensive" that's their problem.

Hmm, an interesting contradiction in opinion there-

fatbatman wrote: »

I'm shocked and appalled at the illogical and ill-informed viewpoints on prostitution demonstrated by some in this thread. There is a massive stigma against males who use prostitutes in this country, and it's something that should really change.

So, you're shocked and appalled at the illogical and ill informed viewpoints on this thread, and yet when it's pointed out to you that you are perpetuating them yourself with your ill informed opinion and somebody corrects you on it, instead of trying to support changing that stigma, your attitude is "that's their problem".

Q. Why do you use the term sex worker rather than prostitute?

The term sex worker is used because when sex workers are asked about their activity they describe what they do as "work" or "working". Moreover, the term sex work is also used by the World Health Organisation (WHO 2001; WHO 2005) and the United Nations (UN 2006; UNAIDS 2002). The term sex worker refers to a woman or man who exchanges or trades sexual acts for money. The term sex work is also less stigmatising and has fewer moral connotations

Source: http://www.sexworkersallianceireland.org/frequently.html

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 01:36AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Read the thread I linked you to, it'll save me repeating myself.

It's a pretty straight forward question (What is wrong with a person selling their body for money?). I don't see why I should have to read an entire thread to get an answer. I'll rephrase it: how is selling sex any different in theory than selling bananas?

I am neither gay nor bi, and it's a very lucrative business for heterosexual
males

You're a prostitute "sex worker"?

Why isn't there a single heterosexual male prostitute on escort-Ireland?

Hmm, an interesting contradiction in opinion there-

So, you're shocked and appalled at the illogical and ill informed viewpoints
on this thread, and yet when it's pointed out to you that you are perpetuating
them yourself with your ill informed opinion and somebody corrects you on it,
instead of trying to support changing that stigma, your attitude is "that's
their problem".

Source: http://www.sexworkersallianceireland.org/frequently.html[/QUOTE]

A contradiction in opinion... in your opinion. I do not deem the term prostitute to be stigmatic, hence I will continue to use it.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 01:36AM

Pug160 wrote: »

Your previous response to me tells me that you don't see them as equals. You can try to claim otherwise but I think it is quite clear what you think.

Well, like I said already Pug, your psychoanalytical skills are lacking, but that again is likely due to you basing your opinion on your amateur psychologist perspective.

I have to agree with fatbatman on this one- you're reading WAY too much into what is simply a couple of lads having a laugh (sure, it's immature, but they could be doing worse, like paying women to have sex with them!), and like I said, sex workers would only love if prank calls were the worst they had to deal with. They get time wasters calling all the time, it's part and parcel of the nature of the business.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 01:39AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

but they could be doing worse, like paying women to have sex with them!

After you answer my original question, please answer it's reverse: What is wrong with a person paying someone else to have sex with them?

starviewadams · 29-06-2013 01:41AM

Was with an escort a few years back,ex uk pornstar on tour here.Keisha something or other.

Was a bit awkward handing over money and stuff,but was good fun in the end once that was out of the way.

Really attractive and such a nice lady,the sort that I'd never have a chance with in real life.

Pug160 · 29-06-2013 01:47AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well, like I said already Pug, your psychoanalytical skills are lacking, but that again is likely due to you basing your opinion on your amateur psychologist perspective.

I have to agree with fatbatman on this one- you're reading WAY too much into what is simply a couple of lads having a laugh (sure, it's immature, but they could be doing worse, like paying women to have sex with them!), and like I said, sex workers would only love if prank calls were the worst they had to deal with. They get time wasters calling all the time, it's part and parcel of the nature of the business.

You're letting your emotions get the better of you. The part of your paragraph I have highlighted is not logical. The prank caller is attempting to dehumanise prostitutes but you're claiming that anybody who pays for sex is worse.

Actually, time wasting is not the same thing at all. A time waster could be someone who was polite but didn't show up for any number of reasons.

Caribbean Cat · 29-06-2013 01:48AM

There are people I know who had been to brothels in their twenties.They were single and very immature. When they met their loves of their lives, their attitude changed very quickly.They suddenly realised all women were real and had feelings and were sisters, mothers and daughters.One lad told me he was extremely ashamed and would never had done it knowing what he knows now and apparently his mates felt the same.It's funny how human emotions can change a straight forward act.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 01:52AM

Caribbean Cat wrote: »

There are people I know who had been to brothels in their twenties.They were single and very immature. When they met their loves of their lives, their attitude changed very quickly.They suddenly realised all women were real and had feelings and were sisters, mothers and daughters.One lad told me he was extremely ashamed and would never had done it knowing what he knows now and apparently his mates felt the same.It's funny how human emotions can change a straight forward act.

It's also funny how human emotions can change a potentially straight forward opinion into a massively biased illogical one.

Don't pretend that all men who pay for sex are monsters that you are "morally superior" to, they're the same as you just making different choices under difference circumstances.

29-06-2013 01:53AM

fatbatman wrote: »

I'll rephrase it: how is selling sex any different in theory than selling bananas?

You see no difference between renting out your bodily orifices for deposits from any stranger who can stump up the cash, and selling bananas? Seriously?

You must have some very interesting ways of selling bananas.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 01:55AM

Candie wrote: »

You see no difference between renting out your bodily orifices for deposits from any stranger who can stump up the cash, and selling bananas? Seriously?

You must have some very interesting ways of selling bananas.

I see plenty of difference, but if you had bothered to look you'd have seen we were discussing this from a moral standpoint.

Have you ever been to a Brothel

Comments