Have you ever been to a Brothel

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 02:12PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

You missed his point.

The emotion you feel inside yourself is determining your positions and conclusions. You then use any old reasons you can think of to justify your positions, when reality your mind has already been made up by your personal feelings and emotions.

I've already had Pug the amateur psychologist try to psychoanalyse me, it's best you try to avoid doing same because you're very much mistaken.

Yamanoto · 29-06-2013 02:35PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

Quick question so.

If two consenting adults freely agree to enact a transaction for sex (again let me make this clear - no coercion involved), would you have an objection to that and if so, on what grounds?

Any answer to the above, Czarcasm?

Daveysil15 · 29-06-2013 02:37PM

And can you explain how sex is freely available to everyone Czarcasm?

MOC88 · 29-06-2013 02:45PM

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.

Yep, totally right... you've changed my whole perspective on life.

Seriously though I find it funny because how bloody ridicolous the situation is... I'm sitting there basically haggling about x,y and z... meanwhile they're thinking what kind of nut do they have on the phone. It's not like I do it every night I head out but it can be pretty fun on occasion... TBF I don't see how its degrading most people do what would be considered extreme for free and I'm sorry if me finding the whole situation funny offends you but everyone has a different sense of humour.

A lot of people don't view people as being their equals but its not a problem I have. I can accept that ones persons emotions and feelings are as valid as anothers but that doesn't lead me to being a kind and considerate person who will not waste these people's time just as it doesn't lead me down the opposite track.

It sounds like you need to lighten up rather than sit in front of your laptop analysing the statements made on AH of all places. From the amateur psychologist in me you're trying to find validation for your life by insulting me you seek to prove to yourself that you are superior and have a better understanding of peoples motivations and emotions. More psychobabble blah blah blah

Hmmmm I'm getting defensive you must have really hit home....:eek: Congratulations on your armchair assesment of a persons psychology from a brief statement made on after hours. I'll be looking forward to seeing further analysis on other's posts but I get the feeling this was a once off and you've a personal problem with what I said.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 02:50PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

Any answer to the above, Czarcasm?

I've already addressed this question in this thread Yamato. If you actually really give a damn about the issue, it's worth informing yourself -

Exclusion of Sex Workers From Justice Committee

Daveysil15 wrote: »

And can you explain how sex is freely available to everyone Czarcasm?

Eh? Look around you Davey, the person next to you on the bus could be willing to sleep with you, you just don't know it yet because you refuse to entertain the idea. That is the basis of "involuntary", or rather- self imposed celibacy.

Daveysil15 · 29-06-2013 02:55PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Eh? Look around you Davey, the person next to you on the bus could be willing to sleep with you, you just don't know it yet because you refuse to entertain the idea. That is the basis of "involuntary", or rather- self imposed celibacy.

What if someone is really heavy and confined to a chair and can't get on a bus? There are any amount of other situations too where people can't find someone to have sex with.

MOC88 · 29-06-2013 02:57PM

Pug160 wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry but if I was attempting to dehumanise and debase someone and I thought that my prank calls were to do that why wouldn't it be a progression to avail of said services not just decide that no I think sleeping with someone should be about more than how much money I have in my pocket?

The reason prostitution was made illegal in most Western society is because most of it is because it is forced ie. the person doesn't have economical choice in the matter. The state should provide a situation whereby nobody is forced in to this position. Now obviously a century or two down the line we are aware that some people see it as a viable business to sell sex... but the problem persists if it was made legal there are many who would be forced into it likely through psychological means.

God forbid someone should ring a sex worker for a prank call, but agian why have you taken such personal offence. I've been on the end of many prank cals myself in part time jobs and some of the time they were plain annoying other times they're funny. Generally the prank phone calls I make to said workers aren't appreciated but from their exasperation I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks its funny(s lot of my friends do too). Its only done an odd time any way, if I done it every Saturday night it would bore the hell out of me anyway. Besides they're hardly the only ones I ever prank call :pac::pac::pac:

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 03:03PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Eh? Look around you Davey, the person next to you on the bus could be willing to sleep with you, you just don't know it yet because you refuse to entertain the idea. That is the basis of "involuntary", or rather- self imposed celibacy.

Your lack of logic showing up once again. To be voluntarily celibate would be to not partake in sexual opportunities. To be involuntarily celibate would be to be willing to partake in sexual opportunities, yet not getting to for whatever reason. How much effort the involuntary celibate makes is irrelevant. His/her circumstances, be they mental or physical, incapacitate his/her ability to engage in sex, that is the point.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 03:05PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

What if someone is really heavy and confined to a chair and can't get on a bus? There are any amount of other situations too where people can't find someone to have sex with.

And there are just as many ways for them to enjoy sex without having to pay for it.

Seeing as you care so much for people that you see as unable to find someone to have sex with, have you given a thought to those who cannot afford to pay someone to have sex with them, or do you think sex workers will provide their services to these people for free, because they should feel the same pity for them as you do?

I'd like to see you approach any sex worker with that idea in mind and see how far you get!

Daveysil15 · 29-06-2013 03:14PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

And there are just as many ways for them to enjoy sex without having to pay for it.

Seeing as you care so much for people that you see as unable to find someone to have sex with, have you given a thought to those who cannot afford to pay someone to have sex with them, or do you think sex workers will provide their services to these people for free, because they should feel the same pity for them as you do?

I'd like to see you approach any sex worker with that idea in mind and see how far you get!

The pity towards them is irrelevant.

As I pointed out already, a person can do everything right: they can look after themselves, go out regularly, approach people, try online dating etc, and it just doesn't work out. It's called luck. To suggest that every single person can find a sexual partner is just ridiculous.

Yamanoto · 29-06-2013 03:22PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I've already addressed this question in this thread Yamato. If you actually really give a damn about the issue, it's worth informing yourself -

Exclusion of Sex Workers From Justice Committee
.

Come off it now Czarcasm...

Why the evasiveness - seriously?

By no reasonable expectation could you ask me to trawl through a 40-page thread to find the answer to a fairly simple question I've put to you twice already here.

The very fact that thread turned into the Czarcasm show (with one or two others), with a huge degree of prevarication and equivocation abounding, put many folks off engaging with it I'd imagine - I know it did me.

Also, it'd be great if you'd hold off from the barbed, small kinda stuff such as 'If you actually really give a damn about the issue' - it just raises folks hackles and stymies reasoned and reasonable discussion imo.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 03:24PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

And there are just as many ways for them to enjoy sex without having to pay for it.

Seeing as you care so much for people that you see as unable to find someone to have sex with, have you given a thought to those who cannot afford to pay someone to have sex with them, or do you think sex workers will provide their services to these people for free, because they should feel the same pity for them as you do?

I'd like to see you approach any sex worker with that idea in mind and see how far you get!

Try approaching the vast majority of women with that idea in mind and see how far you get. You won't anyway because it's inappropriate as well as inconvenient.

You time and time again commit the fallacy of "what SHOULD be, but isn't". If this was a totally convenient and ideal world, there would be no prostitution, or no sex for that matter because we would all be experiencing perpetual orgasm on a constant basis, but it isn't and we don't. Some people, for whatever reason, feel a need or a desire to pay for intercourse. You've been asked several times in this thread alone to explain your opinion that for them to do so is in some form or another morally objectionable. I know you claim your answer in hidden somewhere in that lengthily thread, but since the time you first provided it as an apparent answer, you've spouted post after post of deflections. You should be able to lay out your reasons for your opinion in a timely fashion, otherwise don't be surprised when no one takes you in any way seriously.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 03:34PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

The pity towards them is irrelevant.

Hey you brought them up in an attempt to point out the fact that sex workers were necessary so involuntarily celibate people could have sex, now you're saying their plight is irrelevant? I didn't see the relevance in bringing them up in the first place since they are voluntarily celibate.

As I pointed out already, a person can do everything right: they can look after themselves, go out regularly, approach people, try online dating etc, and it just doesn't work out.

Then they're doing something wrong. Visiting sex workers isn't going to fix that problem, and if anything- will only exacerbate it by providing an illusion of consensual intimacy. If you're paying for it, it's not freely given consent, you're paying for a sex workers consent.

It's called luck.

It's called making an effort, instead of defaulting to the easier, quicker, short term fix that offers no viable long term solution.

To suggest that every single person can find a sexual partner is just ridiculous.

It's even more ridiculous to suggest that out of SEVEN BILLION people, that they couldn't find a sexual partner.

Grayson · 29-06-2013 03:37PM

MOC88 wrote: »

The reason prostitution was made illegal in most Western society is because most of it is because it is forced ie. the person doesn't have economical choice in the matter.

And that's the same reason why homosexuality was illegal. And sex before marriage (in many places) and anal sex.

Actually no it wasn't. And neither was it why prostitution was made illegal. It was made illegal because of Christian morals.

In modern times things like polygamy and prostitution are banned to prevent women being taken advantage of.

fatbatman · 29-06-2013 03:42PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hey you brought them up in an attempt to point out the fact that sex workers
were necessary so involuntarily celibate people could have sex, now you're
saying their plight is irrelevant? I didn't see the relevance in bringing them
up in the first place since they are voluntarily celibate.

No he actually said sex workers are available because some people are unable go get sex without paying for it.

Then they're doing something wrong. Visiting sex workers isn't going to fix that
problem, and if anything- will only exacerbate it by providing an illusion of
consensual intimacy. If you're paying for it, it's not freely given consent,
you're paying for a sex workers consent.

Are you saying having sex with sex workers has never provided any kind of satisfaction or gratification to those who engage in it?

It's called making an effort, instead of defaulting to the easier, quicker,
short term fix that offers no viable long term solution.

What viable long-term solution is there to sexual desire? Chemical castration? Is that what you're suggesting?

It's even more ridiculous to suggest that out of SEVEN BILLION people, that
they couldn't find a sexual partner.

Yeah cos we "sit next on the bus" to 7 billion people every day. :rolleyes:

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 03:45PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

Come off it now Czarcasm...

Why the evasiveness - seriously?

By no reasonable expectation could you ask me to trawl through a 40-page thread to find the answer to a fairly simple question I've put to you twice already here.

I don't see what's unreasonable about it. I put a lot of effort into that thread (admittedly far less than I'm putting in here, because if you're not willing to make the effort, why should I be?)

The very fact that thread turned into the Czarcasm show (with one or two others), with a huge degree of prevarication and equivocation abounding, put many folks off engaging with it I'd imagine - I know it did me.

Maybe just people are not engaging with the thread because they don't have use same interest in sex workers as the posters who have contributed to the thread.

Also, it'd be great if you'd hold off from the barbed, small kinda stuff such as 'If you actually really give a damn about the issue' - it just raises folks hackles and stymies reasoned and reasonable discussion imo.

That wasn't a barb, that was a statement of fact, based on evidence that some posters hadn't a clue what they were talking about, and they continue with their ill informed opinions, and refuse to read a thread which would answer all their questions. I think that's more what makes this an unreasonable discussion when ill informed posters choose to remain ignorant.

Daveysil15 · 29-06-2013 03:46PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hey you brought them up in an attempt to point out the fact that sex workers were necessary so involuntarily celibate people could have sex, now you're saying their plight is irrelevant? I didn't see the relevance in bringing them up in the first place since they are voluntarily celibate.

Then they're doing something wrong. Visiting sex workers isn't going to fix that problem, and if anything- will only exacerbate it by providing an illusion of consensual intimacy. If you're paying for it, it's not freely given consent, you're paying for a sex workers consent.

It's called making an effort, instead of defaulting to the easier, quicker, short term fix that offers no viable long term solution.

It's even more ridiculous to suggest that out of SEVEN BILLION people, that they couldn't find a sexual partner.

How are they voluntarily celibate if they're trying everything but are not having any luck?

They're not necessarily doing anything wrong either. Some people find sexual partners, some don't. You make it sound as easy as walking into a supermarket and picking out what you want.

There's disabled people, people with aspergers, overweight people etc who find it difficult to find a partner. Of course its not impossible in every situation, but it can be extremely difficult for some people, and there are people who go their whole lives without finding a sexual partner. If you think free sex is available for every single person on earth as long as they make an effort, then you're living in a dreamland.

MOC88 · 29-06-2013 03:48PM

Grayson wrote: »

And that's the same reason why homosexuality was illegal. And sex before marriage (in many places) and anal sex.

Actually no it wasn't. And neither was it why prostitution was made illegal. It was made illegal because of Christian morals.

In modern times things like polygamy and prostitution are banned to prevent women being taken advantage of.

Yeah Christian ideals leading to the conclusion that sex outside marriage is wrong and therefore by not amking illegal they were allowing it to happen and it would be immoral to allow it to continue, and why would anyone do it voluntarily. Nowadays we obvously know there are plenty of people who would be prositutes willingly but unfortunately many who would be forced due to circumstance.

It could be argued that if it became legal then it would become a crutch to prop up a society failing its people. ie. If someone was struggling to make ends meet it would be questioned why they aren't using prostitution.

Of course poeple being forced to do this still happens but its illegal so politicians can put their thumbs in their ears and start singing to themselves and pretend that it doesn't and that they don't have to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to provide for themselves, ensuring they can collect their ridcolous pay packets and pensions in good consience.

HansHolzel · 29-06-2013 03:51PM

Re one's chances on the bus...

M. Thatcher said any man who by the age of 26 found himself taking a bus had to consider himself a failure.

29-06-2013 03:53PM

Can't believe this is still running after the Godwin and the "pornstars get paid for acting" bits.

Grayson · 29-06-2013 03:54PM

MOC88 wrote: »

Yeah Christian ideals leading to the conclusion that sex outside marriage is wrong and therefore by not amking illegal they were allowing it to happen and it would be immoral to allow it to continue, and why would anyone do it voluntarily. Nowadays we obvously know there are plenty of people who would be prositutes willingly but unfortunately many who would be forced due to circumstance.

It could be argued that if it became legal then it would become a crutch to prop up a society failing its people. ie. If someone was struggling to make ends meet it would be questioned why they aren't using prostitution.

Of course poeple being forced to do this still happens but its illegal so politicians can put their thumbs in their ears and start singing to themselves and pretend that it doesn't and that they don't have to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to provide for themselves, ensuring they can collect their ridcolous pay packets and pensions in good consience.

In Germany Brothels are allowed to advertise, but people are nopt forced to work for them. To state that legalisatioin will cause people to be forced to be sex workers by the government is a complete cop out. It's like the arguments against gay marriage saying that if we allow that we'll have to allow polygamy/incest/beastiality etc... It's the worst kind of slippery slope argument.

Grayson · 29-06-2013 03:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't believe this is still running after the Godwin and the "pornstars get paid for acting" bits.

They're artists.

Yamanoto · 29-06-2013 04:00PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't see what's unreasonable about it. I put a lot of effort into that thread (admittedly far less than I'm putting in here, because if you're not willing to make the effort, why should I be?)

Get off the stage Czarcasm, you're gas.

I would have thought answering the question I've put to you (or at the very least providing a link to the answer) is a simple matter of common courtesy.

Though it's most unlikely that exact question was put to you - as well you know.

If someone asks me for a link, I'll provide it if I can.

For whatever reason, you're being evasive, when asked repeatedly to answer a simple question.

Come back philologos, all is forgiven!!!!

MOC88 · 29-06-2013 04:11PM

Grayson wrote: »

In Germany Brothels are allowed to advertise, but people are nopt forced to work for them. To state that legalisatioin will cause people to be forced to be sex workers by the government is a complete cop out. It's like the arguments against gay marriage saying that if we allow that we'll have to allow polygamy/incest/beastiality etc... It's the worst kind of slippery slope argument.

Its not my viewpoint, had to get some Government bashing in there somewhere. But it is happening there are people right now working in prostitution becasue they have no other choice... if thats not a failure and a breaking of the social contract then I don't know what is. There are many who work in the trade and see it as another job and I hope they do well for themselves but that's not whats concerning me, its the fact that a failure of policies are leading to forced prostitution.

Legal/illegal in this case, personally I don't see the difference it would make to them, they'd have to do it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that while its illegal politicians can pretend they are doing everything they can to prevent forced prosititution and they can continue to pretend its not happening. Gay Marriage is an interesting topic to bring up and shows the absoloute blinkered approach of the Government... if it was up to the actual country it would be legal tommorow without much fanfare or hoo hah.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 04:13PM

fatbatman wrote: »

Try approaching the vast majority of women with that idea in mind and see how far you get. You won't anyway because it's inappropriate as well as inconvenient.

You clearly don't know me very well! :pac:

And I've had more success than the fellow who will sit next to a girl on the bus and say nothing to her, suffice to say it helps if you make it clear what you want instead of fumbling around the issue.

You time and time again commit the fallacy of "what SHOULD be, but isn't".

The only posters committing that fallacy are those who say that sex work should be treated like any other transaction or occupation, but isn't.

If this was a totally convenient and ideal world, there would be no prostitution, or no sex for that matter because we would all be experiencing perpetual orgasm on a constant basis, but it isn't and we don't.

But my point is that you CAN experience that, without paying for it, and there are so many opportunities open to you to do so!

Some people, for whatever reason, feel a need or a desire to pay for intercourse. You've been asked several times in this thread alone to explain your opinion that for them to do so is in some form or another morally objectionable.

But I don't object to it on the grounds of morality, so why would I argue against sex work on the grounds of morality?

I know you claim your answer in hidden somewhere in that lengthily thread, but since the time you first provided it as an apparent answer, you've spouted post after post of deflections. You should be able to lay out your reasons for your opinion in a timely fashion, otherwise don't be surprised when no one takes you in any way seriously.

But I have laid them out, in black and white already, I'm not deflecting anything. I'm pointing you at the answers, you just refuse to acknowledge them because it's not convenient for you. That sounds familiar.

I couldn't care less if a person who doesn't want to take ten minutes to read that thread also doesn't want to take me seriously, it's hardly coming as a surprise. This issue crops up regularly in AH, and that thread is as good a resource as any to answer the same questions that pop up time and time again.

Zen65 · 29-06-2013 04:14PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't argue with somebody who clearly has no idea what they're talking about tbh...

Again, I can't argue with somebody who has no idea what they're talking about...

Here you go, all the evidence you should ever want -

Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

Again, I can't argue with somebody who clearly has no idea what they're talking about. If you really want to inform yourself, read that thread I linked to.

Well if your idea of a discussion is to be personally insulting while adding nothing to the debate - hop onboard my "ignore" list!

Z

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 04:24PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Well if your idea of a discussion is to be personally insulting while adding nothing to the debate - hop onboard my "ignore" list!

Z

You shouldn't take my opinion that you are ill informed or don't know what you are talking about as a personal insult. It certainly wasn't meant that way and certainly there was no malice intended in it.

It's just that I really can't argue why I object to something if the other person is displaying that they have no idea what they're talking about. It's like the way you saw no difference between physiotherapists and physical therapists - there's a world of a difference between the two, but because you understand neither, and are unprepared to try and understand either, how the hell can I even argue with a misinformed opinion?

It makes no sense and it's easier to direct you to a thread where you can at least be informed.

Yamanoto · 29-06-2013 04:27PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But I have laid them out, in black and white already, I'm not deflecting anything. I'm pointing you at the answers, you just refuse to acknowledge them because it's not convenient for you. That sounds familiar.

The fact you're engaging in discussion ON THIS THREAD, while habitually referring posters to ANOTHER THREAD ENTIRELY to do your talking for you is a curious way to go about your discourse.

Again, deflection, equivocation, evasiveness.

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 04:29PM

fatbatman wrote: »

Your lack of logic showing up once again. To be voluntarily celibate would be to not partake in sexual opportunities. To be involuntarily celibate would be to be willing to partake in sexual opportunities, yet not getting to for whatever reason. How much effort the involuntary celibate makes is irrelevant. His/her circumstances, be they mental or physical, incapacitate his/her ability to engage in sex, that is the point.

See how am I supposed to take that seriously? Of course how much effort a person makes is relevant! I said sex was freely available to those who want it, but it doesn't land in your lap, well, not most of the time anyway

Czarcasm · 29-06-2013 04:37PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

The fact you're engaging in discussion ON THIS THREAD, while habitually referring posters to ANOTHER THREAD ENTIRELY to do your talking for you is a curious way to go about your discourse.

Again, deflection, equivocation, evasiveness.

Do we not link posters to resources all the time and expect them to go read them? I have been asked to provide evidence to back up my opinion, I have provided it. There's no deflection or evasiveness going on there.

Anyway, I can only see this discussion revolving in a circular fashion so I'll bow out for now and maybe the thread might get back on the topic of -

"Have you ever been to a brothel?"

and less about what's right or wrong about the sex industry.

Have you ever been to a Brothel

Comments