Have you ever been to a Brothel

Obliq · 30-06-2013 03:16PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

Do you also think hiring a cleaner is immoral?

Well, speaking for myself, I wouldn't turn down a regular cleaning job although it would be immoral because as a welfare recipient, unless I go through the books, it's illegal. Many companies do not put their cleaners through the books, and most individuals hiring cleaners couldn't care less about the fact that the cleaner cannot make that kind of job official at all, as they are not working for registered employers. That leaves the cleaner with the choice of having to turn down bettering their family circumstances, or taking the money offered to them by illegal work.

If you offer someone cash that is badly needed by them in return for an activity you know is illegal, is that not coercion? ....and yes, in before that tired old "well they're free not to do the activity, they choose to do it".

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 03:16PM

bluewolf wrote: »

You think paying for goods and services is coercion??
In that case, I'm out of here - no point continuing if you're making up definitions!

Fly-by posters that fly in when it suits them in a discussion and then fcuk off again when it doesn't are something else that wrecks my brain. Look up the definition of coercion for yourself if you think I'm just making up definitions, and this is why I directed people to read the thread I linked to, because it was just easier than the same points being made over and over again.

I could nearly do a copy and paste job at this stage but I'm not a fan of hand holding and spoon feeding grown adults, I don't mind helping people to understand or trying to inform and educate them, but if they show absolutely no willingness whatsoever to understand, well then I'm all for them exercising their free will to remain ignorant as I feel no need to coerce them.

Yamanoto · 30-06-2013 03:23PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But there doesn't have to be threatened force to imply coercion! A sex worker will abstain from having sex with you unless you have the means to convince her to have sex with you. Therefore you are coerced to pay for the sex, against your free will, and she is coerced because she is coerced to entertain your sexual desires because you gave her enough money, thereby she is having sex with you against her free will!

If one manages to exclude common sense from the whole equation, then sure, that all tidies up very nicely.

Conveniently overlooks the fact that either party are free to turn on their heels and walk away.

That's the prime expression of free will & one that supersedes anything you're claiming a transaction for cash may impose upon a person.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I DO make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary sex work, and many of my friends as I said are voluntary sex workers...

...having sex with others against their free will apparently.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You may disagree with my opinion, but my opinion is based on my experience and the experience of hundreds of people I have met with who work in the sex industry, were working in the sex industry, or are thinking about getting into the sex industry.

I don't doubt your bona fides, but by no means does it follow that your opinion should automatically be taken as correct.

naughtysmurf · 30-06-2013 03:29PM

Walked into one years ago in the UK, thought it was a gym

, in fairness it was called the Oasis Health Club, made my excuses & left

Read about a sign hanging in a brothel years ago that read,
YOU COME, YOU GO
Thought it was amusing

Speisekarte · 30-06-2013 03:37PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

You might have a point if I had said sex work was moral or immoral. I didn't, so your point is moot. For me the morality of sex work isn't relevant in a discussion because everyone has different moral standards. I don't have an issue with the sex industry, I have an issue with exploitation. There's a hell of a difference.

Why is exploitation relevant then if everyone has different moral standards?

And can you define exploitation is and what your problem with it is?

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 03:49PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

I don't doubt your bona fides, but by no means does it follow that your opinion should automatically be taken as correct.

Hence why I would never assume my opinion was correct, but my opinion is more informed than someone who displays that they have much less experience of the issues involved, or just a flat out biased perspective.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and quite frankly the more opinions on an issue the better, and that goes for any issue, and there are no rights or wrongs, merely more informed opinions and less informed opinions.

Daveysil15 · 30-06-2013 03:54PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

fatbatman you make some really, I mean really, stupid arguments that betray your bias, arguments that are full of word play and lacking in logic, but you can't see it because of your bias

That's funny, I would have said the same thing about you. As usual, there are not too many people agreeing with you Czarcasm, but shur hey... maybe we're all wrong.

Yamanoto · 30-06-2013 04:00PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

but my opinion is more informed than someone who displays that they have much less experience of the issues involved

Makes quite a bit of what you've come out with here on thread all the more extraordinary for that tbh.

Just my opinion, mind.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 04:06PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

Why is exploitation relevant then if everyone has different moral standards?

Because exploitation in this context is the idea of trading in what is a free resource.

Get off the morality bandwagon because the morality of exploitation is a whole other argument in itself, and one that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

And can you define exploitation is and what your problem with it is?

See above for the definition, and if you don't see my problem with it, see this thread-

Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

It'll save us going round in circles and coming up with silly special circumstances scenarios.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 04:09PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

That's funny, I would have said the same thing about you. As usual, there are not too many people agreeing with you Czarcasm, but shur hey... maybe we're all wrong.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, how many people agree with you? It's easy agree with an idea in principle, but in practice is a very different story.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 04:14PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

Makes quite a bit of what you've come out with here on thread all the more extraordinary for that tbh.

Just my opinion, mind.

I don't see why you would consider anything I've said extraordinary, sex work in Ireland goes on around you every day of the week?

I've extended the invitation before and I'll extend it to anyone here again- you're more than welcome to come and join me for a day, just a couple of hours even! I promise, I'm not all stuck up my own hole offline! It'll be fun!

2Mad2BeMad · 30-06-2013 04:20PM

czarcasm is right
if you have a 100 quid in your pocket you can get laid any day of the week

i find it cheaper then going on a night out :L:L:L:L birds drink heavy -.- even if their lightweights

HansHolzel · 30-06-2013 04:27PM

Knew a girl in college who asked what the difference was between (1) buying a girl drink all day in order to achieve an rud eile, and (2) just giving her the cash at the outset.

bodice ripper · 30-06-2013 04:28PM

Some middle aged dutch woman just offered me 20 euro to **** her. I was eating my lunch in a restaurant at the time. Quite flattered.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 04:38PM

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

czarcasm is right
if you have a 100 quid in your pocket you can get laid any day of the week
i find it cheaper then going on a night out :L:L:L:L birds drink heavy -.- even if their lightweights

This perception that you HAVE to buy a girl drinks before she'll sleep with you is ridiculous.

I've never paid for a girl's drinks when I'm out, they are perfectly capable of paying for their own drinks!

I've bought girls drinks when I'm out, but there was never any expectation of sleeping with them and no onus on them to do so by way of returning the gesture.

Speisekarte · 30-06-2013 04:49PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Because exploitation in this context is the idea of trading in what is a free resource.

Get off the morality bandwagon because the morality of exploitation is a whole other argument in itself, and one that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

See above for the definition, and if you don't see my problem with it, see this thread-

Exclusion of Sex Workers from Justice Committee

It'll save us going round in circles and coming up with silly special circumstances scenarios.

Bottom line you can't come up with a reasonable argument why two adults shouldn't be allowed to trade sex for cash.

Daveysil15 · 30-06-2013 04:53PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

This perception that you HAVE to buy a girl drinks before she'll sleep with you is ridiculous.

I've never paid for a girl's drinks when I'm out, they are perfectly capable of paying for their own drinks!

I've bought girls drinks when I'm out, but there was never any expectation of sleeping with them and no onus on them to do so by way of returning the gesture.

Stereomaniac · 30-06-2013 04:56PM

My thoughts exactly. I think there should be a comma in there somewhere in the second line.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 05:10PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

Bottom line you can't come up with a reasonable argument why two adults shouldn't be allowed to trade sex for cash.

Not reasonable enough for YOU, no. Quelle surprise.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 05:18PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Stereomaniac wrote: »

My thoughts exactly. I think there should be a comma in there somewhere in the second line.

Ahh lads, it's not hard -

Girl orders drinks, tells me to pay for them, I say no. She has the choice to pay for them herself or do without.

I buy a girl a drink, she has the choice to take it or not. I offer to buy a girl a drink, she has the choice to accept, or decline my offer and pay for her own drinks.

I'm still not forced to buy a girl a drink, there is no expectation of sex, and there is no onus on her to sleep with me by way of returning the gesture.

Speisekarte · 30-06-2013 05:35PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ahh lads, it's not hard -

Girl orders drinks, tells me to pay for them, I say no. She has the choice to pay for them herself or do without.

I buy a girl a drink, she has the choice to take it or not. I offer to buy a girl a drink, she has the choice to accept, or decline my offer and pay for her own drinks.

I'm still not forced to buy a girl a drink, there is no expectation of sex, and there is no onus on her to sleep with me by way of returning the gesture.

You said you never buy girls drinks in one sentence and then in another sentence you said you do buy girls drinks. Do you not understand how someone might find that a tad perplexing?

HansHolzel · 30-06-2013 05:42PM

'Perplexing' is too kind.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 05:50PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

You said you never buy girls drinks in one sentence and then in another sentence you said you do buy girls drinks. Do you not understand how someone might find that a tad perplexing?

No, I said I've never paid for a girl's drinks when I'm out, but I have bought girls drinks when I'm out. It's not really that perplexing tbh and I hope my explanation clears it up somewhat. I've said already I hate the whole word play nonsense in a discussion and I'd love if people were able to come to some understanding in this thread, and as long as they showed a willingness to do so, I'll bend over backwards to make that happen.

It hasn't really happened so far though if what some posters have posted so far is anything to go by.

Cue the immature "well you're making no sense and you haven't given a reasonable justification for your opinion" post, followed by a load of thanks.

How, original.

Predictable would be a better word.

Daveysil15 · 30-06-2013 05:56PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, I said I've never paid for a girl's drinks when I'm out, but I have bought girls drinks when I'm out. It's not really that perplexing tbh and I hope my explanation clears it up somewhat. I've said already I hate the whole word play nonsense in a discussion and I'd love if people were able to come to some understanding in this thread, and as long as they showed a willingness to do so, I'll bend over backwards to make that happen.

It hasn't really happened so far though if what some posters have posted so far is anything to go by.

Cue the immature "well you're making no sense and you haven't given a reasonable justification for your opinion" post, followed by a load of thanks.

How, original.

Predictable would be a better word.

Yeah I know the feeling.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 06:06PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yeah I know the feeling.

Well, at least I understood where you were coming from in the "Bigger Girls" thread Dave, some people have a complete aversion to anything that doesn't jig with their world view, once a person can understand that much, they tend not to get so bent out of shape about people's right to express their opinion, even if it doesn't agree with theirs.

Speisekarte · 30-06-2013 06:30PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, I said I've never paid for a girl's drinks when I'm out, but I have bought girls drinks when I'm out. It's not really that perplexing tbh and I hope my explanation clears it up somewhat. I've said already I hate the whole word play nonsense in a discussion and I'd love if people were able to come to some understanding in this thread, and as long as they showed a willingness to do so, I'll bend over backwards to make that happen.

It hasn't really happened so far though if what some posters have posted so far is anything to go by.

Cue the immature "well you're making no sense and you haven't given a reasonable justification for your opinion" post, followed by a load of thanks.

How, original.

Predictable would be a better word.

Ok, so you never paid for a girls drinks when out,but you have bought girls drinks when out. Thanks that's crystal clear now.

Back to the coercion, is hiring a plumber wrong? It's my understanding you view it to be wrong or immoral to pay for a service as the service provider wouldn't have done it without the " coercion" of money.

Czarcasm · 30-06-2013 06:54PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

Ok, so you never paid for a girls drinks when out,but you have bought girls drinks when out. Thanks that's crystal clear now.

Back to the coercion, is hiring a plumber wrong? It's my understanding you view it to be wrong or immoral to pay for a service as the service provider wouldn't have done it without the " coercion" of money.

Is there any point in entertaining you when you're not even reading my posts?

And no, I won't point you back to where I've answered your question numerous times already but you haven't been reading. If you can't be àrsed even to do that much then I don't see why I should continue to entertain you.

camel jockey · 30-06-2013 07:02PM

No. I was in Germany last year on a business trip. There was a brothel near the hotel. I suspect the lad I was travelling with may have paid a visit.

MOC88 · 30-06-2013 07:45PM

Pug160 wrote: »

It just doesn't seem to me, to be something a healthy individual would do. At the very least it's immature. And at worst it's a sign of bigger problems. You posted it up on a forum so if you don't want to be judged it would be a good idea to be more discrete from now on.

You may try to defend suggesting I'm a psychopath by saying your armchair psychological evaluation is valid but it is blatantly insulting . Grow up seriously, I'm obviously not a psychopath and yes I can admit I'm immature when I'm going drinking with my friends... so what?

Were you trying to be constructive, I'd doubt it. I get the impression that I said something that rubbed you up the wrong way for your own reasons and you were too immature to deal with it. Of course I'm wrong and you being ''the epitome of a "healthy individual" will obviously deal with this in the way a ''healthy individual'' would. If you want to just insult people please be more discrete in future.

Obliq · 30-06-2013 07:47PM

Speisekarte wrote: »

Ok, so you never paid for a girls drinks when out,but you have bought girls drinks when out. Thanks that's crystal clear now.

Back to the coercion, is hiring a plumber wrong? It's my understanding you view it to be wrong or immoral to pay for a service as the service provider wouldn't have done it without the " coercion" of money.

Why don't you use cleaner as an example? After all it's more similar in that, as I've said,that work will often be untaxed and illegal. That leaves the cleaner in the position of taking the (potential) heat for being caught, much like sex workers (but obviously without high risk of violence towards them, poor self-esteem/lifestyle and association with dodgy elements like dealers and pimps - a step up from sex working eh?!).

Cleaners don't clean other people's toilets for fun (and most would rather do something else to earn a few quid), but they are offered illegal work and "are free to choose not to do it", as you say......but tellingly, wouldn't be doing it if it weren't for their "clients" offering them money to do illegal work. They would be struggling more than without the money, mind, so there's your coercion, right there...think about it.

Have you ever been to a Brothel

Comments