Ladies your opinions on men using brothels and prostitutes

MaxWig · 27-08-2013 01:28PM

gcgirl wrote: »

They are not by any means immune to blame, I know several friends who had simlier experiences to myself, the church's teaching towards sex has a big part in this

I think attitudes to sex undoubtedly hurt/hinder relationships. However I don't think anyone is to blame for long-held attitudes towards sex.

And if a man uses the services of a prostitute, then only he can be held accountable for his actions.

I don't know that women do get the blame in such instances, but it wouldn't make much sense

27-08-2013 01:50PM

People have to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions and their choices. The men who did this did it because they made the choice to do it no other reason, and certainly noting to do with their wives, people who stay in a sexless relationships are making a choice to stay in the relationship there is no such thing as no other choice in that situation what they really mean is I don't want the choice that is available to me, people are great at fooling themselves.

That's alright as long as you are honest with yourself about why you are staying and the partner who wont have sex is not fooling themselves. Its the people who have moved to cloud cuckoo land and think their partner should be happy with the situation are the ones I think are strange.

Women in Ireland are hardly sexually repressed in todays society( that does not mean their are not issue that still need to be looked at )

My experience has showed me a few thing about relationships/marriage its all about the right person and I don't men that in a romantic sense I mean in the old fashioned sense of an honourable and decent man.

starling · 27-08-2013 01:56PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Hi BOjangles - thanks for your feedback.

I'm not rejecting anyone's opinions. I am challenging them, or querying them, as is the tendency in a discussion.

I'm interested in the topic, and would never set out to be rude.

I am particularly interested in discussions on sex and sexuality/prostitution etc., and yes I do believe that many people's (including my own) opinions regarding these topics are driven by emotion and subjective reasoning.

I had an interaction with Starling that was heated I guess. However I was called an imbecile, told that I was passive-aggressive etc.. so I don't feel that I can be labelled over-bearing.

I do appreciate your feed-back all the same

Excuse me, but you were the one who came up with the "imbecile" stuff. And you were not just passive-aggressive, you were rude, overbearing, arrogant and patronising.
And that's quite apart from your repeated refusal to actually read what I wrote in favour of telling me what I thought.

MaxWig · 27-08-2013 02:22PM

starling wrote: »

Excuse me, but you were the one who came up with the "imbecile" stuff. And you were not just passive-aggressive, you were rude, overbearing, arrogant and patronising.
And that's quite apart from your repeated refusal to actually read what I wrote in favour of telling me what I thought.

I'd disagree with you there.
I did not tell you what you thought.
And I read each of your posts.

I will continue to apologise if you believe I was being rude.

However I was not the only poster was confused by your explanation of 'consent' and 'enthusiastic consent', or by your discussion regarding rape and and how payment does or does not influence notions of consent.

I'm still confused.

starling · 27-08-2013 03:32PM

MaxWig wrote: »

I'd disagree with you there.
I did not tell you what you thought.
And I read each of your posts.

I will continue to apologise if you believe I was being rude.

"I'm sorry if you think I was rude" is a sh1tty non-apology btw. An apology, to be sincere, includes some acknowledgement that one was in the wrong. Not "I'm sorry if you feel that way" but "I'm sorry I made you feel thatway."

MaxWig wrote: »

However I was not the only poster was confused by your explanation of 'consent' and 'enthusiastic consent', or by your discussion regarding rape and and how payment does or does not influence notions of consent.

I'm still confused.

Well, I'm tired of explaining it, try google. You also seem to be confused about the concept of an apology, not to mention the concept of a respectful discusion. I'm not sure its worth any more of my time trying to educate you.

Sauve · 27-08-2013 04:35PM

Mod

Ok let's leave the bickering there and get back on topic please.

Love2u · 28-08-2013 10:04PM

If its a sexless relationship then that's a problem:-/

starling · 28-08-2013 10:26PM

Love2u wrote: »

If its a sexless relationship then that's a problem:-/

It is if one partner wants sex and the other doesn't, and it's not likely to change.

It doesn't automatically excuse cheating though. It depends on the individual man and his relationship. Like apparently a lot of men start affairs when their wives get pregnant or have just given birth, some of them complain she's too sore from the birth, or she's too tired from looking after the new baby; some of them feel she is giving all her attention and energy to the baby and some of them say they see her differently now that she's someone's mother. But the mature thing to do would be to accept that there are certain times in their marriage when sex may have to take the back seat for a while, not use it as justification for going out and cheating. (And maybe talk to someone if they have that last reason I mentioned, cause that's a bit messed up)

The man who loves hiw wife and takes care of her, but she's got a long term serious illness and they can't have sex for some related reason, yeah you can sympathise with him and understand why he'd rather go to an escort than just up and leave her alone. But if he's just doing it because he wants to, or the old "my wife doesn't understand me" cr@p - basically just because he's being selfish and figures he won't get found out - that's still cheating. The problems he's having at home aren't an excuse and the women aren't to blame, he's responsible for his own actions.

Love2u · 28-08-2013 10:40PM

starling wrote: »

It is if one partner wants sex and the other doesn't, and it's not likely to change.

It doesn't automatically excuse cheating though. It depends on the individual man and his relationship. Like apparently a lot of men start affairs when their wives get pregnant or have just given birth, some of them complain she's too sore from the birth, or she's too tired from looking after the new baby; some of them feel she is giving all her attention and energy to the baby and some of them say they see her differently now that she's someone's mother. But the mature thing to do would be to accept that there are certain times in their marriage when sex may have to take the back seat for a while, not use it as justification for going out and cheating. (And maybe talk to someone if they have that last reason I mentioned, cause that's a bit messed up)

The man who loves hiw wife and takes care of her, but she's got a long term serious illness and they can't have sex for some related reason, yeah you can sympathise with him and understand why he'd rather go to an escort than just up and leave her alone. But if he's just doing it because he wants to, or the old "my wife doesn't understand me" cr@p - basically just because he's being selfish and figures he won't get found out - that's still cheating. The problems he's having at home aren't an excuse and the women aren't to blame, he's responsible for his own actions.

I agree.

MaxWig · 29-08-2013 10:44AM

starling wrote: »

But if he's just doing it because he wants to, or the old "my wife doesn't understand me" cr@p - basically just because he's being selfish and figures he won't get found out - that's still cheating. The problems he's having at home aren't an excuse and the women aren't to blame, he's responsible for his own actions.

I agree with most everything you said.

Even the above an extent.

However I do think that sex has the potential to create huge misunderstanding in relationships. And whether it is husband OR wife that feels misunderstood in terms of sexual needs, it should absolutely be addressed, perhaps with the aid of a third party.

However I do believe that people still feel illiterate in this department. It may or may not be that men experience this more. I doubt it to be honest, for as well as disliking genderalisations (my word - you can borrow

), I think there is still a huge misunderstanding regarding sexuality. Or it may be more accurate to say there is still a huge fear around fully divulging one's sexuality in relationships. Not all, but some.

I'm always conscious about 'telling stories' to back up points, but this isn't really uncommon knowledge.
I have been told by a well-known, and published sex therapist in Ireland that much of her work remains focused on areas she would have hoped could have disappeared long ago. People in relationships not willing to take their clothes off in front of their partner - Married people who think sex is filthy - People who will begrudgingly have sex, but must shower immediately afterward - People who see masturbation as a perversion. That's just the jist. I'm not saying it's the norm by any stretch, but those attitudes persist.

Even less severe examples of these attitudes are toxic for a relationship. Sex by and large remains criminalised in terms of its expression. We repress much of our sexuality in one way or another whether we're in a relationship or not. I think some relationships demand further repression, with disastrous consequences.

As many have pointed out, this does not 'forgive' those who step outside relationships for relief.

As Chris Rock would say 'I ain't sayin it's ok, but I understand'

I think that's society's reaction too tbh

starling · 29-08-2013 10:50AM

MaxWig wrote: »

I agree with most everything you said.

Even the above an extent.

However I do think that sex has the potential to create huge misunderstanding in relationships. And whether it is husband OR wife that feels misunderstood in terms of sexual needs, it should absolutely be addressed, perhaps with the aid of a third party.

However I do believe that people still feel illiterate in this department. It may or may not be that men experience this more. I doubt it to be honest, for as well as disliking genderalisations (my word - you can borrow ), I think there is still a huge misunderstanding regarding sexuality. Or it may be more accurate to say there is still a huge fear around fully divulging one's sexuality in relationships. Not all, but some.

I'm always conscious about 'telling stories' to back up points, but this isn't really uncommon knowledge.
I have been told by a well-known, and published sex therapist in Ireland that much of her work remains focused on areas she would have hoped could have disappeared long ago. People in relationships not willing to take their clothes off in front of their partner - Married people who think sex is filthy - People who will begrudgingly have sex, but must shower immediately afterward - People who see masturbation as a perversion. That's just the jist. I'm not saying it's the norm by any stretch, but those attitudes persist.

Even less severe examples of these attitudes are toxic for a relationship. Sex by and large remains criminalised in terms of its expression. We repress much of our sexuality in one way or another whether we're in a relationship or not. I think some relationships demand further repression, with disastrous consequences.

As many have pointed out, this does not 'forgive' those who step outside relationships for relief.

As Chris Rock would say 'I ain't sayin it's ok, but I understand'

I think that's society's reaction too tbh

How does any of that stuff you just said contradict what I said?

Genuinely confused.

Are you saying it's not cheating, or that he's not responsible?

Are you trying to say it's the wife's fault (or her mother's :rolleyes:) if a husband cheats?

And who are you to say what "society" thinks? Isn't that a bit arrogant?

MaxWig · 29-08-2013 10:59AM

starling wrote: »

How does any of that stuff you just said contradict what I said?

Genuinely confused.

Are you saying it's not cheating, or that he's not responsible?

Are you trying to say it's the wife's fault (or her mother's :rolleyes:) if a husband cheats?

And who are you to say what "society" thinks? Isn't that a bit arrogant?

I said I agreed with everything you said.

Just that the 'wife doesn't understand me cr@p' might be viewed with a little more compassion. Dismissing it as crap is unhelpful imo. I agreed that it wasn't an excuse. But I disagree that it's crap. I think it's a very real, genuine problem in marriages involving people who may not be as emotionally literate as yourself. That's all. If for instance a couple are married reasonably happily for 50 years, and each had stepped out behind the other's back a few times during difficult periods, I would still view that marriage as a triumph.

Neither did I refer to a gender. I expressly referred to people/husband or wife

Sauve · 29-08-2013 11:03AM

Mod

Starling banned for ignoring repeated mod instructions.
Bickering will not be tolerated.

strobe · 29-08-2013 12:58PM

fits wrote: »

I just actually cannot get my head around how you can have sex with a person, who is only having sex with you because you paid them.

Comes down to how you view sex, I guess.

Lot's of people get massages from people who are only giving them a massage because they have paid them to.

It's an enjoyable physical experience.

My girlfriend gives the most amazing back massages in the world and is happy to give me one whenever I want one.

But some people aren't as lucky as me, but they still really enjoy a good massage. So as a treat to themselves will book an occasional trip to a proffesional massuese that knows how to give a really really good back massage.

Same thing with sex for a lot of people I presume.

Is it *really* that difficult to get your head around?

29-08-2013 04:49PM

Here's an interesting article from The Guardian from 2010, with a link to the research it references at the top of the article

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes

Be warned, it's not nice reading.

But another of the interviewees left me feeling concerned. Darren was young, good-looking and bright; I asked him how often he thought the women he paid enjoyed the sex. "I don't want them to get any pleasure," he told me. "I am paying for it and it is her job to give me pleasure. If she enjoys it I would feel cheated."

Almost half said they believed that most women in prostitution are victims of pimps ("the pimp does the psychological raping of the woman," explained one). But they still continued to visit them.

MaxWig · 30-08-2013 09:00AM

Candie wrote: »

Here's an interesting article from The Guardian from 2010, with a link to the research it references at the top of the article

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes

Be warned, it's not nice reading.

It is an interesting article, absolutely.

But it's just that. A tiny, statistically insignificant snap-shot of a phenomenon, of no value outside the pages of the Guardian.

Some of the reading was tough, I'm with you there.
But some really bugged me - It was just dreadful journalism.

"One of the most interesting findings was that many believed men would "need" to rape if they could not pay for sex on demand. One told me, "Sometimes you might rape someone: you can go to a prostitute instead." Another put it like this: "A desperate man who wants sex so bad, he needs sex to be relieved. He might rape." I concluded from this that it's not feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and myself who are responsible for the idea that all men are potential rapists – it's sometimes men themselves."

This character sounds unhinged, maybe sociopathic.
To draw even tentative conclusions about 'men' from a statement like that is lazy, hack-like drivel, and frankly unworthy of The Guardian. The Guardian unfortunately is quite prone to tosh like this from time to time, providing the article is on the right crusade.

One could easily write an identical piece, interviewing 25 compassionate, gentle punters who have nothing but the utmost respect for the prostitutes they visit.

It is difficult reading. But it is also insignificant.

30-08-2013 09:55AM

MaxWig wrote: »

It is an interesting article, absolutely.

But it's just that. A tiny, statistically insignificant snap-shot of a phenomenon, of no value outside the pages of the Guardian.

Some of the reading was tough, I'm with you there.
But some really bugged me - It was just dreadful journalism.

"One of the most interesting findings was that many believed men would "need" to rape if they could not pay for sex on demand. One told me, "Sometimes you might rape someone: you can go to a prostitute instead." Another put it like this: "A desperate man who wants sex so bad, he needs sex to be relieved. He might rape." I concluded from this that it's not feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and myself who are responsible for the idea that all men are potential rapists – it's sometimes men themselves."

This character sounds unhinged, maybe sociopathic.
To draw even tentative conclusions about 'men' from a statement like that is lazy, hack-like drivel, and frankly unworthy of The Guardian. The Guardian unfortunately is quite prone to tosh like this from time to time, providing the article is on the right crusade.

One could easily write an identical piece, interviewing 25 compassionate, gentle punters who have nothing but the utmost respect for the prostitutes they visit.

It is difficult reading. But it is also insignificant.

The article was written after interviews with just 12 men. The study was conducted with 700 men from 6 countries, not definitive but indicative.

I'm surprised at how quickly, generally, some people are to dismiss unflattering portraits of prostitution and its users, often the same people who are very quick to embrace the opposite.

The fact these 'punters' exist at all is contrary to the face of prostitution that we're most likely to be fed - that of the willing prostitution who tolerates the work well, is pimp free and makes a fortune and bears no scars outside or inside, and who's customer is mostly respectful, perhaps even shy, but certainly unfairly demonised.

Sadly the reviews on escort sites demonstrate how some customers see the prostitutes, and it's not as respectful or as compassionate as anyone would like to think.

MaxWig · 30-08-2013 10:09AM

Candie wrote: »

The article was written after interviews with just 12 men. The study was conducted with 700 men from 6 countries, not definitive but indicative.

I'm surprised at how quickly, generally, some people are to dismiss unflattering portraits of prostitution and its users, often the same people who are very quick to embrace the opposite.

The fact these 'punters' exist at all is contrary to the face of prostitution that we're most likely to be fed - that of the willing prostitution who tolerates the work well, is pimp free and makes a fortune and bears no scars outside or inside, and who's customer is mostly respectful, perhaps even shy, but certainly unfairly demonised.

Sadly the reviews on escort sites demonstrate how some customers see the prostitutes, and it's not as respectful or as compassionate as anyone would like to think.

I don't think anyone can call 12 opinions indicative of anything, except what those 12 men believe.

I certainly don't want to come across as a defender of the prostitution industry, especially in it's current guise. And suggestions of an agenda on the part of people who are in a discussion with you, I think is unhelpful. Apologies if that wasn't aimed at me.
I think people who aim to abolish prostitution are well-meaning fools. They are not fools because the task is impossible, they are fools because their actions will always lead to further misery.

"An upcoming new law will make it illegal for men to pay for sex with a trafficked or pimped woman – and a punter's ignorance of a woman's circumstances will be no defence"

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility to assume that punters may look for English girls in light of this law. Bumping up their price, and correspondingly dropping the price of trafficked girls. Perhaps I'm wrong, and prohibition will all of a sudden conquer market forces. I hope so. But reality keeps biting at the heels of my optimism.

The view of prostitution we are 'fed' is reasonably accurate, I would say. I don't think anyone with even a cursory understanding of the industry in Ireland and England would argue that there is some very unsavoury characters running, and using the industry.

It need not be like that.
And yet it will, as long as the prohibitionists spread their particular brand of madness

30-08-2013 10:11AM

MaxWig wrote: »

It is an interesting article, absolutely.

But it's just that. A tiny, statistically insignificant snap-shot of a phenomenon, of no value outside the pages of the Guardian.

Some of the reading was tough, I'm with you there.
But some really bugged me - It was just dreadful journalism.

"One of the most interesting findings was that many believed men would "need" to rape if they could not pay for sex on demand. One told me, "Sometimes you might rape someone: you can go to a prostitute instead." Another put it like this: "A desperate man who wants sex so bad, he needs sex to be relieved. He might rape." I concluded from this that it's not feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and myself who are responsible for the idea that all men are potential rapists – it's sometimes men themselves."

This character sounds unhinged, maybe sociopathic.
To draw even tentative conclusions about 'men' from a statement like that is lazy, hack-like drivel, and frankly unworthy of The Guardian. The Guardian unfortunately is quite prone to tosh like this from time to time, providing the article is on the right crusade.

One could easily write an identical piece, interviewing 25 compassionate, gentle punters who have nothing but the utmost respect for the prostitutes they visit.

It is difficult reading. But it is also insignificant.

MaxWig, look at the escorts Ireland site and see what you think you self, look at how the women are reviewed and how many reviews some "punter" put up then tell us what you think.

MaxWig · 30-08-2013 10:19AM

mariaalice wrote: »

MaxWig, look at the escorts Ireland site and see what you think you self, look at how the women are reviewed and how many reviews some "punter" put up then tell us what you think.

What I think, I hope I've explained well. Perhaps not.

The reviews say a lot about those who wrote them, granted. Not pleasant.

But I'm not sure how useful reading them is. It represents a strange voyeurism, that feeds the angry assumption that 'punters are pigs'. It's like looking at a heroin shooting gallery, and deciding, based on the filth of the place, that drugs should be illegal. It's just ridiculous.

It's the equivalent of saying 'Drugs are bad m'kay'.
Yes, some of those reviews, some of those punters are nasty people, with dreadful attitudes.

You know what, some of the prostitutes are undoubtedly similar.
Some people are f*ckers. This is not a scientific discovery.

My point is that anything other than a dispassionate, pragmatic approach to prostitution by charities, politicians, the public and criminal justice systems will ultimately lead to greater suffering for those involved in the industry.

You cannot destroy the prostitution industry.

You can revolutionise it.

Emme · 30-08-2013 10:37AM

MaxWig, are you a pimp?

MaxWig · 30-08-2013 10:47AM

Emme wrote: »

MaxWig, are you a pimp?

Sure.

I'm also a woman-hating, drug-dealer

30-08-2013 10:56AM

MaxWig wrote: »

Sure.

I'm also a woman-hating, drug-dealer

I am sure its all inthe past now:P

On a more serious not, What you say can only be true if you think there is no such thing as culture and that each individual actions don't mean anything and only concerned the individual themselves. That simply not true.

This subject is boring beyond belief at this stage.

MaxWig · 30-08-2013 12:00PM

mariaalice wrote: »

I am sure its all inthe past now:P

On a more serious not, What you say can only be true if you think there is no such thing as culture and that each individual actions don't mean anything and only concerned the individual themselves. That simply not true.

This subject is boring beyond belief at this stage.

It's based on the countless examples that history, recent and not-so-recent, give us of prohibition.

It's a failed strategy.

Ever ask yourself why prostitution is illegal in the first place?

God Bless the Church!!

Their legacy lives on

30-08-2013 12:19PM

A very important point, what is propaganda how do you get people to follow you and how do you change peoples opinion on an issue. I am well read and a bit of sceptic when some.one tell me they have all the answers whether its politics or on a social issue. Technology is scary in its potential to change peoples opinions in an almost unthinking way. A lot of people don't question they just accept. There is a slightly obscure French philosopher called Jacques Ellul who is brilliant on this subject did you ever wonder how Hitler got thousands and thousands of normal people to follow him, to commit unspeakable acts of cruelty?

One way to change opinion about prostitution would be to repeat the myth that men who use prostitutes are shy lonely respectful men who only go to a prostitute because they have no other choice, you keep repeating this myth while simultaneously saying the prostitution want to be a prostitute and you are interfering with her free choice.

30-08-2013 12:26PM

I want to say I don't agree with the victim ideology of prostitution that's why I do not agree with how the turn off the red light campaign presents there case, unless you or your children are starving becoming a prostitute is a choice.

GalwayGuy2 · 30-08-2013 12:50PM

MaxWig, are you a pimp?

Tbh, and I don't mean this as an insult, but I'm getting more of a college student vibe off MaxWig.

MaxWig · 30-08-2013 01:10PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Tbh, and I don't mean this as an insult, but I'm getting more of a college student vibe off MaxWig.

The great preface of the scoundrel. Tip o' the hat Galway.

I won't take offence, but I'm afraid you're off the mark. Although I went to college in the past, but not any longer. Did you?

I would ask what gave you the impression, but I'll sacrifice my curiosity to stay on point.

As I've repeated a few times, I have no interest in seeing the prostitution industry thrive.

Nor do I have a vested interest in it, so the propaganda comments are redundant. On that point though, at some stage in the discussion, one does find themselves asking what price the feminist movement are willing to see prostitutes pay in their fight to abolish the industry.

Repeating the reviews written on escort websites is much closer to propaganda than an open discussion.

I am not repeating the 'myth that men who use prostitutes are shy lonely respectful men'. I am suggesting that this is as much part of the truth as is the 'myth (?) that men who use prostitutes are evil, misogynistic thugs'.

Both are true, or both are false. Or perhaps there's another truth?

I guess objectivity can be propaganda, but only when it's an inconvenient truth.

I'm interested in issues of social prohibition. I work in a sphere where drug use is an issue. The prohibition of drug use has provided fertile ground for decades to those who would seek to profit from the misery of drug addicts.

Prohibition does not work. It hasn't worked. It will continue not to work.

I agree Mariaalice that changing a culture is possible. We've seen it time and again

I just don't think it is achieved by creating more unenforceable laws, and creating more opportunity for profit to international gangs.

CarlDunne1979 · 30-08-2013 02:55PM

Candie wrote: »

Sadly the reviews on escort sites demonstrate how some customers see the prostitutes, and it's not as respectful or as compassionate as anyone would like to think.

You think some customers at Tesco or any other establishment providing any kind of service aren't disrespectful people too? What do you mean "as anyone would like to think.", most feminist-leaning individuals in this thread clearly want punters to be nothing but crude, abusing cretins in order to moralize them.

The average escort gets 4 - 6+ customers a day, yet only gets at most a couple of reviews a month. So only a tiny minority of punters are leaving reviews, and the vast majority of these reviews do not display any sort of malice whatsoever. Escorts provide a service and reviews are an excellent way of evaluating which escort will provide a good service rather than a bad one.

CarlDunne1979 · 30-08-2013 03:01PM

mariaalice wrote: »

One way to change opinion about prostitution would be to repeat the myth that men who use prostitutes are shy lonely respectful men who only go to a prostitute because they have no other choice, you keep repeating this myth while simultaneously saying the prostitution want to be a prostitute and you are interfering with her free choice.

The myth that's been propagated by the internet is that there are sex-slaves in Ireland, and a considerable amount of them at that.

Ladies your opinions on men using brothels and prostitutes

Comments