nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

People who hire hookers?

yumyum10

Friend hires one a week. Says its cheaper than a girlfriend and isn't tied down. What's your views on people who hire them?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Alexis Sanchez2

I've recently broken up with my wife due to infrequent sex. We still sleep in the same bed, I now have the freedom to go out and have sex with whoever I want and as does she, it's brilliant. If a man is stuck in a sexless marriage he should break up with his wife.

harry Bailey esq

If the gent in question enjoys ridin' hoors,let him ride hoors.His reasons for doing so are his own business.I don't ride hoors,but if I ever felt inclined to I wouldn't sit around pondering the morality of it all,she gets paid, I get laid. Everyone is happy

BD45

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why should I have to back up someone else's claim?

What the hell man? Go to the website and see for yourself. There's whores in every town.

dark crystal

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really. If you only target areas where the percentages favour one gender over another, then it's still sexism. For example, for all the proposals of gender quotas in politics and business, how many proposals have you heard of gender quotas in child custody? If it's equality, it's very selective equality.

Do you then think it's sexist for women to have to pay equal car insurance, when men make more claims?

ancapailldorcha

Lucena wrote: »

Claiming that extreme views held at one end of the spectrum represents all feminists and feminism makes about as much sense as saying that all Muslims are terrorists.

The thing is, extreme feminists are afforded voices by large newspapers while red pillers and other such morons are thankfully confined to obscure blogs and websites.

hatrickpatrick

*Come in to say "this will end well"*
*realize thread is on page 7 already and it's far too late for that*
*MFW

dark crystal

nokia69 wrote: »

if a job pays €200 an hour then you don't need to kidnap people and force them to do it against their will

Yeah, because trafficked prostitutes are really getting paid €200 an hour....

LDN_Irish

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why should I have to back up someone else's claim?

You shouldn't. But for obvious reasons the poster doesn't want to link to an escorts service. That would be against the rules of most forums and I'm guessing this one isn't an exception.

I've no dog in this race and because you're so reluctant to Google it, I've done it for you and there are 406 escorts advertised on the site in Dublin alone.

Your Superior

One of my senior management team is a recently divorced 51 year old. He uses very expensive prostitutes(£5-10k per night) sometimes when he travels abroad for business, using them about 4 times a year. It's not something I would do, but he is happier than he was at any time in the last ten years of his failed marriage, so who am I to judge?

Alexis Sanchez2

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you then think it's sexist for women to have to pay equal car insurance, when men make more claims?

It would be sexist not to pay equal premiums. Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Separate toilets for men and women is also sexist.

ancapailldorcha

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You shouldn't. But for obvious reasons the poster doesn't want to link to an escorts service. That would be against the rules of most forums and I'm guessing this one isn't an exception.

I've no dog in this race and because you're so reluctant to Google it, I've done it for you and there are 406 escorts advertised on the site in Dublin alone.

Again, no source. I don't have any interest in escort websites. I was thinking more along the lines of peer-reviewed research.

Yurt2

Lucena wrote: »

I wish this feminist-bashing would stop.

Do you believe women should have the same rights as men regarding personal freedom, access to healthcare, jobs and other services? That they should have the right to go anywhere that men can (barring obvious exceptions such as toilet and dressing room areas)? Then you are a feminist. And I’m pretty sure 90% of people on here are feminists, but just wouldn’t want the label. .

I believe in all of those things and still think a lot of third wave feminism is bunk. Feminism doesn't have a monopoly on ethics and equality.

Feminism is a political movement and like all political movements should be held up to scrutiny. As in pay attention to what they do and say. It's how we filter ideas and find out what is good for society. Your ideology doesn't get a free ride just because you hold it close to your heart and you are convinced that your ethics and your world view is the correct one.

seamus

The debate is far too multifaceted to make absolute statements either way.

People want sex, and people are prepared to pay for sex. This is a constant and cannot be removed from the equation. Criminalising it creates more criminals. It doesn't reduce demand.

As a result, since demand is not impacted, suppliers become less conspicuous, and eventually supply is provisioned entirely by the criminal element, who do not follow the laws in any part of their business. This results in slave-like conditions for workers, violence, rape, forced drug-taking, etc.

Further attempts at criminalising it makes conditions worse for workers since their employers now have to take greater precautions to avoid being caught. This extends to permanent imprisonment for workers and death for failure to comply.

It seems to me at this stage, that much like the war on drugs, and alcohol prohibition before it, all attempts to criminalise prostitution are shooting oneself in the foot. In the attempt to make a "better" society, all you do is create more criminals without reducing demand in any meaningful way. As such, you then have to conclude that the initial assumption was wrong (or flawed) and that prostitution is not inherently "bad" for society.
Therefore you need to come up with a different solution to the perceived problem.

hatrickpatrick

Lucena wrote: »

I wish this feminist-bashing would stop.

Do you believe women should have the same rights as men regarding personal freedom, access to healthcare, jobs and other services? That they should have the right to go anywhere that men can (barring obvious exceptions such as toilet and dressing room areas)? Then you are a feminist.

I got banned from Reddit's /r/askfeminists forum last week for disagreeing that the satellite t-shirt guy was being sexist by wearing a sexy t-shirt. Look at "feminist" campaigns over the last three years and the vast majority of them are not about equal rights but about telling people how it is and isn't ok to behave - both men and women.

It's not representative of all feminists, but it's representative of enough to make me disassociate myself from the whole label. I believe 100% in gender equality but I fundamentally oppose social constriction in any form, and that's what mainstream feminism seems to want.

I'm an "equal opportunities freedom campaigner" if you will. I don't believe in banning misogynistic speech so I'm not a feminist, but I believe that men should be equally able to be mocked and attacked so I'm not being sexist or holding double standards either. See the problem?

nokia69

dark crystal wrote: »

Yeah, because trafficked prostitutes are really getting paid €200 an hour....

trafficked prostitutes are a myth, just think of how hard it is to hold someone against their will, then add in the fact that you have to let them meet random members of the public

too many people think the film taken is some kind of documentary

ancapailldorcha

nokia69 wrote: »

trafficked prostitutes are a myth, just think of how hard it is to hold someone against their will, then add in the fact that you have to let them meet random members of the public

too many people think the film taken is some kind of documentary

Seriously?

LDN_Irish

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Again, no source. I don't have any interest in escort websites. I was thinking more along the lines of peer-reviewed research.

Well, you were told in plain English that the poster was referencing an escort site so I don't know why you're wasting time demanding a link. Do you doubt that there's 300 prostitutes in Dublin? That sounds a conservative estimate to me. Whatever, don't really care.

Agree with PP about holding up the most extreme elements of feminism to beat everyone with them. It seems par for the course for most ideologies though. It's easier to argue with the extremes I suppose.

The Corinthian

Lucena wrote: »

I wish this feminist-bashing would stop.

Do you believe women should have the same rights as men regarding personal freedom, access to healthcare, jobs and other services? That they should have the right to go anywhere that men can (barring obvious exceptions such as toilet and dressing room areas)? Then you are a feminist. And I’m pretty sure 90% of people on here are feminists, but just wouldn’t want the label.

It's funny how you didn't at the same time ask if we believe men should have the same rights as women regarding their children? Or treatment before the law in sentencing? Or in support from social welfare?

But if you had, you wouldn't be a feminist. And that's why there's a lot of feminist bashing - because, lip service aside, feminism is really uninterested in anything but the 'equality' of one gender.

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you then think it's sexist for women to have to pay equal car insurance, when men make more claims?

Then by that logic you can't complain if women are discriminated against in interviews if they're at an age when likely to start a family and go on maternity leave. So either we let business employ gender-based statistics or we don't. Let me know which you prefer.

Not that your response has much to do with what I wrote. Care to address that?

BD45

Feminists are more concerned about a guy wearing a shirt or page 3 than hell holes like the Congo where women are actually treated like ****. They've been almost completely silent on the Muslim sex abuse scandals in the UK because they're only comfortable attacking white men. It's a joke.

hatrickpatrick

BD45 wrote: »

Feminists are more concerned about a guy wearing a shirt or page 3

And this is my point. Both men and women are free to pose nude in magazines if they want to, so it's not an "equal rights" issue at all, it's about feminists wanting to impose rules on culture. Which is, sadly, what mainstream feminism has been utterly hijacked by.

dark crystal

Alexis Sanchez2 wrote: »

It would be sexist not to pay equal premiums. Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Separate toilets for men and women is also sexist.

Why would it be sexist not to pay equal premiums when one gender is a greater risk than the other? As Corinthian said, If you only target areas where the percentages favour one gender over another, then it's still sexism.

Equality works both ways. If women have to pay more even if they make less claims, then men can't cry foul because another piece of legislation is brought in which treats them equally, even though it may be more to their detriment.

I won't even go into the bizarre toilet thing...

nokia69

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seriously?

yeah seriously

how may trafficked prostitutes do you think are in Ireland ?

and how many people would it take to hold all these woman against their will 24 hours a day

and none of them ever escape, the trafficking myth just doesn't add up

harry Bailey esq

Alexis Sanchez2 wrote: »

If a man is stuck in a sexless marriage he should break up with his wife.

Life isnt that simple

BD45

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is my point. Both men and women are free to pose nude in magazines if they want to, so it's not an "equal rights" issue at all, it's about feminists wanting to impose rules on culture. Which is, sadly, what mainstream feminism has been utterly hijacked by.

That's it. They want to re-engineer society on their terms. Then of course we have the pay gap and college rape myths.

Roquentin

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You shouldn't. But for obvious reasons the poster doesn't want to link to an escorts service. That would be against the rules of most forums and I'm guessing this one isn't an exception.

I've no dog in this race and because you're so reluctant to Google it, I've done it for you and there are 406 escorts advertised on the site in Dublin alone.

exactly.

hatrickpatrick

dark crystal wrote: »

Why would it be sexist not to pay equal premiums when one gender is a greater risk than the other? As Corinthian said, If you only target areas where the percentages favour one gender over another, then it's still sexism.

So then you agree with discrimination against hiring women who might be about to start a family? Or discrimination against women who get PMS because it might cause them to be less productive for a time every month?

Personally I would find such practises fairly abhorrent.

the evasion_kid

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I got banned from Reddit's /r/askfeminists forum last week for disagreeing that the satellite t-shirt guy was being sexist by wearing a sexy t-shirt. Look at "feminist" campaigns over the last three years and the vast majority of them are not about equal rights but about telling people how it is and isn't ok to behave - both men and women.

It's not representative of all feminists, but it's representative of enough to make me disassociate myself from the whole label. I believe 100% in gender equality but I fundamentally oppose social constriction in any form, and that's what mainstream feminism seems to want.

I'm an "equal opportunities freedom campaigner" if you will. I don't believe in banning misogynistic speech so I'm not a feminist, but I believe that men should be equally able to be mocked and attacked so I'm not being sexist or holding double standards either. See the problem?

In fairness feminists made an absolute tit of themselves in 2014 alone....no pun intended

Alexis Sanchez2

dark crystal wrote: »

Why would it be sexist not to pay equal premiums when one gender is a greater risk than the other? As Corinthian said, If you only target areas where the percentages favour one gender over another, then it's still sexism.

Equality works both ways. If women have to pay more even if they make less claims, then men can't cry foul because another piece of legislation is brought in which treats them equally, even though it may be more to their detriment.

I won't even go into the bizarre toilet thing...

You don't understand what sexism means that's why you find the "toilet thing" bizarre.

Gender segregation is by definition sexist. I purposely added in the toilet example for you to figure out for yourself that you have been socially conditioned. Sexism isn't good or bad, it is discrimination based on gender. Unfair Sexism is bad, toilet segregation based on gender is not unfair sexism.

To charge different premiums based on gender is sexist by definition, the question for debate is whether it's unfair.

hatrickpatrick

the evasion_kid wrote: »

In fairness feminists made an absolute tit of themselves in 2014 alone....no pun intended

2014 was the year feminism was utterly hijacked by SJWs, and instead of condemning them, the sane feminists went on the defensive of "we're not all like that". Then when #NotAllMen trended on Twitter in a similar manner, they tweeted back #YesAllWomen, simultaneously exposing their own hypocrisy while angering hordes of young women who don't feel oppressed and don't like being patronised by others presuming to speak for them.

And that is why, in a nutshell, I 100% support a gender blind, equal society where nobody is discriminated against because of their gender, and am 100% opposed to feminism.

Viper_JB

dark crystal wrote: »

Why would it be sexist not to pay equal premiums when one gender is a greater risk than the other? As Corinthian said, If you only target areas where the percentages favour one gender over another, then it's still sexism.

Equality works both ways. If women have to pay more even if they make less claims, then men can't cry foul because another piece of legislation is brought in which treats them equally, even though it may be more to their detriment.

I won't even go into the bizarre toilet thing...

I don't think men are at a greater risk of crashing where all things are equal eg. equal amounts of time spent on the road, so don't really understand your point here - both sexes are as likely to have a crash as the other - you're just looking at the stats wrong - too many male dominated industries that involve driving all the time to draw an equal comparison.