People who hire hookers?

Baby Jane · 10-03-2015 11:36PM

lufties wrote: »

It isn't a myth, but it happens at a very small percentage..I wouldn't believe anything rte says either.

I would when there's hidden cameras. Yeah I agree with what you said otherwise; I posted in response to someone saying it was a myth (probably should have quoted them).

Edit:

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

Saralee4 · 10-03-2015 11:39PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, all of the above would be grounds for dumping someone but not cheating on them. If you cheat on someone, they shouldn't be obliged to continue any sort of involvement with you whatsoever other than involvement in child rearing.

Like we have said many times, life is not black and white and when emotions are involved sometimes people make mistakes.

You don't believe that it should be a standard that the less dependent spouse automatically recieves spousel support (neither do I automatically) yet you believe that if someone is unfaithful they should automatically not receive spousel support?

That's backwards thinking and very simplistic for a situation that is complex and not as straight forward as it may appear to some people.

nokia69 · 10-03-2015 11:44PM

Baby Jane wrote: »

I would when there's hidden cameras. Yeah I agree with what you said otherwise; I posted in response to someone saying it was a myth (probably should have quoted them).

Edit:

I think I saw that episode of prime time

if its the one I remember they filmed a pimp driving women around the country, there was no proof that he was forcing the women to work against their will

every time he dropped them at a different location they could have walked to the closest garda station at any time

Baby Jane · 10-03-2015 11:47PM

nokia69 wrote: »

I think I saw that episode of prime time

if its the one I remember they filmed a pimp driving women around the country, there was no proof that he was forcing the women to work against their will

every time he dropped them at a different location they could have walked to the closest garda station at any time

And then everything would be all right.

She'd have all her stuff, her passport, somewhere to live, a job - happy ever after!

I don't understand the denial of sex trafficking - why be so keen to deny it? Sure, it's unlikely to be as prevalent as Bacik and the like say, but I wouldn't be denying it entirely either just to stick it to them.

Saralee4 · 10-03-2015 11:55PM

Chocrealo wrote: »

Why should who has cheated deserve spousal support?

Ok ill give one more example and then I'll put it down to the fact that your probably bored and trolling.

Say a man is abusive towards his wife. He shows her no affection and makes her life hell. Perhaps he has a personality disorder and has nit picked at her insecurities for years so that she has no self worth and becomes depressed. Another man shows interest in her and she is very flattered. After being told for years how worthless she is, she doesn't have the courage to leave her husband and she has an affair.

The husband finds out and wants divorce. She has no job, no qualifications because she has been looking after the children and house.

Another one, say you have a man and he stays at home with children and his wife has refused to have sex with him for 3 years. She is also physically abusive towards him which has emasculated him and made him very insecure. After 3 years of no sex and constant arguments and avoiding violence with the wife, he has no self esteem and is ashamed and doesn't feel able to apply for divorce because he is out of work and can't get a job and is worried about the children. He becomes friendly with the neighbour and at a Christmas party, he has a moment s weakness and after 3 years no sex, he sleeps with the neighbour. Wife finds out and wants divorce.

nokia69 · 11-03-2015 12:00AM

Baby Jane wrote: »

And then everything would be all right.
She'd have all her stuff, her passport, somewhere to live, a job - happy ever after!

I don't understand the denial of sex trafficking - why be so keen to deny it? Sure, it's unlikely to be as prevalent as Bacik and the like say, but I wouldn't be denying it entirely either just to stick it to them.

I don't deny that it ever happens, but its very very rare

its very clear that the likes of Bacik and co are telling lies, to push their own anti men agenda

the feminists in the UK are telling the same lies, just read the link below

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

The UK's biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.

I would bet that ireland is the same as the UK, women work as escorts because the money is good, and there are few if any trafficked women

its a bad idea to make laws based on lies, but that won't stop the feminazis

Micky Dolenz · 11-03-2015 12:23AM

I've never paid for sex, directly

. The concept of hookers was something I never really got until I worked in Australia for a stint, a lot of my colleagues would go to a brothel like I would go for a pint. I get why people do it but it's not for me. Sex is great and all but it's the lead up to it which excites me, the mutual attraction, take that away and it's mechanical.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 10:22AM

nokia69 wrote: »

I don't deny that it ever happens, but its very very rare

I have no doubt it happens, but how prevalent is very difficult to tell.

As you point out, the subject appears to be surrounded by idologically driven misinformation. Examine the sources for pretty much any report on trafficking and you'll find either a feminist or religious connection. Data appears very suspect, as these groups will routinely cherry pick where they get it and actively exclude it when it does not conform to their biases.

The Dail committee that ran to discuss the question of criminalization of the clients of prostitution actively excluded sex workers from taking part. Bizarre, but that's what they did and one of these sex workers gave her/his opinions and experiences on the whole thing here on Boards, a few months ago. It was an eye opener.

The only report I ever read on the subject that I would even tentatively trust was published by the German Bundespolizei. In it they acknowledged that some trafficking exists, that legalization of sex work does increase it slightly, but it concluded that the benefits of legalization and regulation far outweighed this or any other negatives. If anyone wants to search through my past posts, there should be a link to it somewhere.

its very clear that the likes of Bacik and co are telling lies, to push their own anti men agenda

Bacik's duplicity and Machiavellian tendencies are well documented - ever since her time in TCD. She is, IMHO, a misandrist zealot who has managed to carve herself support from a small group of acolytes, promote her career at least partially through the use of positions reserved for women only, and ingratiate herself in political and media circles to the point that her influence far exceeds any democratic mandate she has ever achieved.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 10:22AM

Saralee4 wrote: »

And what about the rest of the story? Was he looking after the kids? Was she abusive towards him? Was he abusing her? Did he do alk the tasks in the home? Was she a workaholic and never home? People have answered your question already and explained that these situations are not black and white and even if you know such and such and he/she told you this and that, you don't know all the reasons and each case should be worked out fairly in court.

This is irrelevant, and the reason it is irrelevant is because in divorce it doesn't matter if the husband was abusive or a saint, he has to pay - indefinitely. So by all means argue a case where damages can be argued in court to determine maintenance, but don't use a hypothetical to justify all cases.

Saralee4 wrote: »

Now when the children get older and it becomes more financially wise for the stay at home spouse to go back to work, they are at a disadvantage. They have not been able to advance in their career and have probably lost valuble experience as careers and workplace conditions change. They may have left a secure job and now can't get one. They may to accept very low pay and start again at the bottom. They will probably not earn what the would if tge had of been working all along however they made the sacrifice to stay at home because it was financially better for the family.

If spousal maintenance was finite, designed to help the formerly dependent spouse become independent again, if the sums involved were not often at a level where the dependent spouse profits to a level that she would never have achieved had she never married and remained single, then I might take your argument seriously.

But the system seeks to maintain the dependent spouse to as close as possible at the same lifestyle as when married indefinitely. That she might have to restart her career is irrelevant to the system, she is entitled to remain a housewife, if that was her role, for the rest of her life.

Ironically, though he is no longer entitled to have the services of a housewife, but must still pay for one. A bit one sided, don't you think?

It also ignores that she may have had a low paying job, with no qualifications and no plan to get them, before she met her high-flying husband. Is she entitled to a lifestyle that she would have never achieved except through him? How much of a sacrifice was it really, if she was ultimately far better off married than she could ever have been single?

Or how does your logic justify getting half a house that was bought and paid for before she ever met her husband? What sacrifice was there there?

All before one considers risk; when she married and chose to stay at home they both took a risk that the relationship might fail, yet he is the only one who must pay for that risk if it does. The only way that she will suffer is if her husband is not wealthy enough to continue to pay for her previous lifestyle in the new reality - if he is, she will suffer no downside.

Now this may not happen outside of the mega-wealthy, but that it is justified is the point.

I can accept that spouses make sacrifices that may require redress should the relationship end, but what presently exists is a grossly exaggerated redress, that works only one way.

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 11:20AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is irrelevant, and the reason it is irrelevant is because in divorce it doesn't matter if the husband was abusive or a saint, he has to pay - indefinitely. So by all means argue a case where damages can be argued in court to determine maintenance, but don't use a hypothetical to justify all cases.

If spousal maintenance was finite, designed to help the formerly dependent spouse become independent again, if the sums involved were not often at a level where the dependent spouse profits to a level that she would never have achieved had she never married and remained single, then I might take your argument seriously.

But the system seeks to maintain the dependent spouse to as close as possible at the same lifestyle as when married indefinitely. That she might have to restart her career is irrelevant to the system, she is entitled to remain a housewife, if that was her role, for the rest of her life.

Ironically, though he is no longer entitled to have the services of a housewife, but must still pay for one. A bit one sided, don't you think?

It also ignores that she may have had a low paying job, with no qualifications and no plan to get them, before she met her high-flying husband. Is she entitled to a lifestyle that she would have never achieved except through him? How much of a sacrifice was it really, if she was ultimately far better off married than she could ever have been single?

Or how does your logic justify getting half a house that was bought and paid for before she ever met her husband? What sacrifice was there there?

All before one considers risk; when she married and chose to stay at home they both took a risk that the relationship might fail, yet he is the only one who must pay for that risk if it does. The only way that she will suffer is if her husband is not wealthy enough to continue to pay for her previous lifestyle in the new reality - if he is, she will suffer no downside.

Now this may not happen outside of the mega-wealthy, but that it is justified is the point.

I can accept that spouses make sacrifices that may require redress should the relationship end, but what presently exists is a grossly exaggerated redress, that works only one way.

How does this only work one way though? Surely if the man stays at home with the children and the woman goes out to work then he will receive the spousel pay?

There are alot of stay at home dad's too who have decided to take that role.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 11:33AM

Saralee4 wrote: »

How does this only work one way though? Surely if the man stays at home with the children and the woman goes out to work then he will receive the spousel pay?

It works one-way between the 'provider' and the 'dependent', de jure. That law, social pressures and prejudices mean that this is overwhelmingly a case of the man in the former role is a secondary but not unimportant point.

So it is one way based on the 'provider' and the 'dependent' roles, with an overwhelming de facto bias against men.

There are alot of stay at home dad's too who have decided to take that role.

They make up less than 10% of stay at home parents. Hardly a 'lot'.

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 11:50AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

It works one-way between the 'provider' and the 'dependent', de jure. That law, social pressures and prejudice an that this is overwhelmingly a case of the man in the former role is a secondary but not unimportant point.

So it is one way based on the 'provider' and the 'dependent' roles, with an overwhelming de facto bias against men.

They make up less than 10% of stay at home parents. Hardly a 'lot'.

And those 10 percent would get it, if they are entitled to support should they need it just like a woman so it's not a man vs woman issue here.

If we think of being a stay at home parent, cleaner, care taker etc as a job again, let's say you have someone who has been doing this job for 20-30 years. The marriage breaks down because of emotional reasons but the person still performed their "job" (houaework, took care of the kids etc) correctly. If you consider the "provider" as an "employer" then that would be similar to unfair dismissal. The person who was performing their job would be entitled to compensation.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 12:09PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

And those 10 percent would get it, if they are entitled to support should they need it just like a woman so it's not a man vs woman issue here.

Well, not necessarily because there are still gender based biases there. I've seen threads here with single fathers being not only refused benefits, despite being the custodial parent, but those benefits going to the non-custodial mother and awards to dependent husbands are routinely lower than to wives in divorce settlements. It's not a level playing field, and just because some men do well out of the system does not prove that it is.

If we think of being a stay at home parent, cleaner, care taker etc as a job again, let's say you have someone who has been doing this job for 20-30 years. The marriage breaks down because of emotional reasons but the person still performed their "job" (houaework, took care of the kids etc) correctly. If you consider the "provider" as an "employer" then that would be similar to unfair dismissal. The person who was performing their job would be entitled to compensation.

If you want to frame it in that manner, how many 'employers' have to continue paying salary indefinitely to the ex-'employee'? Or hand over a chunk of company equity? Your analogy falls down completely, I'm afraid, because such a settlement in an unfair dismissal case would be seen as completely insane.

The fact remains that divorce favours the financially dependent party. The party supporting them gets no recompense for what they lose. The duration and magnitude of what the dependent party is often completely out of proportion for what they brought into the marriage.

You can marry someone at twenty-five, divorce them at forty and, other than losing half of your assets or more at that stage, have to continue supporting them until one of you dies at 80. You can't with a straight face say this is morally justified, can you?

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 12:32PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, not necessarily because there are still gender based biases there. I've seen threads here with single fathers being not only refused benefits, despite being the custodial parent, but those benefits going to the non-custodial mother and awards to dependent husbands are routinely lower than to wives in divorce settlements. It's not a level playing field, and just because some men do well out of the system does not prove that it is.

If you want to frame it in that manner, how many 'employers' have to continue paying salary indefinitely to the ex-'employee'? Or hand over a chunk of company equity? Your analogy falls down completely, I'm afraid, because such a settlement in an unfair dismissal case would be seen as completely insane.

The fact remains that divorce favours the financially dependent party. The party supporting them gets no recompense for what they lose. The duration and magnitude of what the dependent party is often completely out of proportion for what they brought into the marriage.

You can marry someone at twenty-five, divorce them at forty and, other than losing half of your assets or more at that stage, have to continue supporting them until one of you dies at 80. You can't with a straight face say this is morally justified, can you?

Just because you've seen threads does not imply anything and I'm sure there are women in the same boat as the men you described.

When you decide to bind legally through marriage, you financially become one entity. You are a team, a pair, a couple. Finances are handled together. You make financial decisions together. If one of buys a lotto ticket and wins, you win together, if one of you gets involved in a dodgy deal and goes bankrupt, you both have to deal with the consequences. You both make sacrifices. If the marriage ends, there is still a commitment that you have made and you have to follow through with that.

These things are means tested and it's not a case of the "dependent" spouse "doing well" out of the system. I'm sure there are case where it is unfair but the majority of times the supplement is fair and necessary and that's why it is put in place.

Roquentin · 11-03-2015 02:16PM

http://news.sky.com/story/1442828/ex-traveller-set-for-divorce-win-20-years-on

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 02:18PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

Just because you've seen threads does not imply anything and I'm sure there are women in the same boat as the men you described.

Firstly, I've repeatedly said there are women in the same boat as men. I had a drink with a visiting friend last weekend who was telling me how her soon-to-be ex-husband was fiscally screwing her. So it's not simply a question of gender, it's just an insane system that also happens to have a gender bias.

When you decide to bind legally through marriage, you financially become one entity. You are a team, a pair, a couple. Finances are handled together. You make financial decisions together. If one of buys a lotto ticket and wins, you win together, if one of you gets involved in a dodgy deal and goes bankrupt, you both have to deal with the consequences. You both make sacrifices. If the marriage ends, there is still a commitment that you have made and you have to follow through with that.

Oh, it's no longer an employment thing now. OK.

I've also repeatedly pointed out that is it an inequitable partnership. The 'provider' (irrespective of gender) comes out on the short end of the stick compared to the 'dependent' (irrespective of gender). They have the only responsibilities to maintain any previous standard of living for the latter, who has no responsibilities whatsoever.

Additionally, it is the only contract I can think of where one can break (note, not terminate) unilaterally and suffer no penalty. Not a very good partnership, is it?

These things are means tested and it's not a case of the "dependent" spouse "doing well" out of the system. I'm sure there are case where it is unfair but the majority of times the supplement is fair and necessary and that's why it is put in place.

From what I can see, the only people who feel it's a fair system are those who profit from it. It's a cycle of greed followed by rationalization followed by self justification. I've pointed out why it is neither fair nor necessary as the system stands - even gender inequities aside. It's an insane system that's all that is left of a temporary institution which is pretending to be a permanent one. It's not.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 02:23PM

Roquentin wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1442828/ex-traveller-set-for-divorce-win-20-years-on

Absolutely insane.

Tell us Saralee4; how did this woman earn the money her ex husband made ten years (almost longer than their marriage and longer than they were actually together) after their divorce?

Renegade Mechanic · 11-03-2015 02:27PM

To be honest, if someone has to pay someone to touch them, it opens questions that no person should have to ask or answer of themselves

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 02:40PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly, I've repeatedly said there are women in the same boat as men. I had a drink with a visiting friend last weekend who was telling me how her soon-to-be ex-husband was fiscally screwing her. So it's not simply a question of gender, it's just an insane system that also happens to have a gender bias.

It does not happen to have a gender bias though. Men and women are treated the same who are in the same situation. Just because there are more women in that situation does not mean it is bias.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, it's no longer an employment thing now. OK.

The reason why I compared it to employment is because of the quote from you below. I was simplifying the situation to employer and employee as opposed to what you call 'provider' and 'dependent' as opposed to husband and wife.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've also repeatedly pointed out that is it an inequitable partnership. The 'provider' (irrespective of gender) comes out on the short end of the stick compared to the 'dependent' (irrespective of gender). They have the only responsibilities to maintain any previous standard of living for the latter, who has no responsibilities whatsoever.

Additionally, it is the only contract I can think of where one can break (note, not terminate) unilaterally and suffer no penalty. Not a very good partnership, is it?

And there are points that I have repeatedly made but just because something is repeated does not mean that you have to agree. It is your opinion that the 'dependent' suffers no penalty. Like I have said, they have more than likely made sacrifices financially too.

The Corinthian wrote: »

From what I can see, the only people who feel it's a fair system are those who profit from it. It's a cycle of greed followed by rationalization followed by self justification. I've pointed out why it is neither fair nor necessary as the system stands - even gender inequities aside. It's an insane system that's all that is left of a temporary institution which is pretending to be a permanent one. It's not.

that is your opinion and from what you can see. I imagine that if you lived in both peoples shoes you would be able to see a more empathetic view for both sides.

Dravokivich · 11-03-2015 02:43PM

Jaysis, would you 2 just get married for the sake of going through the divorce and see how it pans out already?

nokia69 · 11-03-2015 02:43PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

It does not happen to have a gender bias though. Men and women are treated the same who are in the same situation. Just because there are more women in that situation does not mean it is bias.

if only feminists would apply this plan and simple logic to everything they piss and moan about

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 02:50PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Absolutely insane.

Tell us Saralee4; how did this woman earn the money her ex husband made ten years (almost longer than their marriage and longer than they were actually together) after their divorce?

We don't know all the details. From what I can see I don't agree with this however I don't know all the story. Perhaps like the article stated, he only paid 'minimum payments' for his child and maybe the two of them (mother and child) live a very hard life and maybe she didn't request spousal payment at the time. Perhaps had a hard time bringing up the child.

She may have made a lot of sacrifices raising the child while he just made minimum payments and may not have been there to provide the child with emotional support or any other kind of help etc. He might have been living the high life while his ex and their son where living in squalor, who knows. We don't know the ins and outs.

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 02:50PM

nokia69 wrote: »

if only feminists would apply this plan and simple logic to everything they piss and moan about

examples please?

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 02:53PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Jaysis, would you 2 just get married for the sake of going through the divorce and see how it pans out already?

haha could you imagine the divorce??!! id get everything - Joking!!! :pac:

nokia69 · 11-03-2015 02:55PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

examples please?

all that gender quota bull ****

unless something is not 50/50 male and female its a conspiracy against women

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 03:02PM

nokia69 wrote: »

all that gender quota bull ****

unless something is not 50/50 male and female its a conspiracy against women

hardly a comparison for why men don't stay at home more. It is something that is decided within a relationship. You could also argue the point that many men earn more than women and this is why they tend to go out and work and why the women stay at home.

But regardless of why or why not men stay at home, if they do, they are treated the same as women with regard to spousal pay which is what we are talking about (which also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread)!!

Roquentin · 11-03-2015 03:26PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Absolutely insane.

Tell us Saralee4; how did this woman earn the money her ex husband made ten years (almost longer than their marriage and longer than they were actually together) after their divorce?

scary alright.

The Corinthian · 11-03-2015 03:40PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

It does not happen to have a gender bias though. Men and women are treated the same who are in the same situation. Just because there are more women in that situation does not mean it is bias.

Yet the courts have been proven to show bias in favour of women and against men is almost all other areas of the law. Are you suggesting that all this and every report that's come out of the divorce courts is false?

And there are points that I have repeatedly made but just because something is repeated does not mean that you have to agree.

But is does mean that you should not ignore the point and continue coming out with the same discredited arguments as if nothing had been said.

It is your opinion that the 'dependent' suffers no penalty. Like I have said, they have more than likely made sacrifices financially too.

And you have failed to even come close to demonstrate any equity - that what they get is in any way fair or that the 'provider' gets anything in return for their own sacrifice.

that is your opinion and from what you can see. I imagine that if you lived in both peoples shoes you would be able to see a more empathetic view for both sides.

'Emphatic'... Christ, the last last argumentative refuge for those who have realized they have no rational argument, so must retreat to the irrational. Anyhow, empathy denotes an understanding of others, not one for what suits yourself.

Saralee4 wrote: »

We don't know all the details. From what I can see I don't agree with this however I don't know all the story. Perhaps like the article stated, he only paid 'minimum payments' for his child and maybe the two of them (mother and child) live a very hard life and maybe she didn't request spousal payment at the time. Perhaps had a hard time bringing up the child.

So what? Even if she was due something retrospectively, should it not be based upon his means at the time they were together? What you're justifying is the parasitic profit of another's labours well outside of any partnership they may have had.

She may have made a lot of sacrifices raising the child while he just made minimum payments and may not have been there to provide the child with emotional support or any other kind of help etc. He might have been living the high life while his ex and their son where living in squalor, who knows. We don't know the ins and outs.

If she made sacrifices, then good for her - it's her child too. This idea that someone should be paid to raise their own child is ridiculous.

But we don't know the ins and outs - 'minimal' for one judge is 'sufficient' or even 'generous' for another - still even not knowing them, it's probably close to impossible to justify in any sane manner, a shakedown for £1.9m

Saralee4 wrote: »

But regardless of why or why not men stay at home, if they do, they are treated the same as women with regard to spousal pay which is what we are talking about (which also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread)!!

Back to calling it pay now, are we?

Saralee4 wrote: »

haha could you imagine the divorce??!! id get everything - Joking!!! :pac:

If you and I were the last man and woman on Earth...

...you and I would be the last man and woman on Earth.

Saralee4 · 11-03-2015 04:20PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But is does mean that you should not ignore the point and continue coming out with the same discredited arguments as if nothing had been said.

If you and I were the last man and woman on Earth...

...you and I would be the last man and woman on Earth.

Totally agree. Yes some people are very one tracked minded an unable to see another person's view and ignore or dismiss other people points because they do not agree.

I was not suggesting anything of the sort, merely trying to lighten up the posts. Thankfully I am very happily married already so you have nothing to worry about there.

I appreciate the time you took to provide detailed posts of your opinions however I do not agree with your views and feel I have provided enough examples to show the other side. If you do not agree with that, then you are entitled to do so.

Potatoeman · 11-03-2015 04:31PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

Totally agree. Yes some people are very one tracked minded an unable to see another person's view and ignore or dismiss other people points because they do not agree.

I was not suggesting anything of the sort, merely trying to lighten up the posts. Thankfully I am very happily married already so you have nothing to worry about there.

I appreciate the time you took to provide detailed posts of your opinions however I do not agree with your views and feel I have provided enough examples to show the other side. If you do not agree with that, then you are entitled to do so.

Why not split custody fifty fifty? No payments needed at all. Its not like many people can afford to be stay at home parents these days anyway.

People who hire hookers?

Comments