Top hotels advise clients on how to get sex

Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
popper said:
toxic avenger said:
I was staying in a top hotel on the quays in Dublin a few months ago, and in the lift on the way down to breakfast, to breakfast, a foreign female concierge asked me did 'i want fun in the room?'! I declined and then ran out of the lift at a hundred miles an hour! It seemed to me to be an official unofficial service, operated on a nudge nudge, wink wink basis with the knowledge of that hotel's management! I'd say there's more than a few exploited and unwilling Eastern European girls involved..

It's such a hassle being offered sex by strange women early in the morning. Such a hassle. :(
It is if I have to pay for it, and end up with a trafficked girl being treated as a slave by gangs, I'd slit my own throat first.
 


Ronanr

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
193
johnfas said:

Find me a prostitute, escort, call him/her what you will who aspires to their industry. I very much doubt you will find any. Whilst we all work for economic necessity, we each aspire to certain things within our jobs and normally take on a job which at least gives us some satisfaction.

You could say that about a lot of jobs, nobody aspires to them but they are still done because the paypacket is there - did anyone ever aspire to being a McDonalds server or a hotel chambermaid?

Does that mean they should be illegal?


Obviously if somebody is being forced into prostitution against their will, that should be against the law, but why should a women taking on prostitution of her own free will be illegal, when it remains legal for her to take on any of the other soul-destroying jobs out there?

provide services for those who are, or indeed could be prostitutes in order to find something meaningful for their lives.
Such a service already exists. It is called FAS. However in our almost full-employment economy, I do not think there are many women who are involved in prostitution just because they cannot find any other job.

Obviously some are either being forced to do it (true of a lot I am sure) but there is also surely a lot of women out there who make the decision that in their opinion that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

You may disapprove of that choice - I would too - but is that disapproval reason enough for us to say we have the right to ban it? (particularly when such a ban is almost impossible to enforce anyway)
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
I'd say yes, it is right to ban it. It might be completely ineffectual, but it is right that we as a State stand for something morally. The slippery slope of relativism, the refusal to accept that anything is 'wrong' because we all have different concepts of what is and is not morally acceptable, will surely lead to the complete breakdown of society. It is right that we take a moral stand.
 

Ronanr

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
193
It is right that we take a moral stand.
But to what extent is it the state's job to enforce a moral viewpoint?

Surely in a secular state, there should be some distance between what is required in LAW, and what may be required by ones MORALITY?
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
Ronanr said:
It is right that we take a moral stand.
But to what extent is it the state's job to enforce a moral viewpoint?

Surely in a secular state, there should be some distance between what is required in LAW, and what may be required by ones MORALITY?
Law involves the enforcement of a moral framework. That should be obvious. The attempt to distance law and morality is flawed from the start. The decision to outlaw rape is based on the moral repugnance to most people of that act.

You mistakenly believe that a secular state can have no moral viewpoint because religions hold moral viewpoints. I would argue that prostitution, particularly the kind involving trafficking, is a trade in human misery, and whether they agree or not, makes victims of those engaged in it as prostitutes. It also does harm to society, through the proliferation of STDs, the breakdowns of marriages and families, the psychological damage often done, the objectification of women etc. etc.

That the Churches say this is true does not mean we jettison this view or not try to enforce it because we might offend the mythical 'secularist' agenda. There is hypocrisy at work here insofar as secularists often want 'religious' morality expunged from the State system, but want to enforce their alternative moral agenda which is often just as subjective in its judgements as any religious person would be.

The banning of prostitution is an important stand for the state to take, the sale of human bodies is something that must be stamped on. Its effectiveness is secondary..
 

Ronanr

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
193
You mistakenly believe that a secular state can have no moral viewpoint because religions hold moral viewpoints.
I do not believe any such thing. But I would question the right of the state to insist on making something ILLEGAL just because it views it as immoral.

Ironically, some of the states that have been historically most opposed to the idea of legalised prostitution (such as the Soviet Union in the past, or Sweden more recently) have been EXTREMELY secular.

To clarify my beliefs better, let me say that i would have no particular objection if the government spent money on an advertising campaign against divorce, or paid for marriage counselling for people who's marriages were in trouble (ie, the state taking a moral stance on marriage breakup) but I would be nonetheless opposed to the state making adultery illegal.


There is hypocrisy at work here insofar as secularists often want 'religious' morality expunged from the State system, but want to enforce their alternative moral agenda which is often just as subjective in its judgements as any religious person would be.
Yes, indeed, I too am opposed to secular, militant feminists and loonie lefties trying to impose "their alternative moral agenda" by making prostitution illegal in German and the Netherlands.

As you say, their moral agenda is indeed "subjective", and we should be wary of making things illegal just because they dislike it.
 

Ronanr

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
193
The decision to outlaw rape is based on the moral repugnance to most people of that act.
You are not comparing like with like here. Rape can never be consensual. I am only suggesting that the state should avoid completely banning consensual prostitution.


But to expand on the moral repugnance notion:

Most people in Egypt have a moral repugnance of homosexuality. Does that mean that the current oppression of gays in Egypt is acceptable in your view?
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,323
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
gahane said:
Twin Towers said:
digoutday said:
What does 400 quid get ya?
According to "Irish Independent Escorts" not much.

http://www.irishindependentescorts.com/escorts.html

In terms of tax evasion alone.

http://www.irishindependentescorts.com/ ... howforum=1

Hotels have to decide whether they want to be hotels or brothels.

There seem to be some codes in their descriptions that I just don't think I want to know about :shock:
which ones, I could probably tell ya.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
Ronanr said:
You mistakenly believe that a secular state can have no moral viewpoint because religions hold moral viewpoints.
I do not believe any such thing. But I would question the right of the state to insist on making something ILLEGAL just because it views it as immoral.

Ironically, some of the states that have been historically most opposed to the idea of legalised prostitution (such as the Soviet Union in the past, or Sweden more recently) have been EXTREMELY secular.

To clarify my beliefs better, let me say that i would have no particular objection if the government spent money on an advertising campaign against divorce, or paid for marriage counselling for people who's marriages were in trouble (ie, the state taking a moral stance on marriage breakup) but I would be nonetheless opposed to the state making adultery illegal.


[quote:k580eb6y]There is hypocrisy at work here insofar as secularists often want 'religious' morality expunged from the State system, but want to enforce their alternative moral agenda which is often just as subjective in its judgements as any religious person would be.
Yes, indeed, I too am opposed to secular, militant feminists and loonie lefties trying to impose "their alternative moral agenda" by making prostitution illegal in German and the Netherlands.

As you say, their moral agenda is indeed "subjective", and we should be wary of making things illegal just because they dislike it.[/quote:k580eb6y]

We perhaps agree on some things then, except so far as the particular case of prostitution goes, which I believe is never truly consensual and harms society as a whole, not to mention the degraded participant. I believe the state can and should take a moral position on this. This might be regarded by many as subjective, and thus open to the question 'whose subjectivism?', but the same could be said of many things the 'secular' state would be expected to outlaw. Should one person, as happened in Germany recently, agree to being killed, cooked and eaten by another, should that be without criminal sanction? I however believe that there are indeed objective rights and wrongs, a natural law if you like, and that these should be upheld, though there might be dispute about them. The alternative is an 'anything goes' descent into relativism, where nobody is right and nobody wrong, and governments and peoples stand for nothing.

Your Egyptian question: the answer is no, of course not. I am not a utilitarian, I don't believe that rights and wrongs are decided by majorities, they are objective realities, even though none of us is wise enough to claim complete knowledge of it. But my point is that the misapplication of a moral framework for the law doesn't mean you jettison the idea of or the search for an objective moral framework within which to frame the law. Most, if not all, laws are framed to achieve ultimate moral goals, from the outlawing of murder to the prohibition of cruelty to animals to the laws on littering. We maintain the fiction of secularism, but quietly discard it when it suits..[/i]
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
johnfás said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
TradCat said:
FT

The question is all about consent. Can a woman forced to sell her body through coercion or economic circumstances or addiction be said to freely consent. If not then we are dealing with a heinous criminality facilitated by hotels.

Should we turn a blind eye?
Well if she's rich and has no pimp she is certainly giving consent. Most of us work because of economic circumstances is that consent? Forcing something into prostitution in the literal sense of that word I condemn. But I don't care how an adult makes a living as long as it doesn't harm others and is taxed so wider society can benefit. And you make the classical feminist mistake of assuming all adult sex-workers are female. Why should adult men not be allowed sell sexual services?
Find me a prostitute, escort, call him/her what you will who aspires to their industry. I very much doubt you will find any. Whilst we all work for economic necessity, we each aspire to certain things within our jobs and normally take on a job which at least gives us some satisfaction. Prostitution debases the women involved, destroying any sense of dignity and self worth which they held, often which was very low anyway. As such it should remain illegal. However, the state's role should not be to go around punishing prostitutes but rather their pimps and provide services for those who are, or indeed could be prostitutes in order to find something meaningful for their lives.
You are not a woman so how do you know? And I notice you dodged my question on male prostitution. If an adult chooses to sell their body then that should be legal provided it is taxed. It would bring in billions for the health service, schools, roads etc. It will also help reduce STD's through regulation of licensed-brothels, as well as giving adult prostitutes a safer alternative to being preyed upon by violent clients on the streets.

I'd say yes, it is right to ban it. It might be completely ineffectual, but it is right that we as a State stand for something morally. The slippery slope of relativism, the refusal to accept that anything is 'wrong' because we all have different concepts of what is and is not morally acceptable, will surely lead to the complete breakdown of society. It is right that we take a moral stand.
I think society will survive consenting adults exchanging money behind closed doors. Religion is what has made such a big deal of consenting adults having sex. It's time to ditch religion.
 

nawbut

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
38
anyone?

Anyone here ever availed of the services of a prostitute?
 

MartinP

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
91
Very few would admit it if they did nawbut. I know that a couple of years ago a rumour was circulating that a brothel had opened in an estate in town I know of. When it was taken as truth, plenty local men were calling to the estate, knocking on doors, looking for the house with the services (so to speak). This mostly happened in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings I believe.

Anyway, legalisation and regulation and taxation would be a good idea :) Then we could ban smoking or something and not suffer a financial deficit ;-)
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Re: anyone?

nawbut said:
Anyone here ever availed of the services of a prostitute?
As if they'd admit it if they had. :roll:
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,709
Nope, but id be interested to know if the escort is anything like her pic.
Cant see it myself (and please, no joke about too much wan*ing)
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top