Prostitution

rantyface

rantyface wrote: »

The times today had an article claiming over a hundred women forced into prostitution were working in Ireland. Anyone who uses them knowing that is potentially committing rape, and has no moral qualms with rape.

I'm always curious when I see these articles in Irish papers, or magazines claiming large numbers of women forced into prostitution.. I mean have the Times informed the situation of these women to the Gardai? Have they been freed of the forced sex work practices?

It should be legalised. I don't know how many brothels would remain, because it seems that most of the prostitutes working here would not get work permits for real jobs, and people who can get decent jobs normally wouldn't be prostitutes. Also, the women who were trafficked could safely admit to it and get out of it.

I completely agree. I don't visit prostitutes any more, but I know that legalisation would benefit the prostitutes, the customers and the state itself.

Just a note on the work permits, the majority of prostitutes in Ireland come from EU member states, and can get permission to work here. Its just those that have come from Third world countries (particularly African countries) or Asians who have failed either to get the permits or have failed to get jobs due to various reasons like a language barrier.

lizzyvera

Copy pasted from irishtimes.com
Are you 100% positive you never raped someone then? If 102 have been found, and conisidering most crime goes undetected.

Over 100 women trafficked for sex industry in Ireland
In this section »

* Men paying for sex must be challenged - report
* Report: recommendations

KITTY HOLLAND

TRAFFICKING REPORT : MORE THAN 100 women and girls were identified as having been trafficked into Ireland for the sex industry in a 21-month period, new research has found.

Authors of the report, Globalisation, Sex Trafficking and Prostitution – The Experiences of Migrant Women In Ireland, say this figure is “just the tip of the iceberg”.

Of the 102, identified by 10 welfare groups and service-providers between January 2007 and September 2008, 11 were children when trafficked.

Commissioned by the Immigrant Council of Ireland and carried out with the Health Service Executive and Ruhama – an outreach organisation working with prostitutes – the report identified a “heartbreaking litany of rape, abuse and exploitation”.

The report, written by policy analysts Monica O’Connor and Jane Pillinger, uses the UN definition of “trafficking”. This is: “The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons by means of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, [or] the abuse of power of a position of vulnerability . . . to achieve the consent of a person for the purpose of exploitation.”

“Consent” is irrelevant, according to the UN, as the vast majority of people trafficked for prostitution see little or no viable alternative at the time.

The researchers interviewed 12 trafficked women, from impoverished regions including Africa, eastern Europe and Central/South America, who spoke of having been told they would get work in dance clubs or the tourism sector and of having false documents arranged for them.

Once they got to Ireland, their documents were taken from them, rendering them illegal immigrants. Many were raped by pimps and/or traffickers “to make them compliant” and then put to work seeing up to 10 men a day.

“The accounts of trafficked women are of captivity, isolation, shame and betrayal, combined with systematic sexual exploitation and rape,” says the report.

Of 63 of the women who gave details on violent experiences, 45 had experienced physical violence, 35 had been raped and 18 had been gang-raped.

The authors stressed that the 102 listed were just the women they managed to identify through contacts with service-providers. They said there were more than 1,000 women in indoor prostitution at any one time.

Examining Irish “escort” internet sites, they found women representing 51 nationalities. Some 97 per cent of women advertised were migrants.

They ranged in age from 18 to 58, averaging 25 years, with evidence that some were as young as 16. They were advertised in hotels, apartments and as call-outs to homes in 19 of the 26 counties.

The women said they had to be available for sex 24 hours a day and some were “very distressed at the range of abnormal sexual acts they were asked to perform”.

Many men wanted them to drink and take drugs with them, and many were “under increasing pressure to engage in unsafe sexual acts including unprotected oral, vaginal and anal sex”.

Some 37 per cent of the 102 women experienced bacterial vaginosis, 22 per cent hepatitis A, 20 per cent hepatitis B and 14 per cent had genital warts. There were cases of damage to the vagina and uterus, and breakdown of the skin associated with prolonged use of lubricants and gels.

The long-term psychological impacts are less certain. The women experienced constant anxiety, particularly about violence.

One, named as Anara from Brazil, was quoted as saying: “I feel like nothing. I feel dirty. I feel confused and upset all the time. I want to get out of this work. I want a normal life. I am tired of all the lies . . . lies, lies, lies to everyone, to my family, my friends. I do not want to lie, but how can I tell the truth. I have lived inside this world and the normal world outside is lost to me, I feel I have no future.”

AARRRGH

The research for that article is by Ruhama. Two very important things to keep in mind:

1. Ruhama think ALL FOREIGN WOMEN in Ireland who work as prostitutes have been trafficked here. They do not draw any distinction between women who came here to seek work as prostitutes, and (the very very rare cases of) women who were tricked into coming here and forced to work as prostitutes.
2. Ruhama think ALL prostitution is forced prostitution and rape. They doe not draw any distinction between women who choose to work as prostitutes and (the very very rare cases of) women who are forced to work as prostitutes.

It is the typical Ruhama nonsense. Dismiss it.

Btw I was recently talking to a girl who works for the Government agency who deals with funding for anti-prostitution organisations (can't remember what it was called, but it has the word "health" in it), and she said everyone in her office think Ruhama are a joke.

lizzyvera

lizzyvera wrote: »

The authors stressed that the 102 listed were just the women they managed to identify through contacts with service-providers. They said there were more than 1,000 women in indoor prostitution at any one time.

I'd love to see the hard facts as to where they got this figure of 1,000 and whether they're talking about all prostitutes or if they're still only talking about trafficed/forced prostitution.

The article also doesn't say whether these people were helped or left to be statistics for future articles..

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to see the hard facts as to where they got this figure of 1,000 and whether they're talking about all prostitutes or if they're still only talking about trafficed/forced prostitution.

The article also doesn't say whether these people were helped or left to be statistics for future articles..

If it's Ruhama...my money is on "left to be statistics for future articles"...that is their consistent form...after all, if, by some horrible chance any of the problems connected to women in prostitution actually got sorted they would lose their funding along with their mandate to feel superior to others through endeavouring to "save fallen women".

Also, Ruhama is currently pressuring for further recriminalisation (a mission I feel sure they have neglected to clarify to those to whom they "outreach""), and anything they collate is usually spun towards their "mission of the day".

Co-ercion is a terrible, but very subjective, thing. Are these women truly co-erced by specific people, or by circumstances?

If Ruhama claim the co-ercion come from specific individuals they can campaign for further recriminalisation and the old Tampep (affiliated to Europap, who are in essence the umbrella group for Ruhama) objective of obtaining a constant flow of EU and other grant aid for statistical data collation on migratory prostitution.

If they acknowledge circumstantial co-ercion they might just have to get down, and dirty and waste some of their grant aid on solving actual social problems, and, well, that would NEVER do, now would it?

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that any woman has a free personal preference for f*cking guys she does not feel any desire for, and handing over 50% (the current minimum) to an escort agency.

Prior to recriminalisation on 1993, the worst of the agencies, and massage parlours didn't even try to get more than 20%...

gaygaf

Thats so old as human kind...well up to the guy...if he need it..fine...
only problem is to make sure to protect himself..in case if some strange **** he can bring back to his home, gf etc....

but till there is a need for prostitution, there are prostitutes out there..becouse there is reason for it...something his gf doesn't do..or just natural mans instinct to get as many girls as possible...typical male instinct...

but thats why we have feelings,emotions,brains...so if u are in love with someone...u dnt want to jump in every single girl around and shaq her....is it?

philologos

gaygaf: Seems to be all about the guy doesn't it? How selfish can one get?

Joycey

So, all the people saying prostitution should be legalised, that it will benefit all involved etc etc. Why would this be the case? How would this benefit the prostitute? They are still engaged in prostitution, something which by and large, youd assume they wouldnt want to be. What we should be doing is taking away the poverty and lack of choice which forces the women into the situation of having to sell themselves in the first place.

What could be done in order to grant the women who are still in a position where they have to do this the same benefits that complete legalisation would bring, is to completely decriminalise the selling of yourself, so no prostitute gets punished, but crack down hard on the customers and especially the pimps/escort agencies. Enforce regular testing and treatment for STDs for the prostitutes, and create an environment where they dont feel victimised/isolated because of the current laws in place which label them as criminals. This means that anyone who beats or rapes a prostitute is far more likely to be reported then they currently are. It doesnt, however solve the problem of women who are trafficed illegaly because they are still going to be as isolated as they always were.

I cant see any additional benefit to the prostitute under full legalisation then having the position of the seller be entirely decriminalised. It gives the prostitute much more power and it means that we dont live in a society where the oppression of people who are forced into the position of having to sell themselves is legitimised by legalisation.

Bren1609

Joycey wrote: »

So, all the people saying prostitution should be legalised, that it will benefit all involved etc etc. Why would this be the case? How would this benefit the prostitute? They are still engaged in prostitution, something which by and large, youd assume they wouldnt want to be. What we should be doing is taking away the poverty and lack of choice which forces the women into the situation of having to sell themselves in the first place.

What could be done in order to grant the women who are still in a position where they have to do this the same benefits that complete legalisation would bring, is to completely decriminalise the selling of yourself, so no prostitute gets punished, but crack down hard on the customers and especially the pimps/escort agencies. Enforce regular testing and treatment for STDs for the prostitutes, and create an environment where they dont feel victimised/isolated because of the current laws in place which label them as criminals. This means that anyone who beats or rapes a prostitute is far more likely to be reported then they currently are. It doesnt, however solve the problem of women who are trafficed illegaly because they are still going to be as isolated as they always were.

I cant see any additional benefit to the prostitute under full legalisation then having the position of the seller be entirely decriminalised. It gives the prostitute much more power and it means that we dont live in a society where the oppression of people who are forced into the position of having to sell themselves is legitimised by legalisation.

Whats the disadvantages of legalising prostitution? I'm sure they dont outweigh the advantages. As you said, women would still be trafficed regardless so I dont see the problem with legalising.

philologos

Bren1609 wrote: »

Whats the disadvantages of legalising prostitution? I'm sure they dont outweigh the advantages. As you said, women would still be trafficed regardless so I dont see the problem with legalising.

Do you not see the principle though? Do you think that women being trafficked to be sexually exploited is right? Personally I don't see any reason why we should regard these women as purely sexual objects when they are infact people very much like you and I too. The lack of empathy on this thread is just unreal.

AARRRGH

Joycey wrote: »

So, all the people saying prostitution should be legalised, that it will benefit all involved etc etc. Why would this be the case? How would this benefit the prostitute? They are still engaged in prostitution, something which by and large, youd assume they wouldnt want to be. What we should be doing is taking away the poverty and lack of choice which forces the women into the situation of having to sell themselves in the first place.

What could be done in order to grant the women who are still in a position where they have to do this the same benefits that complete legalisation would bring, is to completely decriminalise the selling of yourself, so no prostitute gets punished, but crack down hard on the customers and especially the pimps/escort agencies. Enforce regular testing and treatment for STDs for the prostitutes, and create an environment where they dont feel victimised/isolated because of the current laws in place which label them as criminals. This means that anyone who beats or rapes a prostitute is far more likely to be reported then they currently are. It doesnt, however solve the problem of women who are trafficed illegaly because they are still going to be as isolated as they always were.

I cant see any additional benefit to the prostitute under full legalisation then having the position of the seller be entirely decriminalised. It gives the prostitute much more power and it means that we dont live in a society where the oppression of people who are forced into the position of having to sell themselves is legitimised by legalisation.

Firstly, I find it bizarre that you think decriminalising prostitution won't help prostitutes. You have thrown logic out the window with that one.

Secondly, ALL prostitutes (bar the extremely rare case of trafficking) choose to work as prostitutes. They don't need anyone's 'help' to stop their 'immoral' behaviour. You are not a victim if you have a choice.

If you really want to help prostitutes, support the decriminalisation of prostitution so they will have more rights, and people will stop seeing their behaviour as wrong (i.e. sex isn't wrong.)

Thirdly, why do you want to crack down on people who have sex with prostitutes? Having sex with a consensual partner isn't immoral.

Fourthly, trafficking is unbelieveably rare in Ireland. Don't believe the lies Ruhama print in the paper.

Fifthly, you have a very low opinion of women. I understand you probably could/would never work as a prostitute, but that doesn't mean other women aren't happy to do so, or have a different relationship with sex than you have. All women are different and their decisions should be respected. Seeing women as victims because they have sex is degrading.

Joycey

AARRRGH wrote: »

Firstly, I find it bizarre that you think decriminalising prostitution won't help prostitutes. You have thrown logic out the window with that one.

Id recommend reading my post again. Im saying that instead of legalising prostitution, where both the selling and the buying of sex are recognised as legitimate, we decriminalise the seller, in order to prevent the victimisation of prostitutes and allow them to report violence and other offences which it is currently much harder to do. I see no reason that pimps or customers should not be prosecuted by law.

Secondly, ALL prostitutes (bar the extremely rare case of trafficking) choose to work as prostitutes. They don't need anyone's 'help' to stop their 'immoral' behaviour. You are not a victim if you have a choice.

I put a gun to your head and tell you to do something. You do it. You have a choice. Should you suffer the reprecussions? No. Every action you perform is chosen, that doesnt mean you are not a victim if I coerce you. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, there are two types of coercion: that done directly by one person or group of people to another, and that caused by circumstances which all but force you to act in a certain way. For instance, could a starving, AIDS infected orphan in Malawi who "chooses" to sell their body for sex not be called a victim[? I would argue that the people who choose to become prostitutes without any kind of coercive influence are almost exclusively the exception rather then the rule.

If you really want to help prostitutes, support the decriminalisation of prostitution so they will have more rights, and people will stop seeing their behaviour as wrong (i.e. sex isn't wrong.)

Read my post. I do. I dont support legalisation.

Thirdly, why do you want to crack down on people who have sex with prostitutes? Having sex with a consensual partner isn't immoral.

Is it immoral to have sex with the starving AIDS infected orphan in Malawi? They are consenting after all.

I dont recognise the "choice" that the majority of prostitutes make to perform sexual acts for people who give them the money they need to survive as freely made.

Fourthy, trafficking is unbelieveably rare in Ireland. Don't believe the lies Ruhama print in the paper.

Ive never heard of Ruhama before today, but given the apparent breadth of your knowledge and the research you have done on the topic il take your word for it :rolleyes:.

Fifthly, you have a very low opinion of women. I understand you probably could/would never work as a prostitute, but that doesn't mean other women aren't happy to do so, or have a different relationship with sex than you have. All women are different and their decisions should be respected. Seeing women as victims because they have sex is degrading.

I see the fact that they are forced to perform sexual acts for people they have absolutely no interest in because they need the money thats offered degrading. Thats not to say that I dont respect the fact that they are capable of enduring such inhumane living conditions day in and day out, just that I think that the conditions which exist in society which force people to do things they dont want to do in order to survive should be eradicated, and that apologists like you should be campaigning for the abolishment of poverty and proper support for these people rather then trying to legitimise this abhorrent practise.

AARRRGH

Joycey, I don't think you really understand prostitution very well. I don't see how AIDs infected orphans in Africa being forced to have sex has anything to do with prostitution in Ireland, nevermind prostitution in general.

The image of desperate women being forced against their will to perform sex acts is something the movies want you to believe.

The reality is prostitutes are women who have realised they can make a lot of quick cash by having sex for money, so every day, or every other day, they choose to have sex for money. It is a choice. They are not victims.

It's fine that you consider sex for money degrading, but don't make the mistake (which is what you are doing) that everyone does or should think like you - most prostitutes don't.

At the end of the day, sex is not wrong, and what two grown adults choose to do behind closed doors is none of our business. Trying to restrict people from living their life the way they want to live it is wrong. And thinking consensual sex is degrading or dirty is down right backwards.

If you take nothing from the above, at least think about the concept that it may be inhumane to you, but that doesn't mean the prostitutes think it is inhumane, or what they do is inhumane. You have to seperate your own feelings from the issue.

allthedoyles

I would prefer them to be called 'female escorts '.....It sounds better , and as far as I know is the modern terminology

AARRRGH

allthedoyles wrote: »

I would prefer them to be called 'female escorts '.....It sounds better , and as far as I know is the modern terminology

Prostitutes are girls on the street, escorts are girls in apartments and hotels...

They do the same thing of course.

Rics

Aye, I think it is pretty immoral tbh.
Then again, supply and demand and all that but there will always be a danger to those working in that game.

AARRRGH

Rics wrote: »

Aye, I think it is pretty immoral tbh.
Then again, supply and demand and all that but there will always be a danger to those working in that game.

It's fine that you personally think it's immoral, but you're not a fundamentalist so you don't want to enforce your own morals onto others, right?

Joycey

The image of desperate women being forced against their will to perform sex acts is something the movies want you to believe.

The reality is prostitutes are women who have realised they can make a lot of quick money by having sex for money, so every day, or every other day, they choose to have sex for money. It is a choice. They are not victims.

I dont know, maybe your right but I seriously, seriously doubt it. In fact no, I dont think your right. You look at the demographics of prostitutes in the UK say, youl find that the percentage of prostitutes on hard drugs like heroin or crack is going to be at least 10 times higher then the rest of the population (and thats unbelievably conservative). Now, why would there be a corellation between being a sex worker and hard drug use?

There are two possibilities (as far as I can see anyway point out any Ive missed).
1. that the people who are most likely to become prostitutes are the people who are most likely to already be on hard drugs, lets say heroin.
2. that people who become prostitutes suddenly become more likely to take up heroin.

The people who are most likely to already be on heroin, are far more likely to come from the bottom 10% of the socioeconomic wellbeing scale then any other social class, right? So doesnt this make my point that the people who take up prostitution tend to be people who are unable (maybe not when they first started but at least now) to find any other means of employment? Particularly when theyv got a habit to feed.

If option 2 were the primary reason for this corellation, I can see two main possibilities for why this would be the case: that the work is awful etc etc so they take up heroin to ease the pain; or that through their association with other prostitutes, likely clients, pimps and trafficers, they are exposed to heroin and end up with a habit.

Now I dont see how can you can just dismiss the fact that the people who become prostitutes by and large are unable to find other means of employment and if given a choice would not be doing what theyr doing. This is what you did when you just outright said the Malawian orphan has nothing to do with it.

Please point out where the following is mistaken:
The orphan "chooses freely", to become a prostitute, however their circumstances have had a large influence on their decision.
The prostitute in Ireland "chooses freely" to become a prostitute, however their circumstances had a large influence on their decision.

At the end of the day, sex is not wrong, and what two grown adults choose to do behind closed doors is none of our business. Trying to restrict people from living their life they way they want to live it is wrong. And thinking consensual sex is degrading or dirty is down right backwards.

How many times do I have to say it? Sex is not dirty or immoral or any of the other words your trying to put in my mouth. My problem with prostitution is that I dont think that the imbalance in power which exists when one person has the money and the other person needs it, can result in what you call "consent". Is that clear enough?

If you take nothing from the above, at least think about the concept that it may be inhumane to you, but that doesn't mean the prostitutes think it is unhumane. You have to seperate your own feelings from the issue.

No your right, there are obviously a good few prostitutes who, as you say, arent sex workers because of necessity, but because they find it an easier and quicker way to make money then working a part time job or whatever. While in an ideal world these people would be able to do what they want without it being an issue, the fact is that its better to curtail the liberties of the minority in order to protect the majority who are being exploited, IMO anyway.

AARRRGH

Joycey, lots of prostitutes don't have a heroin problem though. If you want to specifically talk about heroin addicts then I agree with you that these are desperate people who will do anything for their fix, but that's a problem of addiction more than anything else.

I am talking about prostitutes in general rather than focussing on one particular section of them.

For example, I know a lot of prostitutes (although they would refer to themselves as 'escorts' as they do not work the streets) and they are totally 'normal' women. One just graduated with a business degree. These women choose to work as prostitutes because they like the lifestyle it gives them.

Regarding the desperate in society - whether they be heroin addicts who work as prostitutes or heroin addicts who beg - I believe these people need help, but we should focus on their addiction rather than the fact that some of them have sex for money...

Regarding your argument that the women aren't consenting - you are wrong. To believe your line of thought would mean the men who have sex with prostitutes are rapists. This is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

At the end of the day it comes down to choice. The woman who puts on a skirt, a bit of makeup, and stands on the street hoping punters will give her some business is making a choice - she is choosing to work as a prostitute. She would be quite offended if you walked up to her and told her she is being exploited and degraded. Why? Because you would be forcing your own personal morals onto her.

And that's what it's all about - not forcing your morals onto others. You may only take issue with prostitution, but someone else may take issue with women wearing skirts. They may seem very different issues to you, but the reality is they both involve someone forcing their own morals onto others, and as a result are the same thing.

philologos

AARRRGH wrote: »

It's fine that you personally think it's immoral, but you're not a fundamentalist so you don't want to enforce your own morals onto others, right?

Democracies by and large operate by majority rule. This is why laws get drafted by representative parliaments. So yes, people do enforce what they deem to be best for society at large with the mandate of the people. I support keeping prostitution illegal because it is a crime with victims involved. People who become prostitutes out of desperation are not people which advocate free choices.

In Holland even where it is legal most of the women who do this are foreign who have little prospects of work elsewhere so they go to the only possible option they can find. This doesn't mean that they are not affected psychologically, and physically from having to do this.

If this law is for the protection of others, then yes I think the State has every right to restrict you from carrying out this act.

AARRRGH

Jakkass wrote: »

Democracies by and large operate by majority rule. This is why laws get drafted by representative parliaments. So yes, people do enforce what they deem to be best for society at large with the mandate of the people. I support keeping prostitution illegal because it is a crime with victims involved. People who become prostitutes out of desperation are not people which advocate free choices.

If you want to ban prostitution because the act of sex causes the prostitute to become a victim, well then you should ban one night stands as well. Plenty of 'victims' from that too.

Why can't you see sex for what it is?

It's not some magical special act which should only happen between people in love. It's just sex. Loads of people can do it without feeling dirty or thinking they got closer to God or whatever it is you think sex is all about.

Some people just see it as sex, plain and simple. ESPECIALLY if you didn't grow up brainwashed into thinking sex is dirty, i.e. you didn't grow up in a Catholic country.

Jakkass wrote: »

In Holland even where it is legal most of the women who do this are foreign who have little prospects of work elsewhere so they go to the only possible option they can find. This doesn't mean that they are not affected psychologically, and physically from having to do this.

That is untrue.

Jakkass wrote: »

If this law is for the protection of others, then yes I think the State has every right to restrict you from carrying out this act.

But you shouldn't have to protect people from choosing to have sex...

I know, you are a Catholic so you think sex is special and a bit dirty, but that's not reality, I'm sorry.

Joycey

AARRRGH wrote: »

If you want to ban prostitution because the act of sex causes the prostitute to become a victim, well then you should ban one night stands as well. Plenty of 'victims' from that too.

The difference being one night stands are consentual. If someone is too drunk to give consent then isnt that also considered rape?

But you shouldn't have to protect people from choosing to have sex...

I know, you are a Catholic so you think sex is special and a bit dirty, but that's not reality, I'm sorry.

Ok so Im assuming you think that raping a child is worse then hitting them yeah? If there is no difference between sex and any other act then why would this be the case?

Regarding your argument that the women aren't consenting - you are wrong. To believe your line of thought would mean the men who have sex with prostitutes are rapists. This is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

What im trying to show is that this clear defining line that you think exists between giving someone money which they need in exchange for sex and any other form of coercion which leads to the coerced having sex with you isnt a reality. Just because the coercion isnt as immediate or as obvious doesnt mean its any less real.

At the end of the day it comes down to choice. The woman who puts on a skirt, a bit of makeup, and stands on the street hoping punters will give her some business is making a choice - she is choosing to work as a prostitute. She would be quite offended if you walked up to her and told her she is being exploited and degraded. Why? Because you would be forcing your own personal morals onto her.

But thats not what im trying to do. If I thought that it was immoral then wouldnt I be baying for the blood of prostitutes? Wouldnt I be campaigning for harsher measures against them? What Im proposing is that the selling of sex be decriminalised, but that the buying of it should be punished.

If the protection of vulnerable people leads to some prostitutes who are entirely freely consenting not being able to sell themselves without acruing risk to their customers then so be it. I would rather not live in a society where exploitation of vulnerable people is legitimised, hence my opposition to prostitution as an institution.

AARRRGH

Joycey wrote: »

The difference being one night stands are consentual.

Prostitution is also consensual! Unless you think every act of prostitution is rape.

Joycey wrote: »

Ok so Im assuming you think that raping a child is worse then hitting them yeah? If there is no difference between sex and any other act then why would this be the case?

Consensual sex is consensual sex. I don't care if money changes hands. As long as everyone is agreeing to do the act it is none of my business.

Joycey wrote: »

What im trying to show is that this clear defining line that you think exists between giving someone money which they need in exchange for sex and any other form of coercion which leads to the coerced having sex with you isnt a reality. Just because the coercion isnt as immediate or as obvious doesnt mean its any less real.

You could apply your logic to everything. For example, the girl who is feeling a bit unattractive so she goes out and has a one night stand. Did she really want to have sex or was she coerced by her insecurity?

In my opinion, the prostitute would only be having sex against her will if she was being raped. And I don't believe paying for sex and raping someone are in any way connected!

Joycey wrote: »

What Im proposing is that the selling of sex be decriminalised, but that the buying of it should be punished.

I really think you need to go meet some prostitutes and have a chat with them. You will see they are not pathetic and in fact are choosing to work as prostitutes.

Your belief that prostitutes are not using free will is incorrect.

Even the junkies (who are a minority of prostitutes - you seem to think they are the majority) have still chosen to work as prostitutes. Yes, they are desperate for drugs, and yes, in an ideal world they'd work in some other job for €200 per hour, but the reality is the only job available to them which pays crazy money is prostitution, so that's why they have chosen prostitution.

philologos

AARRRGH wrote: »

If you want to ban prostitution because the act of sex causes the prostitute to become a victim, well then you should ban one night stands as well. Plenty of 'victims' from that too.

One night stands aren't carried out of desperation for lack of finances or lack of alternative work. They also aren't a career. There is no money that is being made from one night stands. I have moral issue with one night stands but at least that is truly consensual instead of being done out of desperation.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Why can't you see sex for what it is?

I would ask you another question, why can't you see prostitution for what it is? Sexual exploitation.

AARRRGH wrote: »

It's not some magical special act which should only happen between people in love. It's just sex. Loads of people can do it without feeling dirty or thinking they got closer to God or whatever it is you think sex is all about.

Luckily we differ in what should or shouldn't happen. I don't think that women should be exploited as mere objects for sexual gratification. I think they deserve more respect as people.

I think sex is something to be shared between a man and a woman who love eachother. That's my basic understanding of it, and yes I do consider it special. Why wouldn't I consider it in the way that it deserves to be considered?

AARRRGH wrote: »

Some people just see it as sex, plain and simple. ESPECIALLY if you didn't grow up brainwashed into thinking sex is dirty, i.e. you didn't grow up in a Catholic country.

I wasn't raised Catholic. I wasn't baptized Catholic either. I don't consider sex dirty. I consider it to be one of the greatest acts of love when carried out in the correct circumstances. I don't believe it's something that should be done under coercion be that financial or physical coercion. Actually prostitution under financial coercion could be considered rape.

AARRRGH wrote: »

That is untrue.

Human trafficking is a huge problem and the legalisation of prostitution has made it easier in the Netherlands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands#Human_trafficking

The article in general also gives credence to what I have said. If you are going to aim to refute it provide sources to the contrary instead of just saying "that is untrue".

AARRRGH wrote: »

But you shouldn't have to protect people from choosing to have sex...

If it is under any form of coercion one should indeed aim to protect people from this.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I know, you are a Catholic so you think sex is special and a bit dirty, but that's not reality, I'm sorry.

I've never been a Catholic. I'm entitled as a Christian to have whatever views I wish about how special sex is or should be, and just because one thinks that this isn't reality doesn't make it so.

AARRRGH

Jakkass wrote: »

I would ask you another question, why can't you see prostitution for what it is? Sexual exploitation.

Because it is not sexual exploitation. I find it very sad/anti-woman that you do not believe women are capable of choosing to work as prostitutes.

I am repeating myself now but I know numerous prostitutes and they would all laugh at the concept that they are being exploited.

Go talk to some prostitutes to see how wrong you are.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think sex is something to be shared between a man and a woman who love each other.

Thanks for being honest about where you're coming from. Obviously we will not agree on anything sex related, nevermind prostitution.

Btw, linking to wikipedia about alleged problems in Holland doesn't prove anything. I could link to articles about AIDS in Africa but that doesn't mean we have an AIDS problem in Ireland.

Anyway, you admit yourself you have fairly extremist views on sex, so let's just leave it at that.

philologos

AARRRGH wrote: »

Because it is not sexual exploitation. I find it very sad that you do not believe women are capable of choosing to work as prostitutes.

In probably the vast majority of cases they aren't due to the problems of human trafficking. I don't think a lot of women would choose to be prostitutes if they had a stable job offered to them elsewhere. It is very much sexual exploitation if the only reason they are doing it is because they can't find another job.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am repeating myself now but I know numerous prostitutes and they would all laugh at the concept that they are being exploited.

Fair enough. Who is to say this is the general case though?

AARRRGH wrote: »

Go talk to some prostitutes to see how wrong you are.

I can't imagine myself visiting any to use their services, and I doubt outside of their work environment many people would be too proud to confess that they are prostitutes.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Thanks for being honest about where you're coming from. Obviously we will not agree on anything sex related, nevermind prostitution.

Probably not.

AARRRGH wrote: »

btw, linking to wikipedia about alleged problems in Holland doesn't prove anything. I could link to articles about AIDS in Africa but that doesn't mean we have an AIDS problem in Ireland.

Probably not. Then again if you are the one justifying prostitution you should be the one assuring us that it is safe, and that foreigners will not be exploited. There are sources to suggest that gangs are involved in prostitution in Amsterdam, hence why they have shut down the windows from 320 to 80 within city limits.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Anyway, you admit yourself you have fairly extremist views on sex, so let's just leave it at that.

No I don't consider my views to be extreme, infact I'd say it's the norm not to consider prostitution as moral within society. I consider your views to be extremely liberal in that you think it has no value whatsoever and that women should be treated as sexual objects.

AARRRGH

Your views on sex are definitely extreme. You can't see it, but they are. I've read your previous posts on one night stands etc.

I guess my problem is I want people to be free to do whatever they want to do, whereas people like you want to stop people doing certain things because you don't like it.

It's wrong.

As I said, just go talk to some prostitutes and you will see they are normal intelligent people who realise they are doing a strange job, but have still chosen to do it. They are nothing like what you see in the movies or what Ruhama's press releases want you to believe.

philologos

AARRRGH wrote: »

Your views on sex are definitely extreme. You can't see it, but they are. I've read your previous posts on one night stands etc.

I personally don't consider my views to be "extreme" at all. They are merely the values I decide to live my life with. Note how I don't consider legislating against one night stands to be important as opposed to legislating against prostitution.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I guess my problem is I want people to be free to do whatever they want to do, whereas people like you want to stop people doing certain things because you don't like it.

People should have autonomy as long as it doesn't harm others. This is the best way to deal with it in a secular sense. I don't hold that people should stop doing things because I don't like it. I hold that prostitution can cause considerable harm to a prostitute, it facilitates human trafficking, and it is harmful in the respect of how we view human dignity. That isn't the same as "not liking it". That's a structured reason why we should ethically oppose prostitution in our society. That's rather different to what you claim of me. If it causes harm to another or has the potential to harm another seriously it should be outright forbidden.

AARRRGH wrote: »

It's wrong.

I've explained my position clearly. I consider it wrong that you would support such a widescale violation of the understanding of human dignity. To view people as sexual objects instead of human beings with feelings, emotions, desires, needs and wants.

AARRRGH wrote: »

As I said, just go talk to some prostitutes and you will see they are normal intelligent people who realise they are doing a strange job, but have still chosen to do it. They are nothing like what you see in the movies or what Ruhama's press releases want you to believe.

I never said that prostitutes weren't intelligent, infact it's the opposite of what I said. I oppose the understanding that prostitutes are sexual objects, but that they are fully fledged human beings in many respects including in intelligence.

As for seeing movies I couldn't care about that. I care about the reports that come in about human trafficking and how foreigners are sexually exploited. If we had enough funding in this country a huge Garda operation on it and drugs would be a major success like they have done in Stockholm.

They have chosen to do it under coercion in most cases. You say it is a free choice, yet but I and the UN apparently understand that financial coercion isn't a choice. You cannot seem to comprehend this in any meaningful sense.

AARRRGH

The reports about human trafficking are by Ruhama. They are a religious organisation who are considered a joke by the various organisations who help prostitutes. None of their claims can be backed up. When challenged on this, they lobbied the government to accept their claims without evidence. The actually wanted the opposing claims by the gardai to be ignored. You can read all this on their website.

Can you answer me this:

If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, how is she being damaged?

philologos

Human trafficking is a huge problem in the Netherlands even where it is legal. You'd have to show me with examples that it isn't a problem in other countries or regions (Nevada in the USA) where it doesn't involve human trafficking or that there is no role from gangs in the process. I'm highly doubtful that you can though.

You assume that women freely choose to be prostitutes in most cases. Both I and the UN would disagree with you suggesting that financial coercion doesn't allow for free choice. Infact sex by coercion is rape and they are quite correct to call it such if that is indeed the case.