Should prostitution be legal?

Affable

Women have married men in a calculated way for money for years. Golddiggers have always been around, effectively offering up their 'feminine charms' in return for a man who could treat them to a great lifestyle. What is so much worse about a women using her sexuality in an organised way, selling it to fund her own financial independence ratyher than living off a man?

And, to make a slightly tangential point, why is gambling deemed any better? The government promotes it, and in the USA. People becoming zombified and feeding slot machines relentlessy in some soulless hovel, giving all their cash aaway in the vague hope of winning and improving their lives with more cash wish the odds promise will rarely happen, they lose out. That's not morally repugnant, yet paying for a handjob or a massage is?

P. Breathnach

If prostitution were made legal:
- It would empower some of the women in the business, and that would be an improvement. If linked with other suitable public policy measures, it might lead to a reduction in the degree to which prostitutes are exploited by shadowy people in the background.
- It could be linked with better health provision for prostitutes and, therefore, their clients.
- The activity could be taxed (What rate of VAT seems appropriate? 12.5%, as for plumbing?).
- It would get right up the noses of some people who need to have things shoved up their noses.

Yes, I have convinced myself.

Lizzykins

Well it's not a career move I'd be happy for my girls to make. I read an article in the last few days that dispels the myth of the "happy hooker" and "financial independence". Probably was in the Irish Times but I'm not going looking for it.
Make no mistake prostitution does nothing for ones self esteem. And I think the reference to gold digging women is an insult to the thousands of women out there who married ordinary nice guys for love and happy lives. I have to say I never met a woman who married for money.

Bottle_of_Smoke

It basically already is legal through a loophole.

You can't advertise or kerb crawl but the act itself isn't an offence.

Therefore a prostitute can advertise through a non Irish website and get clients.

Unfortunately the state gets no tax benefit from these transactions.

AARRRGH

Lizzykins wrote: »

Well it's not a career move I'd be happy for my girls to make. I read an article in the last few days that dispels the myth of the "happy hooker" and "financial independence". Probably was in the Irish Times but I'm not going looking for it.

That article was nonsense. It was based on research carried out by Ruhama.

Ruhama have already admitted that they believe all prostitution is 'forced' prostitution (even if the girl admits she has chosen to do it and likes doing it), and they consider all foreign prostitutes to be 'trafficked', even if the girl came here by choice.

Ruhama have no credibility, even amongst health workers. You have to bare in mind they are an extremist feminist organisation (they support MacKinnon/Dworkin feminism) run by nuns...

Anyway, regarding the original question:

Prostitution is already legal in Ireland. If you check the law you will see the only things which are illegal are -

Pimp
Advertising prostitution
Being a prostitute on the street

This means, if you are a prostitute who advertises on UK based websites, such as escort-ireland.com, and work from your home, you are not breaking the law.

AARRRGH

Btw, I remember reading a Dail debate about prostitution, and the politicians were in agreement they don't want to make prostitution illegal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Affable

I'm just going to add to my thoughts about gambling. Yes I'm verring off topic slightly but this interests me. It seems rather sick to me that the USA most be one of the world leaders and trendsetters in it. The seven deadly sins-count avarice or greed as one of them. American is supposed to be a godly society, so how do they reconcile this with their elevating money to a status equivalent to God? You can say it's not the same people, but a large(r) proportion of Americans are aggressive capitalists and a larger(r) proportion of them claim to be very holy. Must be significant overlap and therefore hypocrisy going on here. That troubles me. More generally, there are some rather perverse contradictions in American society. Arrogance and pride(another sin), love of war and support for torture, derision of pacifism(hemp beads, hippies, commies etc), aligned with the claim to Godliness, and concern for the sanctity of human life in terms of the pro-lifers. Extreme violence in some films yet some extreme prudishness over sex. Claims to freedom of speech yet people getting interrogated and chased down for making anti-Bush comments.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why specifically?

Affable

AARRRGH wrote: »

Prostitution is already legal in Ireland. If you check the law you will see the only things which are illegal are -
.

Ah, thanks. I'm actually in England and have not looked up the exact position and laws, just thought I'd discuss how it 'should' be.

BJC

AARRRGH wrote: »

This means, if you are a prostitute who advertises on UK based websites, such as escort-ireland.com, and work from your home, you are not breaking the law.

Tell me I'm not the only one who clicked like a bat out of hell to get to that website....

marko91

yes:rolleyes: :pjokes no i wouldnt touch 1 of them "things"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Affable

Lizzykins wrote: »

Well it's not a career move I'd be happy for my girls to make. I read an article in the last few days that dispels the myth of the "happy hooker" and "financial independence". Probably was in the Irish Times but I'm not going looking for it.
Make no mistake prostitution does nothing for ones self esteem. And I think the reference to gold digging women is an insult to the thousands of women out there who married ordinary nice guys for love and happy lives. I have to say I never met a woman who married for money.

I don't doubt that, and probably 99.9% of women are that way. Because I mentioned a phenomenon that exists within the female population, doesn't really make it legitimate to say I have insulted them all. The relative frequency at which gold-diggers occur within the female population is not really relevant. The point was to compare the morality of those women who do do that with that of a prostitute. Prostitution may not do much for ones self esteem but they are often being pimpied, young vulnerable, some have been sex trafficed etc. That's not aided by the illicit nature of it. On the other hand(an example) you have highly capable, educated intellectual women that have chosen to work as dommes and run female supremacy websites, or books or whatever, managing their own finances etc. Because it is what they want. It's theatre, it's fantasy, it's selling sex. But is it worse than the young woman who deliberately seeks out the footballers or city boys who make huge wages, or offers herself up to the rich old businessman? It's no more cheap in my book.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not saying she does the same thing. I'm saying it's morally no worse. She may be selling sex in a more overt(though one could say candid) way but often she is actually living more independently.

AARRRGH

marko91 wrote: »

i wouldnt touch 1 of them "things"

In fairness, prostitutes use condoms, whereas your average drunken one night stand doesn't.

But yeah, considering most prostitutes do OWO CIM ("oral without", "cum in mouth") you wouldn't want to kiss one...

BJC

marko91 wrote: »

yes jokes no i wouldnt touch 1 of them "things"

Of course not!
But I know you looked!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dob74

Yes,
it is more or less legal as the gardai do very little to stop it.
I am sure everyone could name the red light district in there nearest city or town.

Plus it would benefit the sex workers, they wouldn't be dependent on pimps and low-lifes

anonymous_joe

It's a bit like drugs - if you decriminalise a drug like cannabis, you can control it.

Imagine if you decriminalised cannabis and forced the sale of a weaker form and controlled the amounts a person could buy. Suddenly there's a lot less being smoked and a lot of money going to the government instead of drug dealers.

Sounds good, however, the problem is voters. Legalising a drug like cannabis would make things safer and make society in general safer, but that's counter-intuitive - i.e. people don't see how legalising it might make it harder to obtain, or more expensive, etc.

With prostitution, something we all know how to get (and we do. I'd never use a prostitute, I know people who would. But I'd certainly not struggle to obtain one's services if I was so inclined) there's still a taboo. People find it morally offensive. Most people would never admit as much, but would rather it wasn't spoken about.

Think of it as one of society's dirty little secrets.

I'd be in favour of it's legalisation so as to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable women and guarentee their sexual and physical health.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, that's what I'm saying. It shouldn't be banned, as it's no worse than 'legalized' gold-digging, in fact it probably takes more moral courage, especially in those who are honest about it and went against dissaproval because they saw through it as morally fallacious.

P. Breathnach

Lizzykins wrote: »

... I have to say I never met a woman who married for money.

I could name several in my sphere of acquaintance (not among my friends, because I would find it hard to consider such a person to be a friend of mine).

Consider this: there are men who seem to have little about their appearance or personality that might generally be thought attractive to women, but who have wealth, or power, or both; there seems to be a never-ending supply of charitable women who forgive their unprepossessing looks, and tolerate their difficult manners.

Now, I'm like one of those men, except for the money and power. I'm damn lucky that there is one woman who ignores my shortcomings. Give me money, and Herself might feel threatened.

AARRRGH

I also know plenty of women who married for money.

It is also very common in poorer countries, e.g. "rich" westerner in Thailand.

turgon

The fact of the matter is this - if

• The prostitute is consenting
• The man/women availing of services is consenting and
• The "transaction" occurs in a non-public place (as in noti n the middle the street)

what buisness is it of any one else?

You might morally disagree with prostitution, and I personally wouldn't (Im sexy enough to woo financially-free femailes :P), but it shouldn't concern you whether other people avail of services.

Affable

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I could name several in my sphere of acquaintance (not among my friends, because I would find it hard to consider such a person to be a friend of mine).

Consider this: there are men who seem to have little about their appearance or personality that might generally be thought attractive to women, but who have wealth, or power, or both; there seems to be a never-ending supply of charitable women who forgive their unprepossessing looks, and tolerate their difficult manners.

Hehe Rupert Murdoch springs to mind, him and that Chinese bird. Power doesn't bother me cos I guess that did take mental skill so it's not totally superficial. Maybe one could argue that it's not the wealth solely but the confidence and security that gives the guy. There's a correlation there betwen the two that isn't 100%.

AARRRGH

turgon wrote: »

The fact of the matter is this - if

• The prostitute is consenting
• The man/women availing of services is consenting and
• The "transaction" occurs in a non-public place (as in noti n the middle the street)

what buisness is it of any one else?

You might morally disagree with prostitution, and I personally wouldn't (Im sexy enough to woo financially-free femailes :P), but it shouldn't concern you whether other people avail of services.

The problem with a lot of anti-prostitution organisations is they are extremist feminists who believe women are incapable of choosing to have sex for money. They believe they are either being manipulated, or are "forced". They also believe men who have sex with prostitutes are sexually assaulting the women.

^--- the sort of people who think like that are obviously ****ed in the head, so no amount of logic or reasoning will work.

,8,1

The first thing to remember is that prostitution itself is not illegal.

"Should we make prostitution legal?" is often asked under the assumption that prostitution is a criminal offense, when it is not.

The next thing is you can frame the your justification for a more liberal setup like this:

- It would empower some of the women in the business, and that would be an improvement. If linked with other suitable public policy measures, it might lead to a reduction in the degree to which prostitutes are exploited by shadowy people in the background.
- It could be linked with better health provision for prostitutes and, therefore, their clients.
- The activity could be taxed (What rate of VAT seems appropriate? 12.5%, as for plumbing?).
- It would get right up the noses of some people who need to have things shoved up their noses.

Naming taxation, libertarianism, and feminist "choices".

But at the end of the day the question is one of morality. Do you think prostitution is a moral activity to be fully condoned by the law?

But what's your point? The world is full of women exploiting their sexuality for economic gain—prostitutes, porn stars, strippers, Page 3 girls, models, pop singers, you name it. So what is the rationale for banning some of these activities and not others?

Some are more complex forms of prostitution than others.

,8,1

The fact of the matter is this - if

* The prostitute is consenting
* The man/women availing of services is consenting and
* The "transaction" occurs in a non-public place (as in noti n the middle the street)

what buisness is it of any one else?

This is the typical libertarian view, which completely bypasses the question of moral acceptability. Which is just as much of a valid thing to consider as anything else.

The above is how leftists and prostitute groups would like to see the debate framed.

The problem with a lot of anti-prostitution organisations is they are extremist feminists

That's a misrepresentation of both anti-prostitution organisations and feminist extremists.

Many feminist extremists are of the "extreme sexual libertarian" variety. (I would say most, actually.)

And many anti-prostitution campaigners work from moral conservative viewpoints.

Anti-porn/prostitution and feminism are strange bedfellows, and it is not a natural or stable alliance.

turgon

So you want to force your morals on everyone else? Because your morals are superior to other peoples, right?

What difference does it make to you if I pay for sex?

AARRRGH

,8,1 wrote: »

This is the typical libertarian view, which completely bypasses the question of moral acceptability. Which is just as much of a valid thing to consider as anything else.

The above is how leftists and prostitute groups would like to see the debate framed.

Morality shouldn't even come into it. Sex is not immoral.

turgon

,8,1 wrote: »

Do you think prostitution is a moral activity to be fully condoned by the law?

What a load of utter ****e. Why should we have to have the blessing of the law to tell us what we can and cannot do with consenting people in private residences?

P. Breathnach

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem with a lot of anti-prostitution organisations is they are extremist feminists who believe women are incapable of choosing to have sex for money. They believe they are either being manipulated, or are "forced"...

Sadly, however, they are often right. Many prostitutes are victims, and never had an opportunity to make a free choice. Some are victims of their own messy or unfortunate life circumstances, and others are coerced by unscrupulous people.

I have no objection if a woman who has some reasonable level of control over her life chooses to become a prostitute, and I think that making it fully legal and combining with that some other social measures (e.g. licensed brothels with occasional visits from health/welfare officers) could make it more likely that participants in the business were their of their own free choice.

AARRRGH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sadly, however, they are often right. Many prostitutes are victims, and never had an opportunity to make a free choice. Some are victims of their own messy or unfortunate life circumstances, and others are coerced by unscrupulous people.

I have no objection if a woman who has some reasonable level of control over her life chooses to become a prostitute, and I think that making it fully legal and combining with that some other social measures (e.g. licensed brothels with occasional visits from health/welfare officers) could make it more likely that participants in the business were their of their own free choice.

My own experience with prostitutes (I used to run porn websites, I know loads of prostitutes) is that the image of the helpless prostitute is a bit of a myth. The girls I know were all loaded, were doing it by choice, and didn't want to stop doing it because they were used to a certain lifestyle.

However, I know there are some 'junkie' prostitutes, and some women who feel they've no choice, e.g. a single mother illegal immigrant who believes working as a cleaner won't provide enough money for her family.

But I agree with you - the solution is to make it fully legal so everything is above board.

P. Breathnach

,8,1 wrote: »

... But at the end of the day the question is one of morality. Do you think prostitution is a moral activity to be fully condoned by the law?

Yes.

More particularly, I think that coercing women (or men) into becoming prostitutes is immoral, and making prostitution legal can allow systems to be developed to protect the unwilling from being forced into the business.

,8,1

Well that's one moral justification for liberal laws, isn't it?

And one can have a moral justification for prohibitive laws outside of economic concerns [e.g. poverty is the key issue so let's make it legal] also.

Point is, there are many moral justifications for and against that go beyond the "choices", "taxes" and "consenting adults" paradigms that leftists typically like to argue in.

Affable

AARRRGH wrote: »

The girls I know were all loaded, were doing it by choice, and didn't want to stop doing it because they were used to a certain lifestyle.
.

Were any of them nice or trustworthy people? Not pre-judging, just curious.

,8,1

My own experience with prostitutes (I used to run porn websites, I know loads of prostitutes) is that the image of the helpless prostitute is a bit of a myth. The girls I know were all loaded, were doing it by choice, and didn't want to stop doing it because they were used to a certain lifestyle.

I'd imagine that is the case for most women in the porn/prostitution industries.

But in any case it hardly matters. Advocacy regarding prostitution will depend on whether a person believes prostitution is a morally acceptable activity or not.

The perpetuation of myths about the helpless prostitute by feminist groups such as Ruhama is unfortunate because (1) it grounds the debate in falsehoods and (2) it's intellectual dishonesty.

Proof of abuse of women within porn/prostitution is not necessary re your position on the law. You just advocate a certain moral position, that it's acceptable or not, and that's all that's required really. The rest is rhetorical window-dressing.

AARRRGH

Affable wrote: »

Were any of them nice or trustworthy people? Not pre-judging, just curious.

Yes, they were nice people. The ones who have left the industry now have relatively 'normal' lives.

But trustworthy? Not really. For example, two of them had partners who didn't know they were prostitutes...

Everyone is different though. I'm sure there are just as many untrustworthy politicians and solicitors as there are untrustworthy prostitutes.

,8,1

What a load of utter ****e. Why should we have to have the blessing of the law to tell us what we can and cannot do with consenting people in private residences?

There are plenty of activities that take place in private residences which are unacceptable. For example, child abuse and domestic violence.

This is another rubbish libertarian argument. We are almost led to believe that private environments are sacrosanct and out of the jurisdiction of any Court or law. This is nonsense. What happens there can be and is up for the judgement of others, including the legal system.

These libertarian calls to "privacy" - like "choice" and "consent" - are just another way of avoiding a moral framing of the debate. I.e. it is, in a general sense, morally acceptable or not.

Indirectly of course libertarians forward that prostitution is morally acceptable.

AARRRGH

Can anyone tell me what's immoral about sex? Assume everyone is consenting.

,8,1

That's the beauty of morality based arguments, which is ultimately what the pro-porn/prostitution and anti-porn/prostitution campaigners employ.

I don't have to rationalise why I think prostitution is a morally unacceptable activity, I just assert that it is.

Note too that we're not talking about sex here, as such, we're talking about prostitution.

This is the typical libertarian view, which completely bypasses the question of moral acceptability. Which is just as much of a valid thing to consider as anything else.

The above is how leftists and prostitute groups would like to see the debate framed.

Morality shouldn't even come into it. Sex is not immoral.

Rape is a form of sex, so is incest. They are deemed immoral by society.

Your statement that "sex is not immoral" has limitations. It depends on context and is not something that can be applied universally.

happyoutscan

Yes I think prostitution should be legalized.

AARRRGH

Rape and incest have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sex.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to suggest consensual sex is immoral, you need to give me a reason.

P. Breathnach

AARRRGH wrote: »

Rape and incest have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sex...

Incest might be consensual between adults. If that is the case, is it immoral?

,8,1

Rape and incest have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sex.

They are still both forms of sex and if we take your statement "sex is not immoral" to its logical end, then these forms of sex would be legal and acceptable too.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to suggest consensual sex is immoral, you need to give me a reason.

We're not talking about consensual sex, we're talking about prostitution.

I don't need to rationalise my belief that prostitution is not morally acceptable, any more that you as a pornographer, or a prostitute, has to rationalise that it is. I can if I want, but it's not necessary.

AARRRGH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Incest might be consensual between adults. If that is the case, is it immoral?

Incest is known to cause birth defects, and as a result it is illegal.

I would classify it as illegal instead of immoral. However, I personally would not have sex with a family member, and I do not know if it is healthy to do so. But I agree it should be illegal.

,8,1 wrote: »

They are still both forms of sex and if we take your statement "sex is not immoral" to its logical end, then these forms of sex would be legal and acceptable too.

But we are talking about sex between two consenting adults. We are not talking about any form of sex, e.g. rape.

It is absurd to take such a black and white view of sex.

,8,1 wrote: »

We're not talking about consensual sex, we're talking about prostitution.

Prostitution is consensual sex. The man and prostitute agree to have sex with each other.

You're beginning to sound a bit like an extremist now...

Affable

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yes, they were nice people. The ones who have left the industry now have relatively 'normal' lives.

But trustworthy? Not really. For example, two of them had partners who didn't know they were prostitutes...

Everyone is different though. I'm sure there are just as many untrustworthy politicians and solicitors as there are untrustworthy prostitutes.

Why did they join it? When you say nice though, weren't they kind of fickle, wild? It's hardly what you'd imagine the deepest people doing.
On that note, I get your point about politicians, and the intelligensia, but I reckon they probably have a little more depth and complexity, though sharing another kind of moral ambiguity in common with them.

ronbyrne2005

Some thoughts.
Having sex with strangers for money while making adult films is legal but having sex with strangers for money behind closed doors is illegal/immoral. Whats that all about?
Surely it's the most feminist thing in world for a woman to have complete control over her body and sexuality? Sure if women are coerced it's a problem and law should focus on that but not on women who willingly enter the "proffession". As hard as most people find it to beleive there are some women for whom sleeping with a stranger for money is no more repugnant than giving a massage to a stranger or wiping the arse of or washing a stranger.
The anti prostitution brigade you hear in Irish media seem to ahve their own agendas and deliberately mix the rare but horrendous human trafficking with women willingly entering into a well paid "profession", for some sort of gender based, politically correct ideology. Regulation and legalisation would make it easier to distinguish between the horrendous abuse and legitimate endeavours.

AARRRGH

Affable wrote: »

Why did they join it?

They could work in a low paying job, or they could work in a high paying job; they chose the latter.

Affable wrote: »

When you say nice though, weren't they kind of fickle, wild?

No, they were fairly 'normal'.

ionix5891

AARRRGH wrote: »

The man and prostitute agtee to have sex with each other.

You're beginning to sound a bit like an extremist now...

could also be a woman and prostitute (ahem no need to be stereotypical it is 21st century after all) or any combination of


anyways why not, i seen Amsterdam style prostitution, them girls are safer and more respected than the ones walking Dublin streets (and please dont anyone deny that theres no prostitution in Ireland!)

why dont someone throw up an anonymous poll on this thread? should be interesting

some things like

I am male > support
I am female > support
I am male > dont support
I am female > sont support

AARRRGH

ionix5891 wrote: »

anyways why not, i seen Amsterdam style prostitution, them girls are safer and more respected than the ones walking Dublin streets

Amsterdam prostitution isn't perfect though. When they first legalised it, the prices were too high, so a black market developed for cheaper, 'off the books' prostitution.

So if it is totally decriminalised, they need to think it through.

They also need to implement better facilities for helping people kick their heroin problem: as long as there are junkies, there will always be desperate women working the streets.