"New law could criminalise men for buying sex" (IT)

metrovelvet

Whatever about your whore stigma that you want removed, but what does that have to do with your philosophy that women in normal heterosexual relationships use sex for gain?

If that is your experience, than I can only feel sorry for you, as you have been missing out on things you just cant put a price on that are pretty common for most of human experience.

How sad too, that there are posters on this thread who have actually deluded themselves into thinking they are advocating for equality when what they are doing is airing personal neurosis and bitterness.

Natasha_

28064212 wrote: »

So what relavance does it have? All human interaction is a "trade", so why single out sex?

Uhmmm...because the thread is about prostitution? Just a stab in the dark there

Reward

metrovelvet wrote: »

Whatever about your whore stigma that you want removed, but what does that have to do with your philosophy that women in normal heterosexual relationships use sex for gain?

If that is your experience, than I can only feel sorry for you, as you have been missing out on things you just cant put a price on that are pretty common for most of human experience.

How sad too, that there are posters on this thread who have actually deluded themselves into thinking they are advocating for equality when what they are doing is airing personal neurosis and bitterness.

As I said, I'm more than willing to take anyones word on their willingness to have sex without the expectation of some form of secondary benefit, emotional, security based, financial, conscious or unconscious. I wont accept that its the norm.

Less of the personal attacks, inaccurate and uncalled for.

Natasha_

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's a lot more complicated that that, read Giddens instead of that hack Youssin.

Of course you're going to think he's a hack if you google the wrong name...it's YouNISS

He bases a lot of his work on Stack-Sullivan and Piaget. His concentration is in developmental psychology, with an emphasis on reciprocity and behavioralism.

From what little I know of Giddens, which is a look at a wiki link, he concentrates on the causes and consequences of our actions and how it relates to our identity achievement. You are at least partially correct to compare Giddens to YouNISS, in that they both study identity achievement, but where Giddens takes a more individualistic or internal view, YouNISS takes into account the influence that other people have on our development and actions.

28064212

Reward wrote: »

As I said, I'm more than willing to take anyones word for their willingness to have sex without the expectation of some form of secondary benefits , emotional, financial,conscious or unconscious. I wont accept that its the norm.

Actually, the problem is your position that it's some kind of one-way street of a woman trading sex for some other benefit. That's virtually never the case. Many men gain secondary benefits as well, and many women enjoy sex as much and even moreso than men do. You simplify it down to some tit-for-tat arrangement, when the reality is infinitely more complex

Reward

28064212 wrote: »

Actually, the problem is your position that it's some kind of one-way street of a woman trading sex for some other benefit. That's virtually never the case. Many men gain secondary benefits as well, and many women enjoy sex as much and even moreso than men do. You simplify it down to some tit-for-tat arrangement, when the reality is infinitely more complex

Yes, its not a one way street, its complex and men benefit too and both men and women enjoy sex or don't (although men are not really known to have called it a chore or a duty or complained about being used only for sex) so we are in agreement. There is a complex economy ingrained (generally) in sex between heterosexuals, sometimes men are "taken to the cleaners" sometimes women are "used for sex", in exceptions it works the other way around (and double standards are applied), prostitution is the least complex, most stigmatised example of this economy. This is unspoken, complex, often taboo (especially if a male is talking about it) and in general women control the supply. Thats all.

metrovelvet

Reward wrote: »

Yes, its not a one way street, its complex and men benefit too and both men and women enjoy sex or don't (although men are not really known to have called it a chore or a duty or complained about being used only for sex) so we are in agreement. There is a complex economy ingrained (generally) in sex between heterosexuals, sometimes men are "taken to the cleaners" sometimes women are "used for sex", in exceptions it works the other way around (and double standards are applied), prostitution is the least complex, most stigmatised example of this economy. This is unspoken, complex, often taboo (especially if a male is talking about it) and in general women control the supply. Thats all.

That may be the case in YOUR experience/perceptual field but dont try to abstract it to everyone.

Reward

metrovelvet wrote: »

That may be the case in YOUR experience/perceptual field but dont try to abstract it to everyone.

Don't make it personal, I'm clearly talking about sexual economy. You might disagree or not not want me to say these things (taboo) but don't attack me personally. So can you just let this go?

tbh

Reward:

I've asked you several times to quit posting opinion as fact. You've failed to do that.

You have expressed your opinion on this thread, and thats fine.
However, In the interests of allowing others to develop the topic I am telling you :


Do not post on this thread again, for any reason.

If you post on this thread again, for any reason, you will be banned for seven days.

If you want to discuss this with me or any of the mods, use PM or the DRP.


The rest of you, if you have a problem with a post, report it. Do not take it upon yourselves to chastise other posters.

There have been no bans or infractions handed out, but if this friendly warning is not sufficient, that will change.

killerking

It is absurd that a man can be convicted of buying sex and a woman selling the sex or her pimp will not be convicted.

Prostitution is utterly revolting - whether there is legalization and regulation still mean women, men and child are still being sexually abused in this sick twisted industry.

28064212

Mod Edit: Original Post was directed at Reward.

Reward is unable to reply, so please do not address any points at him/her.

metrovelvet

killerking wrote: »

It is absurd that man can be convicted of buying sex and a woman selling the sex or her pimp will not be convicted.

Men sell sex too. So do rent boys. I take it they are off the hook too?

28064212

killerking wrote: »

Prostitution is utterly revolting - whether there is legalization and regulation still mean women, men and child are still being sexually abused in this sick twisted industry.

Eh... why? If a consenting adult wants to sell a sexual service to another adult, why should they be stopped?

killerking

metrovelvet wrote: »

Men sell sex too. So do rent boys. I take it they are off the hook too?

Oh sorry. Yes men and boys too.:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

killerking wrote: »

Oh sorry. Yes men and boys too.:rolleyes:

Not necessarily - it depends on the wording of the law and there is no guarantee that it will be gender neutral.

If one goes by this article, then only male clients are likely to be criminalized, while female clients will not. Of course, this could simply be the usual sexist slant that we have come to know and loath from the IT, but then again Irish law is full of examples where women are either treated more leniently to men or are even immune from prosecution.

Also does anyone have any real figures for trafficking? It appears that the entire thing has been grossly exaggerated, with little objective research being done and most claims being later discredited. If so it would put in question the reasoning behind such a law.

Personally, I suspect this law will not change a lot. Claims of trafficking will no doubt drop substantially - but then again, no one will need to claim trafficking to avoid prosecution. Soliciting remains illegal, be you a buyer or a seller - so staus quo there. I suspect all that will happen is that clients will be open to prosecution whenever caught in a brothel.

Now, if for whatever reason, you believe prostitution is evil or otherwise anti-social, then this probably will put a dent in the industry in Ireland, especially as I'd imagine it will deter many would-be clients from visiting prostitutes. So expect an upswing in sex tourism to Amsterdam or Germany though - and flight deals from Ryanair to appear...

In short, it will export the problem. A bit like abortion.

metrovelvet

Export the problem? People are going to have to travel to get a hooker. Pretty damned expensive unless you live on a border county.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Export the problem? People are going to have to travel to get a hooker. Pretty damned expensive unless you live on a border county.

Same could be said for abortion. It's all supply and demand in the end and if there is a demand, then cheap flights and accommodation will appear to cater for it - I believe this already happens in Sweden.

metrovelvet

Wouldnt it just be cheaper to expand the supply pool to men and cross over since women are just demanding prostitutes underneath it all.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wouldnt it just be cheaper to expand the supply pool to men and cross over since women are just demanding prostitutes underneath it all.

That would presume that:

1. All men are bisexual.
2. That homosexual sex would be free (otherwise you are still breaking the same law).
3. All women are demanding prostitutes.

And none of those presumptions are true. At least unless you are arguing from the perspective of misandry and oversimplifying men to that, negative, level.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would presume that:

1. All men are bisexual.
2. That homosexual sex would be free (otherwise you are still breaking the same law).
3. All women are demanding prostitutes.

And none of those presumptions are true. At least unless you are arguing from the perspective of misandry and oversimplifying men to that, negative, level.

There is a lot on this thread which presumes that women are the supply holders of sex.

Im sure the same people who are so concerned about money would be happy to expand their horizons if it meant releasing themselves from a dependency on women for sex where supply was increased in order to bring down cost.

Of course I am speaking tongue in cheek in response to this rather nauseating thread.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Of course I am speaking tongue in cheek in response to this rather nauseating thread.

Ironically, tongue in cheek that is so offensive to men is pretty nauseating too.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically, tongue in cheek that is so offensive to men is pretty nauseating too.

I am only appropriating an attitude promoted on this thread by a MAN. Its ok to be offensive to women though.

Im tired of this.

I'll let you guys count your change.

jill_valentine

metrovelvet wrote: »

I am only appropriating an attitude promoted on this thread by a MAN. Its ok to be offensive to women though.

Whoa nelly.

Said gent has already been reprimanded, and his views have already been highlighted as far from representative.

Mike 1972

RE: This proposed law

Has it actually come before the Oireachtas yet and do any of the opposition parties support it ?

If the answer is no then quite frankly we probably dont have much to worry about it since the lifetime of the current government is likely to be only a couple of months max ?

parker kent

An interesting article was printed on Sunday in the Observer about prostitution and many of the points raised in this thread. It is from a UK perspective, but is still relevant.

When the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead officer on prostitution called for a debate on Britain's "frankly complicated" sex trade laws, he reignited a simmering dispute on how to deal with the world's oldest profession.

Responding in part to the gruesome headlines after "crossbow killer" Stephen Griffiths was jailed for life last month for murdering three women prostitutes in Bradford, deputy chief constable Simon Byrne sensibly told the BBC there should be an "ugly mugs" register – a national database of people with a track record of violence against sex workers.

But a documentary on the issue exposed a postcode lottery of justice faced by the 80,000 prostitutes in Britain. In Liverpool since 2007, attacks against sex workers have been prioritised as hate crimes with astonishing results. Last year there were 10 convictions brought by Merseyside police for raping prostitutes compared to only one in the five years before 2007.

Up the road in Blackpool, the council was shutting down brothels – because the law allows for only one person to sell sex in a property. Paradoxically, selling sex in Britain is not illegal, but brothels are outlawed. The result is women left to fend for themselves on the streets.

To experts this seems absurd. "The most enlightened sex laws are in New Zealand, where it is legal for up to four prostitutes to work together. You can work safely with friends from a home without visits from cops and keep the profits," said Laura Agustín, an anthropologist who studies the sex trade.

Britain's muddle over prostitution has evolved over the last two decades. Vice squads have been disappearing and the number of people found guilty of loitering for prostitution, or soliciting, has dropped from 5,223 in 1998 to only a tenth of that level a decade later. The effect has been a patchy de facto decriminalisation of prostitution. At the same time, there has also been a movement towards criminalising those who buy sex.

These two trends culminated in New Labour's last crime act, which came into force early last year. It made it easier to prosecute men who buy sex from trafficked foreign women and also asked magistrates not to fine prostitutes who repeatedly appear before them for soliciting sex. Instead, women could be "helped and hassled" by counsellors out of their sex work, a shift in legal perception which now sees people who sell their bodies as victims of drug dependence or extreme poverty.

This represents a new balance in the desire to control the crime associated with the sex trade while acknowledging the limits on the role of the state. But for many the act did not go far enough. In Scotland, politicians want to emulate Sweden where, a decade ago, the law was changed so that people who patronise prostitutes face jail terms of up to six months.

For some this would cut off the supply of punters and force prostitutes out of a job. "We need to get women out of a sex trade where violence is a daily part of their life," said Roger Matthews, a criminologist at South Bank University, London. "Many Labour politicians understood this and we would've seen Swedish law coming to Britain in two years had they won the election."

The coalition, says Matthews, is different. For libertarians the buying and selling of sex is viewed as a freely undertaken transaction in which the state's role is as a light-touch regulator, enforcing standards and collecting taxes. At the other end are the abolitionists who view the issue as moral, requiring a ban on the sex trade to halt women being exploited for men's gratification.

Those who work with prostitutes say both extremes are wrong. Shelly Stoops, from Liverpool's Armistead Street project that runs centres for sex workers, says she "takes the view that if a woman has the right to say no, then she has the right to say yes. You cannot stop prostitution, it will only go somewhere else".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/02/prostitution-violence-crime-sex-trade?INTCMP=SRCH

parker kent

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not necessarily - it depends on the wording of the law and there is no guarantee that it will be gender neutral.

I could be horribly wrong, but could it just be that the law is written using the male gender, but that it refers to both genders. I know from looking at The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act that it states at the beginning that they will use "he", "him" etc but that it should be inferred that it refers to both genders.

Josh_Calvert

Nice to see I'm not the only one who sees sex relationships women marriage and prostitution as an intertwined messy entity.I agree with Reward and Corinthian above...women are generally down on prostitution because it's giving away the game to men...making it easy to see what all relationships are about.Similarly women have a 'slut-reflex' against themselves or other women who 'give sex away' without demanding sufficient blood in return.

One of the few good things about ireland is the log on to website book an appointment have sex system.I't be a crying shame to lose that...one of the few pleasures for men stuck slaving away in the sperm and egg race.

sam34

again, can people stop presenting opinion as fact.

failure to do so will result in bans.

The Corinthian

Josh_Calvert wrote: »

I agree with Reward and Corinthian above...

Please, for the last time I did not agree with Reward. I see some validity in his argument but also felt he overgeneralized and extrapolated it to a point where it made no sense.

Just because I did not wholeheartedly disagree with him, does not imply I wholeheartedly agreed. Things are not so black and white.

PeakOutput

if we are going to insist on keeping prostitution illegal then prosecuting the men would be the best way to do it but i dont think it should be illegal so id vote no obviously