Purchasing of sex will be criminalised (it appears) in the near future in Ireland

ihacs

I had a quick look around and can't see a discussion on this Seanad debate:

Human Trafficking and Prostitution: Motion
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/10/12/00008.asp

It has appeared to me for a while that a lot of the discussion on prostitution is based on dubious premises:

e.g. (i) people don't grow up desiring to be a prostitute therefore it is should be banned - this ignores the fact that a lot of people around the world, in both the developed world and the developing world do jobs that they would prefer not to do or would not have desired to do when growing up.

(ii) the impression that virtually all prostitutes are trafficked: I have come across dubious statistics e.g. I remember a letter in the Irish Times in the last year or two that quoted a very high figure e.g. 96%.
ETA: found the letter:

The Irish Times - Tuesday, February 8, 2011

[..]

Madam – I wish to commend the groups involved in Ireland’s “Turn Off the Red Light” campaign for highlighting the pernicious and often invisible problem of sex trafficking. In Ireland, 1,000 prostituted woman are available for sexual exploitation each day, 97 per cent of which have been trafficked into Ireland.

Just because a person comes here from another country doesn't mean they are trafficked: lots of people work in other countries because the pay is better there - one can't assume that because somebody comes from another country, that they are automatically trafficked.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of issue where most people, probably particularly politicians, won't stand up to those pushing for new laws i.e. argue with those who want the purchasing of sex criminalised (while at the same time, if the Swedish model is followed, the sale of sex won't be criminalised).

Some people may find the following website of interest:
http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/

Welcome to the “Turn Off the Blue Light” (TOBL) website.

We are a sex worker led association campaigning against calls to criminalise the purchase of sex, and for the health, safety, human, civil and labour rights of sex workers in Ireland.

TeddyTedson

It doesn't really matter. Legal/Illegal people are still going to get coke and hookers.

mikemac

Ruhama are often on the radio lobbying and getting their message out in the public
But they tend to go along the line of criminalize the buyer, not the seller

http://www.ruhama.ie/

Leaving aside their message for a minute, it's a well designed website, very clear and they update news feeds on the front page. Credit to the person who did the website

And back ontopic FF Senator Mary White in conflict with party leadership on this issue it seems, it's a hot topic


The turn off the blue light campaign is another lobby group and linked by the OP
But Ruhama give a link to some dodgy looking site which claims
http://www.dilloninvestigates.com/index_files/McCormick_pimp_prostitution.htm

Millionaire pimp Peter McCormick behind campaign to legalise prostitution in Ireland.

Based on a Sunday World investigation,

So two lobby groups slinging mud at each other

As to who is right or wrong, well I'm going to have read some more

pablomakaveli

I've been pretty suspicious of Ruhama's motives since i found out they are a religious organization. They have nun's on their boards of directors.

I dont think a religious organization should be leading the charge here because they are trying to ban prostitution for ideological reasons rather than out of interest for prostitutes welfare. We never actually seem to hear the opinions of prostitutes in the media because Ruhama always seems to speak on their behalf.

If a secular group was instead tasked with the welfare of prostitutes and they called for the ban i'd be more likely to believe them.

Also taken from their site for proof.

Ruhama was founded as a joint initiative of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters, both of which had a long history of involvement with marginalised women, including those involved in prostitution.

Trustees
Sisters of Our Lady of Charity (O.L.C.)
Good Shepherd Sisters (R.G.S.)

Board of Directors
Chairperson: Ms. Valerie Judge
Company Secretary: Mr. Peter O Neill
Sr. Sheila Murphy, O.L.C.
Sr. Bernadette Mc Nally, R.G.S.
Mr Diarmaid O Corrbui
Dr. Mary Scully
Mr Colm O Dwyer
Ms. Catherine Joyce
Sr. Frances Robinson, O.L.C
Ms. Rachel Milum
Ms. Catherine Nolan

I'd be happier with them legalising it fully and regulating it properly for the safety of the workers. Trafficking the unwilling workers is an awful thing there's no doubt, but pushing it underground isn't going to make it magically go away. Criminalise trafficking harshly and leave any willing sex workers to do their work.
I wish they wouldn't link the two so closely; trafficking and prostitution, at least in my mind, are two separate things.

leonidas83

It seems to be working in the scandanavian countries in which they have implemented these laws already but I'm not always convinced on the statistics they use. Because of the nature of prostitution, its difficult to gain a real insight into what is going on. I think alot of these organisations like ruhama pull statistics out of their arse in order to argue their case better

I would be in favour of legalising it too but I can see the downsides to it. Its a good thing as long as Ireland doesnt become a haven for sex tourism and lose our appeal to other tourists.

But the good sides far outweight this. More rights for prostitutes, regulation of the industry, more tax income for the government, less exploitation of prostitutes by crimial gangs, less risk for prostitutes dealing with scumbag clients.

Lets be honest about it, it will always go on and different groups need to look at their idealogical views and realise they are doing more harm than good

sarkozy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I've been pretty suspicious of Ruhama's motives since i found out they are a religious organization. They have nun's on their boards of directors.

I dont think a religious organization should be leading the charge here because they are trying to ban prostitution for ideological reasons rather than out of interest for prostitutes welfare. We never actually seem to hear the opinions of prostitutes in the media because Ruhama always seems to speak on their behalf.

If a secular group was instead tasked with the welfare of prostitutes and they called for the ban i'd be more likely to believe them.

Also taken from their site for proof.

Wait a minute. You're saying that because Ruhama has a few board members from a religious order that they're immediately suspect? I am an athiest, have little time for the Catholic Church. However, I have great respect for St. Vincent de Paul, moderate respect for CORI (even though it doesn't criticise its own church as it should) and no time for Accord (and other similar socially conservative organisations). I'm socially liberal, pro-equality, pro-inclusiveness, social democratic. But I take each organisation's positions and try to see the good and bad, right and wrong.

I've said it in other threads under a different Boards.ie name (here): the reality of prostitution is that it's exploitative. The vast majority of men and women selling sex are doing so because of difficult circumstances - poverty, abuse, addiction, trauma, etc.

Crucially, the issue is about vulnerability. Yes, not everybody selling sex is trafficked, but the vast majority have been made vulnerable by circumstances in the course of life, and in a more extreme case than most.

Any person experiencing disadvantage, deprivation, trauma, in my belief, is entitled to protection. When countries such as Sweden have adopted the 'prosecute-those-who-buy-sex' approach, the market has dried up, enabling sex workers to pursue other options through the welfare system. The action shifts the stigma from sex workers to sex buyers.

I'm against legalisation because I'm against exploitation and prostitution for me in an actual and philosophical sense is expoitative. But I do believe sex workers need to be adequately protected.

Lord TSC

sarkozy wrote: »

I've said it in other threads under a different Boards.ie name (here): the reality of prostitution is that it's exploitative. The vast majority of men and women selling sex are doing so because of difficult circumstances - poverty, abuse, addiction, trauma, etc.

(...)

When countries such as Sweden have adopted the 'prosecute-those-who-buy-sex' approach, the market has dried up, enabling sex workers to pursue other options through the welfare system.

I get the point your trying to make and I agree that often people get driven into prostitution not because they want to but because they have to. But you seem to be presupposing (I think; correct me if I'm wrong) that the welfare system will solve these problems if the prostitutes stop their job and move onto benefits.

Anyone who is driven to prostitution surely weighs up the fact they could go on the dole and get other benefits and decide that isn't a viable option. If it was the more attractive option, then people wouldn't be choosing prostitution over it. Meanwhile, we cannot afford to increase welfare options in this country at the moment. Making it further illegal won't encourage prostitutes to stop doing that job and look into welfare; if that was an option, surely they'd have taken it already.

I think it should be legalised mainly because if it was, there'd be more room to protect people. It could be discussed then as well; thats the big problem imo. It's impossible to discuss this in a public forum as being pro-legalisation without exposing yourself to the social scorn and people thinking your a sick pervert or something...

Arfan

The government is clearly mad. Look at all the income tax we're losing out on. We should stretch out a hand to these poor people trapped in an exploitative industry, put a warm blanket round their shoulders and take 21% of their earnings.

The Criminal Assets Bureau has valued the Irish sex industry at €250 million a year

52.5 million would get us a school.

laoch na mona

makes sense illegal to sell illegal to buy

Kinski

Why do people always assume that if you legalise an activity then all illegal forms of it will disappear? I'm open to the idea of a legalised, regulated, and taxed sex industry, but even if we go down that route, it doesn't mean that illegal sex work will all stop. In such an environment, it will be cheaper to maintain an illegal brothel than a legal one, and criminals will therefore charge less for the services they offer. Likewise, many women who are victims of the illegal trade in prostitution would probably find themselves barred from entering the legal one, for reasons such as lack of work permits (women trafficked in from outside the EU) and on health grounds (intravenous drug users). It's not as simple as saying "Let's bring it out in the open and everything will be fine."

Lord TSC

Kinski wrote: »

Why do people always assume that if you legalise an activity then all illegal forms of it will disappear? I'm open to the idea of a legalised, regulated, and taxed sex industry, but even if we go down that route, it doesn't mean that illegal sex work will all stop. In such an environment, it will be cheaper to maintain an illegal brothel than a legal one, and criminals will therefore charge less for the services they offer. Likewise, many women who are victims of the illegal trade in prostitution would probably find themselves barred from entering the legal one, for reasons such as lack of work permits (women trafficked in from outside the EU) and on health grounds (intravenous drug users). It's not as simple as saying "Let's bring it out in the open and everything will be fine."

Same could be said the opposite way round though; "Why do people think making it more illegal will stop it?"

Its not that legalising it would make illegal aspects stop, but I think it would provide more options. You're not going to make it 100% safe for every person who enters the profession but by driving it underground, you're making it more likely that it won't be safe for anyone.

Legalising it would mean there were safer options available for the majority. Yeah, there will always be people who have trouble entering the profession and are forced into unsafer conditions, but the alternative is to force EVERYONE into those conditions. Meanwhile, legalisation can mean more power for a lot of prostitutes in terms of who they work for, where they work, who they want to have sex with. More regulation on the part of the prostitute and the buyer means safer situations.

Stopping it because making it legal won't stop all illegal forms is like throwing the baby out with the bath water because there's a speck of dirt in the water...

Kinski

Oh, I agree with you. I'm responding more to people saying that "Look how much tax we could collect!" and the like. It's an area organised at the moment by criminals - even if a legal avenue opens, they still aren't going to feel like paying tax.

bmaxi

It is illegal to buy and sell drugs in Ireland but it hasn't prevented drug use becoming almost endemic in some areas.
I would be more in favour of legalising drugs and prostitution as a way of controlling who is involved and the spread of disease. The way it stands now, unsavoury types are making vast sums from both trades and costing the state millions in health care and crime prevention.
Let's face it, men are always going to want sex with women, (or men for that matter), far be it that it's in a controlled environment than underground. I know there will always be a black market but in the overall scheme of things, it will be easier to cope with.

UnknownSpecies

If it was legalised and regulated then at least there would be a way for the men using these women to know if they were trafficked in or not. If there was some sort of registration process for prostitutes, the onus would be on the men not to use women who are not registered, ie. not trafficked in.

This would surely reduce trafficking for prostitution reasons more then making it illegal since men are 100% still going to use these women but with no discrepancy between trafficked and non-trafficked women.

goose2005

leonidas83 wrote: »

It seems to be working in the scandanavian countries in which they have implemented these laws already but I'm not always convinced on the statistics they use.

Especially as the Swedish law requires prostitutes to testify against their customers - what business would do that?

laoch na mona wrote: »

makes sense illegal to sell illegal to buy

It's not illegal to sell sex, it's illegal to pimp or to streetwalk. This would create a strange situation whereby a 'service' could be sold or performed for free with impunity, but paying for it would be a crime.

Th fact is, prostitution is so lucrative (pays more than many surgeons) that there's no need to force people to do it.

pablomakaveli

sarkozy wrote: »

Wait a minute. You're saying that because Ruhama has a few board members from a religious order that they're immediately suspect? I am an athiest, have little time for the Catholic Church. However, I have great respect for St. Vincent de Paul, moderate respect for CORI (even though it doesn't criticise its own church as it should) and no time for Accord (and other similar socially conservative organisations). I'm socially liberal, pro-equality, pro-inclusiveness, social democratic. But I take each organisation's positions and try to see the good and bad, right and wrong.

I've said it in other threads under a different Boards.ie name (here): the reality of prostitution is that it's exploitative. The vast majority of men and women selling sex are doing so because of difficult circumstances - poverty, abuse, addiction, trauma, etc.

Crucially, the issue is about vulnerability. Yes, not everybody selling sex is trafficked, but the vast majority have been made vulnerable by circumstances in the course of life, and in a more extreme case than most.

Any person experiencing disadvantage, deprivation, trauma, in my belief, is entitled to protection. When countries such as Sweden have adopted the 'prosecute-those-who-buy-sex' approach, the market has dried up, enabling sex workers to pursue other options through the welfare system. The action shifts the stigma from sex workers to sex buyers.

I'm against legalisation because I'm against exploitation and prostitution for me in an actual and philosophical sense is expoitative. But I do believe sex workers need to be adequately protected.

Then why not have a secular organization who's only motive will be to help the prostitutes who need help? The fact is as a religious group Ruhama will only ever have one view on the matter. Also we dont have any idea what the view on this is from the prostitutes themselves because Ruhama always seem to speak on their behalf and thus it seems the interests of Ruhama or taking precedence.

You say prostitution is exploitave. So are many other jobs. Are people who need money and then take up a job they hate being exploited? What about students who take part in clinical trials because they need money?

If a man or a woman decides to become a prostitute of their own free will then that should be their choice. I don't agree with many of the decisions people make but ultimately they have a right to decide for themselves.

Arfan

goose2005 wrote:

Th fact is, prostitution is so lucrative (pays more than many surgeons) that there's no need to force people to do it.

Surgeons are required to help people though. I don't remember anyone who needed prostitutes to save their life.

goose2005

goose2005 wrote: »

...........
Th fact is, prostitution is so lucrative (pays more than many surgeons) that there's no need to force people to do it.

The fact it is so lucrative is why people are being forced into it
Criminals can earn thousands/week from each victim they traffic and force to work as a prostitute.

Kinski

Kinski wrote: »

Why do people always assume that if you legalise an activity then all illegal forms of it will disappear? I'm open to the idea of a legalised, regulated, and taxed sex industry, but even if we go down that route, it doesn't mean that illegal sex work will all stop.

The converse is that just because you make it entirely illegal, doesn't mean all sex work will stop. Plus you have the added problem where women will be afraid to go for help if it's illegal as they think they'll get in trouble. Of course that wouldn't be the only thing stopping them, but it would be some deterrent.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You say prostitution is exploitave. So are many other jobs. Are people who need money and then take up a job they hate being exploited? What about students who take part in clinical trials because they need money?

If a man or a woman decides to become a prostitute of their own free will then that should be their choice. I don't agree with many of the decisions people make but ultimately they have a right to decide for themselves.

Couldn't agree more

Alopex

Arfan wrote: »

goose2005 wrote:

Th fact is, prostitution is so lucrative (pays more than many surgeons) that there's no need to force people to do it.

Surgeons are required to help people though. I don't remember anyone who needed prostitutes to save their life.

Don't see your point to be honest.

On the topic, I have a feeling this will reduce the amount of normal prostitution, but do nothing to reduce the sex slave type prostitution.

It pisses me off sex workers pay no tax so if their income drops over this happy days as far as I'm concerned

Manach

From a strict laissez-faire point of view, the state has increasing taken powers to regulate contracts between individuals over the past 100 years. Mostly the reason that was given by the state, is so as to protect the weaker party in the bargain.

Arfan

Alopex wrote: »

Don't see your point to be honest.

On the topic, I have a feeling this will reduce the amount of normal prostitution, but do nothing to reduce the sex slave type prostitution.

It pisses me off sex workers pay no tax so if their income drops over this happy days as far as I'm concerned

Sorry I was being glib. What I was saying to goose is we'll always need surgeons but do we always need prostitutes?

_Beau_

I think that the difficulty in legalising it lies in the fact that these women are largely being mistreated and a culture of abuse has been created by those involved in this industry.

I don't believe that legalising it would change that culture, at least not overnight, and the possible outcome of making it legal could be that the State would be legalising the ill treatment of sex workers.

Alopex

Arfan wrote: »

Alopex wrote: »

Don't see your point to be honest.

On the topic, I have a feeling this will reduce the amount of normal prostitution, but do nothing to reduce the sex slave type prostitution.

It pisses me off sex workers pay no tax so if their income drops over this happy days as far as I'm concerned

Sorry I was being glib. What I was saying to goose is we'll always need surgeons but do we always need prostitutes?

There are plenty things we don't need. His point in mentioning surgeons was that its so lucrative you can earn more than many surgeons. It was just incidental surgeons are necessary, the relevance is they are highly paid

_Beau_

...unlike prostitutes.

anymore

One potential negative side effect is the potential for black mail of those who have paid prostitutes for sex. Our court records do show that in the past there have been cases of men using prostitutes having being subject to intimidation and theft. Clearly the danger of prosecution under these laws would be an inhibiting factor in reporting the aforementioned kinds of extortion and theft.

sarkozy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Then why not have a secular organization who's only motive will be to help the prostitutes who need help? The fact is as a religious group Ruhama will only ever have one view on the matter. Also we dont have any idea what the view on this is from the prostitutes themselves because Ruhama always seem to speak on their behalf and thus it seems the interests of Ruhama or taking precedence.

You say prostitution is exploitave. So are many other jobs. Are people who need money and then take up a job they hate being exploited? What about students who take part in clinical trials because they need money?

If a man or a woman decides to become a prostitute of their own free will then that should be their choice. I don't agree with many of the decisions people make but ultimately they have a right to decide for themselves.

What I'm saying is just because an organisation has a Catholic ethos or policy core doesn't mean what it says is automatically suspicious or wrong. There is plenty of international and domestic evidence on the issue.

In a liberal society, it's normal for different organisations to engage in social issues and it's not my impression that Ruhama has hidden its credentials. Now, the 'woman-as-passive-victim' approach which suits a Catholic, conservative outlook isn't something I'd be in favour of. However, as an athiest, I'd see this policy position being consistent with liberation theology, which is quite socialist in orientation.

bmaxi

sarkozy wrote: »

What I'm saying is just because an organisation has a Catholic ethos or policy core doesn't mean what it says is automatically suspicious or wrong. There is plenty of international and domestic evidence on the issue.

In a liberal society, it's normal for different organisations to engage in social issues and it's not my impression that Ruhama has hidden its credentials. Now, the 'woman-as-passive-victim' approach which suits a Catholic, conservative outlook isn't something I'd be in favour of. However, as an athiest, I'd see this policy position being consistent with liberation theology, which is quite socialist in orientation.

In Ireland today it is hard to believe the Catholic church can have any pure intentions. While those particular individuals involved in Ruhama, may have done so with the best intentions, I doubt if liberation theology can be counted among their attributes, if it were they would not be RC nuns.

_Beau_

anymore wrote: »

One potential negative side effect is the potential for black mail of those who have paid prostitutes for sex. Our court records do show that in the past there have been cases of men using prostitutes having being subject to intimidation and theft. Clearly the danger of prosecution under these laws would be an inhibiting factor in reporting the aforementioned kinds of extortion and theft.

I would have difficulty feeling any sympathy for a man who had used a prostitute, to be honest.

For the most part, women do not want to service men, but, have been forced to do so because of a lack of choices (socio-economic background, narcotic addiction, sex trafficking, history of child abuse) and using a prostitute, in view of why it's likely that she became one, could be seen as a form of abuse in itself.

Arfan

_Beau_ wrote: »

I would have difficulty feeling any sympathy for a man who had used a prostitute, to be honest.

For the most part, women do not want to service men, but, have been forced to do so because of a lack of choices (socio-economic background, narcotic addiction, sex trafficking, history of child abuse) and using a prostitute, in view of why it's likely that she became one, could be seen as a form of abuse in itself.

She told you that herself did she?

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

She told you that herself did she?

That prostitutes don't like servicing men, or that they're usually forced into that industry through a lack of choices?

28064212

_Beau_ wrote: »

I would have difficulty feeling any sympathy for a man who had used a prostitute, to be honest.

For the most part, women do not want to service men, but, have been forced to do so because of a lack of choices (socio-economic background, narcotic addiction, sex trafficking, history of child abuse) and using a prostitute, in view of why it's likely that she became one, could be seen as a form of abuse in itself.

"I hate the customers I'm forced to serve at McDonald's. Scumbags the lot of them. But I didn't get a good education because my parents were weak and I have a cocaine addiction I need to feed, so I'll take any job going"

Are McDonald's breaking the law by hiring the above example? No. Are they breaking the law if they force that person to work for them, don't pay them, beat them, traffic them into the country illegally? Yes, that's why we have laws against all those things. It does not mean we ban fast food because there's the possibility an employer could illegally exploit his employees, it means we allow the employers who aren't breaking the law to trade, and we go after the ones who actually are

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

"I hate the customers I'm forced to serve at McDonald's. Scumbags the lot of them. But I didn't get a good education because my parents were weak and I have a cocaine addiction I need to feed, so I'll take any job going"

Are McDonald's breaking the law by hiring the above example? No. Are they breaking the law if they force that person to work for them, don't pay them, beat them, traffic them into the country illegally? Yes, that's why we have laws against all those things. It does not mean we ban fast food because there's the possibility an employer could illegally exploit his employees, it means we allow the employers who aren't breaking the law to trade, and we go after the ones who actually are

Whoosh!

That's the sound of my point going right over your head.

28064212

_Beau_ wrote: »

Whoosh!

That's the sound of my point going right over your head.

Can you clarify so? Do you honestly believe that a McDonald's employee who had a crappy childhood and very little opportunity to make any better of themselves wants to be there?

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

Can you clarify so? Do you honestly believe that a McDonald's employee who had a crappy childhood and very little opportunity to make any better of themselves wants to be there?

Your analogy isn't appropriate.

The sex industry is an abusive industry and those who work in it are generally not treated well. Should that industry be legalised, the individuals currently operating within it would remain and it's likely that their treatment of workers would not change. Essentially, the Government would be making it legal to treat these workers in that way and that would be legalising abuse.

Arfan

The sex industry is an abusive industry and those who work in it are generally not treated well.

And this time I'll be serious in asking how you know so much about this industry?

ihacs

Another field where people in many countries join/are employed because of difficult circumstances e.g. poor background, not a good education, is the military. When in the military, one may face difficulty circumstances, one is put in danger if on active duty, etc.

Personally I'm glad my background didn't mean I felt the need to enter the military.

---

The man who cleans the outside windows for my house comes from a poor background (with a big family) and is uneducated. Personally I'm glad I don't have his job, working in the elements, little mental stimulation, working from a height, etc. Should it be made a crime to employ somebody in such a situation? Or employing painting contractors, who are a little more formalised - one injured himself badly from a fall.

----

To repeat my earlier point: lots of people, particularly from poorer backgrounds and without a good education, will end up doing jobs they'd prefer not to do.

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

And this time I'll be serious in asking how you know so much about this industry?

I'm transferring data from surveys carried out in other countries. There is no evidence to suggest that sex workers are being treated any differently to those around the world.

Which question were you asking me to clarify earlier - her desire to service men or her lack of choices in the matter?

28064212

_Beau_ wrote: »

Your analogy isn't appropriate.

Oh, well then... No, wait, you saying it doesn't make it so. You made the point that prostitutes don't want to service their clients, and that they're doing so because they suffer from a lack of choices. Newsflash: Many people don't like their jobs. Many people suffer from a lack of choice.

You followed with a totally unrelated point, so I don't see how I could miss a point you haven't made yet

_Beau_ wrote: »

The sex industry is an abusive industry

Objectively, can you honestly say that it impossible to conduct a transaction involving sex that is not abusive? Are you saying that if one adult, totally within their free will, pays another adult, totally within their own free will, for sex, that relationship is inherently abusive?

_Beau_ wrote: »

and those who work in it are generally not treated well.

A facet that is certainly exacerbated by the fact that it's illegal, so only criminals are involved.

_Beau_ wrote: »

Should that industry be legalised, the individuals currently operating within it would remain and it's likely that their treatment of workers would not change.

How's the illegal liquor trade going in America since Prohibition ended? All those Al Capone gangster mobs still boot-legging?

_Beau_ wrote: »

Essentially, the Government would be making it legal to treat these workers in that way and that would be legalising abuse.

A point which hinges entirely on your apparent belief that it is impossible to pay for sex without it being abusive. No-one is suggesting assault should be legal. No-one is suggesting trafficking should be legal. No-one is suggesting false imprisonment should be legal. No-one is suggesting trampling on worker's rights should be legal.

What is being suggested is that if an adult chooses to sell their services to another adult, it should be legal, whether that service is a massage, an hour of heavy lifting, or a sexual act

Arfan

_Beau_ wrote: »

I'm transferring data from surveys carried out in other countries. There is no evidence to suggest that sex workers are being treated any differently to those around the world.

Which question were you asking me to clarify earlier - her desire to service men or her lack of choices in the matter?

Instead of transferring data and expressing it in that rather odd usage of "she wants this" and "she does that" why not save yourself the trouble and post the surveys?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ihacs

sarkozy wrote: »

In a liberal society, it's normal for different organisations to engage in social issues and it's not my impression that Ruhama has hidden its credentials.

It was only following an internet discussion that I became aware of it. I had heard/seen various bits of media coverage/interviews and hadn't been aware of it.

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

You followed with a totally unrelated point, so I don't see how I could miss a point you haven't made yet.

My point was related to my original post, the one that you had responded to and had missed its point. Therefore, your point was unrelated and your analogy was equally so.

The topic here is not whether or not employees enjoy their line of work - the topic is whether or not the Government should legalise this industry, and that industry just happens to abuse those who work in it, which is why I mentioned their ill treatment. It's quite relevant.

Besides, serving customers food really cannot be compared to a client using prostitute's body for sexual gratification. They are worlds apart.

Objectively, can you honestly say that it's impossible to conduct a transaction involving sex that is not abusive?

Statistically, it's more likely to be abusive than not abusive.

Are you saying that if one adult, totally within their free will, pays another adult, totally within their own free will, for sex, that relationship is inherently abusive?

Your hypothetical situation does not reflect the reality so there's no point in commenting on it.

A facet that is certainly exacerbated by the fact that it's illegal, so only criminals are involved.

How does that exacerbate it? It appears as though you're implying that people who break the law are more likely to be abusive. That's a very simplified view.

I would imagine that it's far more complex than that. One significant aspect, in terms of the treatment of women working within the industry, are the dynamics involved due to gender politics. Women who work as prostitutes are generally not viewed very highly, there is a stigma imposed upon them because of the double standard that society applies to women, they generally tend to come from backgrounds that have hindered the development of their self-esteem and are likely to accept abusive behaviour and consider it to be "normal", or they feel that they deserve to be treated that way, which of course is a form of self-abuse, and all of those things are an extension of the dynamics involved.

How's the illegal liquor trade going in America since Prohibition ended? All those Al Capone gangster mobs still boot-legging?

How is that relevant? Trading in alcohol is very different to sex trading. You continue to miss my original point about the State legalising abuse.

A point which hinges entirely on your apparent belief that it is impossible to pay for sex without it being abusive.

Do you believe that it's possible for a woman to have sex with clients and enjoy it? Do you imagine that it's a help, or a hindrance, to her self-esteem? The work itself is abusive and you don't seem to understand the dynamics involved that make it so.

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

Instead of transferring data and expressing it in that rather odd usage of "she wants this" and "she does that" why not save yourself the trouble and post the surveys?

Answer the question.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

anymore wrote:

One potential negative side effect is the potential for black mail of those who have paid prostitutes for sex. Our court records do show that in the past there have been cases of men using prostitutes having being subject to intimidation and theft. Clearly the danger of prosecution under these laws would be an inhibiting factor in reporting the aforementioned kinds of extortion and theft.

I would have difficulty feeling any sympathy for a man who had used a prostitute, to be honest.

This is one of the ways feminism comes in to it, it seems: women are allowed be victims, men tend not to be "allowed".

_Beau_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah, but that is not the premise though - women who are involved in the sex trade are likely to have taken that route, whether they chose it directly or indirectly, or were forced into it and continue working in it, because of damaged self-esteem. That's one thing that most of them seem to have in common.

Is it ethical to partake in an activity that involves a person who is a victim of circumstances?

Do you think that these women would be engaging in these acts if they were wealthy, highly educated, confident and emotionally stable?

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

This is one of the ways feminism comes in to it, it seems: women are allowed be victims, men tend not to be "allowed".

Tish tosh!

He is not a victim if his own criminal behaviour lead to extortion.

Had he behaved legally and ethically, extortion would not be possible - therefore, he isn't a victim at all.

ihacs

When, for example, the US blonde model (Anna Nicole Smith?) married the very wealthy very elderly (80s, IIRC) businessman, are we sure she enjoyed the sex with this very wrinkly very old man. Is that acceptable legally because the woman got a better contract/payment than a prostitute might? Should he be criminalised? Who was exploiting who?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Beau_

_Beau_ wrote: »

Do you think that these women would be engaging in these acts if they were wealthy, highly educated, confident and emotionally stable?

Do you think people would be working in McDonalds if they were wealthy, highly educated ,confident, emotionally stable?