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

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

You continually act like a troll - avoiding every valid question that I ask.

Is it acceptable to use a prostitute considering that the profession is psychologically damaging?

I've answered the question. Now you answer the logical corollary.

jam_mac_jam

_Beau_ wrote: »

No-one is suggesting criminalising clients simply because prostitutes don't enjoy servicing them.

Besides, are you suggesting that it's okay to sleep with someone who doesn't enjoy it?

Its not for the state to ban two consenting adults doing what they choose to. Its ok if you pay them and they agree.

SupaNova

Is it ok to purchase the services of a carpenter who doesn't enjoy his work?

latenia

At the end of the day the majority of hookers are free to stop any time they want-they've weighed up their options and decided that lying on their backs for half an hour beats working in McDonalds for 10 hours.

The minority who aren't are already 'protected' by existing laws or are trapped by their own lifestyle choices.

If this law was ever introduced I'd love to see the cops organise a sting involving a male escort and some female "clients" for their first case just to see the look on the faces of the unelected feminazis in the senate who are floating this nonsense.

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

No one is against protecting prostitutes. What you have been repeating is that the act of selling sex causes damage.

The act of being a sex object is what causes the damage. Lacking power economically, being inferior, dehumanised, stigmatised, commodified, having to perform whatever acts the client requests on demand, servicing strangers that one would not otherwise sleep with, having to develop coping mechanisms to deal with servicing strangers, being unable to trust people, feeling detached from one's body, being unable to form meaningful relationships, being left with a feeling self-loathing and suicidal thoughts - that is what is damaging.

Can you see the difference?

Can you now see what prostitution entails? You're simply viewing it as sex for money. You're ignoring what makes it intrinsically harmful.

Monty Burnz

Still waiting for an answer to my question, having provided an explicit answer as demanded...

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Misogynists like to throw around the word 'feminist'. They also disagree with criminalising clients.

Misogynists: there's another insult that feminists as well others who make money from the so-called "equality" industry love to throw around. I clearly prefaced what I said as an example off the top of my head of an industry women wouldn't like seeing banned and one could maybe (just about) make a comparable analogy with.

It was nothing to do with tying women to the kitchen. I believe that women who work outside the home also have just as much interest in interior decoration, "new" kitchens, etc. I believe men and women tend on average to have different things they like in some areas for whatever reason. It doesn't make one superior to the other.

Just because women did most of the housework in the past doesn't mean that it is sexist to believe that women have different preferences than men. Are you supposed to be some sort of academic looking at gender issues (given you are working on some survey of sex workers, I'm guessing you are)? It sounds like if your analysis will not cover all interpretations of the data if you think suggesting that somebody saying women might be more interested in interior decoration, etc is sexist.

_Beau_ wrote: »

You ignored the rest of my post.

I'm trying to do other stuff on the computer. I wanted to reply to the "sexist" insult. Just as I want to reply to the use of misognynist in this post.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

You said that according to my reasoning, taking into account the risk of PTSD to soldiers and police officers, that they ought to be prevented from pursuing their careers. As my view is to criminalise the clients of prostitutes, that implies that should my reasoning be applied to soldiers and police officers, that I would advocate criminalising those careers.

And given that preventing soldiers and police officers who choose to pursue those careers despite the risks wouldn't work neither would preventing prostitutes. Regardless of attempts to criminalize clients or prostitutes it will happen regardless and be pushed further underground and into riskier territory.

Are you suggesting that we remove police officers from the street because of the risk of PTSD associated with their job?

No because they volunteer fully aware of the risk. Prostitutes can also make that choice of their own free will while weighing up the pros and cons (including PTSD which i doubt is a major affliction among prostitutes)

rodento

God you must hate men, plenty of women sleep with strangers they pull in nightclubs every weekend, don't think they ever suffered or had to learn to cope with it

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

They both get paid so they're not different, really?

Don't you understand anything about prostitution or are you wilfully ignoring the findings that I have posted?

Why don't you want to protect prostitutes?

You've just ignored half of what i said. They also both provide their bodies (albeit in different ways) to others for a fee.

Also i've never said i dont want to protect prostitutes so dont try and claim that i dont. I'm completely against women being forced to do it against there will and that should be fully pursued and prosecuted by the law.

However if a prostitute chooses to work herself without being forced into it by someone else than why would she need protection.

The damage has been proven.

No it hasnt. You've ignored the website that ihacs linked to which contradicts the evidence you've put forward.

SupaNova

_Beau_ wrote: »

The act of being a sex object is what causes the damage.

You will have to define what you mean by sex object first.

Lacking power economically

Prostitutes have options. Taking working in McDonalds vs selling sex, it's obvious which gives them more economic power.

being inferior

So you think prostitutes are inferior?

dehumanised

What do you mean by dehumanised? You think people who sell sex are not human?

stigmatised

So not the act of selling sex but people's view of them as inferior?

commodified

I sell myself as a commodity also, just in a different industry. Pointless term.

having to perform whatever acts the client requests on demand

Not true. Prostitutes have a choice of what services they offer as well as a choice to be a prostitute in the first place.

servicing strangers that one would not otherwise sleep with

Yes this is what the job they choose entails.

having to develop coping mechanisms to deal with servicing strangers

No where has it been proving that having sex with strangers damages people.

being unable to trust people feeling detached from one's body, being unable to form meaningful relationships, being left with a feeling self-loathing and suicidal thoughts - that is what is damaging.

Studies do show some of this to be true for a large % of prostitutes. They don't show selling sex as the cause.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer to my question, having provided an explicit answer as demanded...

Still waiting for Beau - that demander of answers - to answer the question...:rolleyes:

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because to do otherwise is a disgusting and reprehensible restriction of the personal freedom of consenting adults.

Using a person as a sex object is not a personal freedom, not least because money is exchanged.

You are not free to pick and choose what you buy and sell - the Government decides that.

Is protecting prostitutes disgusting and reprehensible?

I've just addressed the question. Now you address mine: why are you not in favour of criminalising the use of other services that can cause physical or psychological damage to those providing the service? Why is prostitution a special case?

The severity of their trauma makes them 'special' and weighing that against the service that they provide reveals that the service provided does not justify the trauma it inflicts.

Dr Galen

I do find it a bit strange (maybe thats the wrong word but it's the best I've got right now) that you seem to fixed on female prostitutes _Beau_. There are many male sex workers around too, and often, their circumstances and background can be just as bad, if not worse, that many females. You consistently use the female term though, is that just because it's prostitution within that gender group that you are familiar with etc?

I also find it strange that you fail to recognise the issue of consent. Can I ask, if a situation arose, whereby two consenting adults make a transaction - sex acts for money, would you be ok with it?

_Beau_

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Its not for the state to ban two consenting adults doing what they choose to. Its ok if you pay them and they agree.

Who decides what businesses are acceptable and unacceptable if not the State?

rodento

You are been evasive, states change laws all the time, the question was aimed at you

_Beau_

SupaNova wrote: »

Is it ok to purchase the services of a carpenter who doesn't enjoy his work?

You're still using the same old phrase - don't enjoy their job.

Can you genuinely not grasp why prostitution is so damaging (unlike jobs that people just dislike)?

_Beau_

latenia wrote: »

At the end of the day the majority of hookers are free to stop any time they want-they've weighed up their options and decided that lying on their backs for half an hour beats working in McDonalds for 10 hours.

That's only your personal opinion. Are you stating it as a fact? If so, prove it?

If this law was ever introduced I'd love to see the cops organise a sting involving a male escort and some female "clients" for their first case just to see the look on the faces of the unelected feminazis in the senate who are floating this nonsense.

This 'nonsense' is being dictated by EU guidelines, not the Senate.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Using a person as a sex object is not a personal freedom, not least because money is exchanged.

Pure opinion. I disagree.

_Beau_ wrote: »

You are not free to pick and choose what you buy and sell - the Government decides that.

Yes you are, unless there is a compelling societal reason for the government to get in the way.

_Beau_ wrote: »

Is protecting prostitutes disgusting and reprehensible?

Not at all, I'm all for it. Legalisation is almost certainly the best way if you are genuinely interested in protecting prostitutes, rather than engaging in a moral crusade that is doomed to fail (as it has failed every time it's been tried).

_Beau_ wrote: »

The severity of their trauma makes them 'special' and weighing that against the service that they provide reveals that the service provided does not justify the trauma it inflicts.

Who are you to judge whether their trauma exceeds that of battlefield soldiers, police, fire fighters, paramedics? This is pure opinion on your part again. And your estimate of the value of the service they provide is again pure opinion - what price can you put on relieving the sexual frustration of lonely people?

So in response to the question, all you have to offer is ill-supported opinion. Bravo.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Misogynists: there's another insult that feminists as well others who make money from the so-called "equality" industry love to throw around. I clearly prefaced what I said as an example off the top of my head of an industry women wouldn't like seeing banned and one could maybe (just about) make a comparable analogy with.

It was nothing to do with tying women to the kitchen. I believe that women who work outside the home also have just as much interest in interior decoration, "new" kitchens, etc. I believe men and women tend on average to have different things they like in some areas for whatever reason. It doesn't make one superior to the other.

Just because women did most of the housework in the past doesn't mean that it is sexist to believe that women have different preferences than men. Are you supposed to be some sort of academic looking at gender issues (given you are working on some survey of sex workers, I'm guessing you are)? It sounds like if your analysis will not cover all interpretations of the data if you think suggesting that somebody saying women might be more interested in interior decoration, etc is sexist.

In my experience, misogynists usually don't provide facts to support their sexist generalisations, but, they do offer generalisations to support their sexist views.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

In my experience, misogynists usually don't provide facts to support their sexist generalisations, but, they do offer generalisations to support their sexist views.

What about the misandrists?

----
Also, if you are saying you think saying women have more interest on average in interior design is a sexist generalisation and evidence of sexism and misogyny, I'm going to differ from you and think you have a tendency to rush to use the words "sexist"/"sexism" and "misogyny"/"misogynist", which might be better to be conquered if you want to be a good academic as well as suggesting you may need to become a more tolerant person.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

In my experience, misogynists usually don't provide facts to support their sexist generalisations, but, they do offer generalisations to support their sexist views.

You are characterising anyone who disagrees with you as misogynist? Isn't this the same tactic that Zionists use to dismiss any criticism of Israel's actions - that the people making the argument are anti-semites? :rolleyes:

rodento

Beau have you ever thought that pushing this further underground just makes the situation worse for those working in the industry. You have never explained how the change in law will protect those involved, it in my book will just make it worse as the fear of been caught could lead to more violence to people caught up in the industry

Monty Burnz

rodento wrote: »

Beau have you ever thought that pushing this further underground just makes the situation worse for those working in the industry. You have never explained how the change in law will protect those involved, it in my book will just make it worse as the fear of been caught could lead to more violence to people caught up in the industry

Don't be so quick to judge - haven't you noticed how the criminalisation of drugs has totally eliminated both the industry and of course all the harm associated with it? And recall how the prohibition of alcohol in the US totally killed the demand for and the consumption of alcohol, dealing a severe blow to the criminal world and drastically reducing the number of machine-gun massacres? :pac:

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And given that preventing soldiers and police officers who choose to pursue those careers despite the risks wouldn't work neither would preventing prostitutes. Regardless of attempts to criminalize clients or prostitutes it will happen regardless and be pushed further underground and into riskier territory.

Sweden, Norway and Iceland have adopted legislation that has proven to act as a deterrent to clients.

Reducing demand will inevitably affect supply.

If Ireland does not go along with EU guidelines, it will likely become a haven for traffickers and pimps. Would that be more desirable? That's the alternative.

No because they volunteer fully aware of the risk. Prostitutes can also make that choice of their own free will while weighing up the pros and cons (including PTSD which i doubt is a major affliction among prostitutes)

Women don't wake up one morning and decide to become a prostitute. Their lives are abusive, for most of them, right from the start.

'Another statistic that belies the claim of a victimless crime is from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon. In one Annual Report they found that 85 percent of surveyed prostitutes reported a history of sexual abuse in childhood, while 70 percent reported incest. Compare that to estimates of childhood sexual abuse in the general population at anywhere from 15- 38 percent of women and 12-16 percent of men, and the conclusions are clear.

Other statistics bring the picture further into focus, such as those that claim that the vast majority of prostitutes are also raped by their "pimps" while in their service, over half have been raped or beaten by a client, more than three quarters have been physically assaulted while in prostitution and/or have attempted suicide, and that 67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To say that these prostitutes have willingly made an informed decision about their "chosen" field is a stretch of the imagination.'

Source

_Beau_

rodento wrote: »

God you must hate men, plenty of women sleep with strangers they pull in nightclubs every weekend, don't think they ever suffered or had to learn to cope with it

I want to protect vulnerable members of society. That's not hateful. Wanting to compound their pain is hateful. That's what you're advocating. It's misogynistic.

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You've just ignored half of what i said. They also both provide their bodies (albeit in different ways) to others for a fee.

Also i've never said i dont want to protect prostitutes so dont try and claim that i dont. I'm completely against women being forced to do it against there will and that should be fully pursued and prosecuted by the law.

However if a prostitute chooses to work herself without being forced into it by someone else than why would she need protection.

How can the authorities distinguish between those who choose it, and those who don't?

No it hasnt.

I have posted numerous studies and they have all found the same thing - prostitution is psychologically damaging.

You've ignored the website that ihacs linked to which contradicts the evidence you've put forward.

I acknowledged it and asked that he prove its authenticity. He has not provided any evidence that sex workers operate it. You or I could create the very same site and claim to be sex workers, but, that wouldn't make it so.

nokia69

beau

have a read of this thread from another site

it makes for interesting reading

http://www.saafe.info/main/index.php?topic=3830.msg34859#msg34859

maybe you should register over there and talk to some women who know a little more about the subject than you

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

Sweden, Norway and Iceland have adopted legislation that has proven to act as a deterrent to clients.

Reducing demand will inevitably affect supply.

If Ireland does not go along with EU guidelines, it will likely become a haven for traffickers and pimps. Would that be more desirable? That's the alternative.

It acts as a deterent to client but does it stop women from becoming prostitutes. Whats to stop them operating more discreetly so to keep under the radar or to go on operate in another country?

The prostitutes will still be there regardless of legislation.

Women don't wake up one morning and decide to become a prostitute. Their lives are abusive, for most of them, right from the start.

'Another statistic that belies the claim of a victimless crime is from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives, in Portland, Oregon. In one Annual Report they found that 85 percent of surveyed prostitutes reported a history of sexual abuse in childhood, while 70 percent reported incest. Compare that to estimates of childhood sexual abuse in the general population at anywhere from 15- 38 percent of women and 12-16 percent of men, and the conclusions are clear.

Other statistics bring the picture further into focus, such as those that claim that the vast majority of prostitutes are also raped by their "pimps" while in their service, over half have been raped or beaten by a client, more than three quarters have been physically assaulted while in prostitution and/or have attempted suicide, and that 67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To say that these prostitutes have willingly made an informed decision about their "chosen" field is a stretch of the imagination.'

Source

I presume here he is referring to prostitutes who work on the street since he refers to pimps. These women usually are drug users and would be in need of protection.


But what about prostitutes who aren't drug users, who don't have a pimp and operate out of houses and hotels. There are also high-class prostitutes who wouldnt fit the bill of the drug using prostitute.

Given that these women wouldnt be in need of help why should they be stopped from charging for sex too?

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

How can the authorities distinguish between those who choose it, and those who don't?

They could tell them for a start.

I have posted numerous studies and they have all found the same thing - prostitution is psychologically damaging.

And other users on this thread called some of those reports into question.

I acknowledged it and asked that he prove its authenticity. He has not provided any evidence that sex workers operate it. You or I could create the very same site and claim to be sex workers, but, that wouldn't make it so.

Theres a contact section on the site. You could perhaps contact them and see how real they are for yourself.

And given that they turned up in the flesh to protest at Google headquarters at least we know they're not imaginary.

http://www.nswp.org/fr/news-story/turn-the-blue-light-protest-discrimination-google