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

SeanW

Granted it may not be an easy line to draw (i.e. your point re: attributing fault to a careless 3rd party) but then again one thing to me is clear: if two people are freely agreeing to an eh ... "favours" for money deal, it's noones businesses but the participants.

However as you rightly point out, when one party is under duress, it gets a whole lot messier, and nastier. All the more reason to take the trade out of the hands of criminal scumbags.

Al Capone was only ever jailed for tax evasion and his gang was not finally taken down by government force or more restrictive laws, but the abolition of the Prohibition of alcohol that gave rise to his gang in the first place.

hatrickpatrick

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Where do you draw the line?

What if the person is selling the kidney under duress from a third party and the buyer is not aware (nor cares) about this fact? Is it still ok then?

Obviously not.
I never said forced prostitution is ok, I was referring to consenting adults very clearly.

Pointless analogy.

limklad

SeanW wrote: »

Al Capone was only ever jailed for tax evasion and his gang was not finally taken down by government force or more restrictive laws, but the abolition of the Prohibition of alcohol that gave rise to his gang in the first place.

I fully agree. Yet Politicians/Police forces still never learn from history and keep remaking old mistakes.

ILikeBananas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Obviously not.
I never said forced prostitution is ok, I was referring to consenting adults very clearly.

Pointless analogy.

Well, what I'm getting at is that often the man will never know if the prostitute is under duress or not.

Just for the record, I mostly agree with the libertarian argument that what's done between consenting adults should be legal. So, I'm pro gay marriage and in theory I'm pro euthanasia, pro legalisation of narcotics and pro legalisation of prostitution. However I would be in favour of putting in place laws that protect vunerable people from being taken advantage of as I realise that not all adults are fully logical and rational and of sound mind.

In the case of prostitution therefore I'd be pro legalised brothels that are safe, hygienic and regulated (as they have in Austraila, New Zealand and Germany) whilst criminalising street prostitution and illegal brothels.

As it stands, in Ireland we don't have the former so I'd still be in favour of criminalising the latter.

Linoge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's my kidney, what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with it? I I want to sell it that's my own choice. A stupid choice, granted, but still my choice.

Now if my kidney was being taken from me against my will, THAT should be a crime.

When you remove your kidney, you are removing your use of it (and decreasing your lifespan in the process). When you have sex with someone you are not removing the use of your sexual organs. Kinda obvious when you think of it actually....

hatrickpatrick

Linoge wrote: »

When you remove your kidney, you are removing your use of it (and decreasing your lifespan in the process). When you have sex with someone you are not removing the use of your sexual organs. Kinda obvious when you think of it actually....

Agreed, hence why I said it was a pointless analogy. But either way, my kidney is my own kidney and I see absolutely no excuse for it being illegal for me to sell it. If it shortens my lifespan, that's my own conscious decision, so be it. Nobody else's business.

Linoge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Agreed, hence why I said it was a pointless analogy. But either way, my kidney is my own kidney and I see absolutely no excuse for it being illegal for me to sell it. If it shortens my lifespan, that's my own conscious decision, so be it. Nobody else's business.

I think that's a matter of psychology really. I would think that anyone who would sell an organ is not of sound mind - think of that guy in China who sold his kidney and went out and bought an iPad.

There would be of course cases of fathers selling an organ to buy medicine for their child I'm sure. However, allowing people to sell their organs would open market where one does not currently exist, and then you have just brought on some of the problems that prostitution actually already faces - people being forced to sell. The poorer members of society would suffer at the expense of the rich. It is not just a matter of it being degrading or possible psychological problems - we're talking serious unavoidable health implications in every single case.

I know its a whole other debate that could fill a thread of its own - I just don't think it's good to draw similiarities between the two with regards to doing whatever you want with your body. Prostitution and organ selling aren't remotely in the same league. Prostitution would be much closer to modelling if you want to draw similarities.

AhSureTisGrand

ILikeBananas wrote: »

 I realise that not all adults are fully logical and rational and of sound mind.

Nobody is fully logical and rational

AhSureTisGrand

Linoge wrote: »

When you remove your kidney, you are removing your use of it (and decreasing your lifespan in the process)

The scientific evidence seems to suggest otherwise: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182026.php

Obviously there are sound reasons for keeping both your kidneys. I also suspect kidney donors are given advice on staying healthy which gives them an advantage over the other people in that study.

Now unhealthy eating, that can shorten your lifespan by decades, and is arguably something nobody of sound mind would do

SupaNova

Linoge wrote: »

When you remove your kidney, you are removing your use of it (and decreasing your lifespan in the process). When you have sex with someone you are not removing the use of your sexual organs. Kinda obvious when you think of it actually....

If you are using the possible decreased lifespan as a reason why selling a kidney be illegal, why stop there, why not make it illegal to smoke or drink, or why not even make it illegal for anyone to not exercise daily?

If someone who smokes and drinks and has a party lifestyle and decreases their lifespan from what it could have possibly been doesn't make automatically them mentally ill, they have weighed the length of life versus the type of lifestyle they want and come to their own decision.

I think that's a matter of psychology really. I would think that anyone who would sell an organ is not of sound mind - think of that guy in China who sold his kidney and went out and bought an iPad.

This example is of a kid. A kid can make a stupid decision, while not having mental problems. If selling an organ has little affect on ones health would you still feel the same? Is it just people who would sell an organ that you consider not of sound mind or donors as well?

limklad

Linoge wrote: »

When you remove your kidney, you are removing your use of it (and decreasing your lifespan in the process). When you have sex with someone you are not removing the use of your sexual organs. Kinda obvious when you think of it actually....

Your wife may remove them for you in her usual delicate way. It has happen in the past.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wife-cuts-off-husbands-penis-throws-garbage-disposal/story?id=14055080#.TudvBVaXLcY

You might not get Amputated, if you wife/partner is charitable but you can certainly have a very high risk to pick up the following:
http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/stds.html

Linoge

SupaNova wrote: »

If you are using the possible decreased lifespan as a reason why selling a kidney be illegal, why stop there, why not make it illegal to smoke or drink, or why not even make it illegal for anyone to not exercise daily?

Make it illegal when smoking one smoke or drinking one drink will remove 5-10 years from your life. Remove a lung, a kidney and some liver I'm sure you could remove 20.

If there were zero negative health effects I would be all for it. I don't believe any study that says there are little or none - we have evolved with 2 kidneys and lungs for a reason (its gods design!). It wasn't long ago that it was thought that the appendix was surplus to requirements.

Organ selling is only one way, better living for the rich at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.

Just so I understand where you are coming from - you would have no problem with someone selling their hands, eyes, scalp, tongue, legs or penis? It's your body!

zuroph

this has veered WILDLY off-topic.

AhSureTisGrand

Linoge wrote: »

It's your body!

Could you have made a worse choice of words with which to conclude your argument?

NewHillel

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Well, what I'm getting at is that often the man will never know if the prostitute is under duress or not.

That's why Im 100% behind the actions of the Gardai in Limerick, prosecuting punters.

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Just for the record, I mostly agree with the libertarian argument that what's done between consenting adults should be legal. So, I'm pro gay marriage and in theory I'm pro euthanasia, pro legalisation of narcotics and pro legalisation of prostitution. However I would be in favour of putting in place laws that protect vunerable people from being taken advantage of as I realise that not all adults are fully logical and rational and of sound mind.

I'm with you on this.

ILikeBananas wrote: »

In the case of prostitution therefore I'd be pro legalised brothels that are safe, hygienic and regulated (as they have in Austraila, New Zealand and Germany) whilst criminalising street prostitution and illegal brothels.

As it stands, in Ireland we don't have the former so I'd still be in favour of criminalising the latter.

With you again.

ihacs

A columnist in the Sunday Times (Brenda Power I think) pointed out that a press release was sent out in advance of the court sitting so the media were there and the people were named/something along those lines. She pointed out that this was very unusual for crimes generally and must have been sanctioned relatively high up.

She also pointed out that for many, apart from traffic violations, this was their first offence.

NewHillel

ihacs wrote: »

A columnist in the Sunday Times (Brenda Power I think) pointed out that a press release was sent out in advance of the court sitting so the media were there and the people were named/something along those lines. She pointed out that this was very unusual for crimes generally and must have been sanctioned relatively high up.

She also pointed out that for many, apart from traffic violations, this was their first offence.

Surely she means that this was the first time they were caught, with their pants down, as it were.

ihacs

NewHillel wrote: »

Surely she means that this was the first time they were caught, with their pants down, as it were.

This could be said with lots of crimes i.e. some "first offenders" may not be first offenders. But first offenders usually get treated fairly lightly in terms of their punishment - and being named is a type of punishment.

NewHillel

ihacs wrote: »

This could be said with lots of crimes i.e. some "first offenders" may not be first offenders. But first offenders usually get treated fairly lightly in terms of their punishment - and being named is a type of punishment.

A pretty light punishment, given what they did. Having said that, I have the greatest sympathy for their families, the innocent victims in this. However, given that some prostitutes would appear to be little more than slaves, and that, according to a US 2008 Trafficing in persons report, over 60% of prostitutes are raped, it was right for the names to be published. The risk of a public shaming might make some of the punters think again about what they are about to do.

ihacs

NewHillel wrote: »

A pretty light punishment, given what they did. Having said that, I have the greatest sympathy for their families, the innocent victims in this. However, given that some prostitutes would appear to be little more than slaves, and that, according to a US 2008 Trafficing in persons report, over 60% of prostitutes are raped, it was right for the names to be published. The risk of a public shaming might make some of the punters think again about what they are about to do.

Just because a prostitute may be raped by a punter at some stage doesn't mean these men raped! But this is the sort of thing men have to deal with all the time - dirt thrown at them.

Naming and shaming may be justified for people convicted of crimes. It's far from clear why one would do this for people who have paid for prostitutes and not people who have shop-lifted/robbed, assaulted people, and all the other crimes people can commit. The big difference it seems to me is the individual will generally be male. A male offender compared to a female offender makes things so much more black-and-white for some feminists. Women can kill people and still some people can wonder whether they should spend time in jail (as they are really victims you know) - indeed I have read of cases where female killers in Ireland got non-custodial sentences.

NewHillel

ihacs wrote: »

Just because a prostitute may be raped by a punter at some stage doesn't mean these men raped! But this is the sort of thing men have to deal with all the time - dirt thrown at them.

Naming and shaming may be justified for people convicted of crimes. It's far from clear why one would do this for people who have paid for prostitutes and not people who have shop-lifted/robbed, assaulted people, and all the other crimes people can commit. The big difference it seems to me is the individual will generally be male. A male offender compared to a female offender makes things so much more black-and-white for some feminists. Women can kill people and still some people can wonder whether they should spend time in jail (as they are really victims you know) - indeed I have read of cases where female killers in Ireland got non-custodial sentences.

You are missing the point. If a prostitute is working under duress, using her 'services', whether paid for or not, is an act of rape. Simple as!

You cannot be serious if you think 'shop lifting' is a valid comparison to an assault on another human being? I'll take it that you're just taking the pi$$.
Trivialising an act of this nature is simply another way of pretending it's all right, go for it lads. It's not all right - the sooner the law is changed, the better.

ihacs

NewHillel wrote: »

If a prostitute is working under duress, using her 'services', whether paid for or not, is an act of rape.

It depends how one defines duress. Lots of people don't do their ideal job.

Warning people about shop-lifters could warn people about the individuals and help prevent the crime by warning potential victims, as well as having a deterrent. I think one can make a strong case that they should be named.

And if buying a prostitute's services is an assault, then it fits in with actual assault so again unclear why people who assault wouldn't be named and shamed in the media.

Anyway, I'm not surprised a feminist wouldn't be interested in fairness. "Equality" gets stretched in strange ways by them - inequalities men have tend to be completely ignored. Feminists often tend to be some of the least fair people it appears to me.

RichieC

I t amazes me. The right wing hate prostitution because they see it as exploitation yet they are fighting tooth and nail across the globe to remove workers rights legislation. It's a bit like how they are pro, life yet rabidly pro war...

At least the feminists are consistent.

Dr Galen

Can you define Right wing there for me Richie?

NewHillel

ihacs wrote: »

It depends how one defines duress. Lots of people don't do their ideal job.

I suspect that you'd have a whole new definition if you had to 'service' a few punters for a night or two.

Anything but consider that your original position might need to be reconsidered.

Anyway, this definition pretty much defines it.

SeanW

NewHillel wrote: »

I suspect that you'd have a whole new definition if you had to 'service' a few punters for a night or two.

Define "Had to"

ihacs

NewHillel wrote: »

Anyway, this definition pretty much defines it.

There are lots of definitions on that page - are you claiming them all or one or more in particular (e.g. the bit above cross-references?)?

Taking the first one:

Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.

You claimed:

If a prostitute is working under duress, using her 'services', whether paid for or not, is an act of rape.

The paying punter certainly wasn't coercing those women in Limerick who were "advertising their services".

So I'm guessing your argument assumes the duress is coming from somebody else. Who the punter may not know about. Seems you can be committing rape these days without even knowing it - pretty wide definition of rape. And of course we have the sophisticated feminist motto, "rape is rape is rape". And of course, the movement is for minimum sentencing for rape e.g. five years (unlike, say, killing somebody where some people may not even go to jail). Not sure feminism and logic always go well together!

passive

Excellent blog with a number of articles on this subject here: http://feministire.wordpress.com/tag/feminist-ire/ (anti-abolition, with a welcome attention to facts and details rather than manipulative and emotive idealogical arguments)

hatrickpatrick

The argument that "guys don't know if their prostitute is under duress so they should be presumed rapists" is absolutely, mind blowingly ludicrous.

If I buy a computer and I don't know if it could have been produced by sweatshop workers, does that make me culpable for illegally exploiting workers if it turns out that it was? Should everyone who buys something which later turns out to have been bought in a sweatshop be prosecuted and jailed for exploiting workers?

The buck stops, most definitely and undeniably, with the employer in such cases. And I absolutely agree that such employers should be prosecuted to the absolute harshest extent of the law. But implying that all men who use prostitutes should be presumed to be "potential rapists" is absolutely bizarre and ridiculous.

NewHillel

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The argument that "guys don't know if their prostitute is under duress so they should be presumed rapists" is absolutely, mind blowingly ludicrous.

If I buy a computer and I don't know if it could have been produced by sweatshop workers, does that make me culpable for illegally exploiting workers if it turns out that it was? Should everyone who buys something which later turns out to have been bought in a sweatshop be prosecuted and jailed for exploiting workers?

The buck stops, most definitely and undeniably, with the employer in such cases. And I absolutely agree that such employers should be prosecuted to the absolute harshest extent of the law. But implying that all men who use prostitutes should be presumed to be "potential rapists" is absolutely bizarre and ridiculous.

With respect, comparing soliciting sex with a prostitute to 'buying a computer' is "absolutely, mind blowingly ludicrous". Equally, pretending that there are "employers", may make the punter feel more comfortable, but we all know that it is no more than a pretence.

It is well past time to call a spade a spade, and call it as it is. The Gardai and the authorities, have got this one spot on. If nothing else, it wil remove all the bravado from what is a murky, totally unsavoury business. Whether it is 1% or 50% of prostitutes that are working under duress, doesn't really matter. How is the punter to know which ones are, and which ones aren't? He can't!

This is not a debate about what happens between consenting adults, as the apologists for street prostitution try and pretend. It is about protecting the vulnerable from preying adults - who don't give a $hit, once they get their rocks off. A nice stiff sentence, would quickly help them to refocus.