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

_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.

coffee_cake

_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?

_Beau_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm arguing against its legalisation.

As has been pointed out already, there are many people in society who can claim to be "victims of circumstance." In the middle of a severe recession, in particular, many people are working (if they are working at all) in jobs that they would not prefer to be doing, just so that they can pay their bills and put food on the table. However, many jobs that are considered degrading (cleaning toilets, flipping burgers) are still morally acceptable.

Cleaning and being used for sex are not the same thing, although both could be viewed as being degrading. The latter is far more damaging than the former.

In some cases, yes. Here in the U.S., it's not unusual to hear of educated, confident, and emotionally stable college students working as topless dancers or call girls. They can earn a lot of money per hour (as compared to working at Starbucks) and graduate from university with minimal debt.

Using the sex industry temporarily to further one's future earning capacity is very different to finding oneself within that industry through a lack of alternative options.

_Beau_

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Let's put it this way - if you cannot understand the enormous difference between selling one's body and serving food, then I for one cannot explain it to you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

_Beau_ wrote: »

Let's put it this way - if you cannot understand the enormous difference between selling one's body and serving food, then I for one cannot explain it to you.

Well you listed a number of descriptions about selling one's body which seem to apply equally to something like working in McDonalds.
So what else is there about selling one's body that's so inherently wrong that nobody should be allowed to do it?

_Beau_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're just muddying the water now.

Disclaimer: all sex workers cannot be classed in the same category. There are degrees within that industry and the dynamics involved depend on that - posing for pics being a 1 and a sex slave being a 10.

Plus, there is also the nature of female sexuality to consider (that we attract a mate primarily using our looks and exhibiting our bodies could be an extension of that).

To her, it's probably an ego boost. That's not quite the same thing as prostitution which would likely not boost one's ego, but, damage it.

_Beau_

bluewolf wrote: »

Well you listed a number of descriptions about selling one's body which seem to apply equally to something like working in McDonalds.

Selling one's body as a sex object cannot be compared to exchanging one's labour for wages.

So what else is there about selling one's body that's so inherently wrong that nobody should be allowed to do it?

Allowed to do it? That implies that women actually want to do it. I'm against legalising abuse and that's exactly what would happen should the State legalise the industry as it currently operates.

coffee_cake

_Beau_ wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because...? They're both labour, right? Exchanged for wages?

Allowed to do it? That implies that women actually want to do it.

Yes, it does.
Here are two examples already:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

_Beau_ wrote:

I'm against legalising abuse and that's exactly what would happen should the State legalise the industry as it currently operates.

I'm against abuse too. But I don't think every woman working in sex is being coerced or abused.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

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!

Example: if one looks at the labour market, men are much more likely to die or get seriously injured at work. However, this isn't highlighted as an inequality.

_Beau_ wrote: »

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

That might be considered begging the question. Currently the behaviour isn't criminal behaviour.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

But I do find it in general, a feminist analysis involves women as victims, men as those who aren't victims or who are causing women to be victims. Situations don't have to be looked at in this way e.g. there are different ways to look at the labour market on gender grounds than simply pay: as I said, men's jobs put them at more risk of death or serious injury on average, they are more likely to work in dirty environments, etc. In some ways, a prostitute's job is likely what quite a lot of men do around the world - they take on work that might be more dangerous, dirty, etc than the average job, they would be able to get given their education, labour market at the time, etc and for it, they earn more money. Except usually the people who employ the men aren't cast as villains/criminals (or virtual criminals) - the attitude is that the men are adults and free to make their own choices.

Arfan

_Beau_ wrote: »

Answer the question.

I did. You asked me to clarify and I responded by asking you to share your sources. You kept using this nameless "she" who I don't know and certainly can't verify.

If it's an unreasonable request just say so.

ihacs

ihacs wrote: »

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?

Another way of looking at it: do people think she would have married him if he just had the average/median income/assets of a pensioner? Was he exploiting her because of his wealth and her (relative) lack of it? And would it justify criminalising him?