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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

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.

You're forgetting that I did mention ethics. How would money be extorted from him unless he had behaved in a way that was either illegal or unethical? As it is legal to pay for sex, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that they can extort money from him?

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, 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.

Why are you mentioning feminism?

As for the rest of what you said, I would view a male sex worker no differently to his female counterpart, in that, they're both likely victims of their circumstances. I'm not claiming that female sex workers are victims simply because of their gender.

Assuming that they're responsible for their choices, would be like assuming that the poor are fully responsible for being poor. It neglects to acknowledge the reality that some people are simply born into circumstances that lead them into undesirable life choices and that their circumstances are the culprit, not their choices, because their choices are rather limited. The same can be said of any sex worker, regardless of their gender.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

You're forgetting that I did mention ethics. How would money be extorted from him unless he had behaved in a way that was either illegal or unethical? As it is legal to pay for sex, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that they can extort money from him?

The scenario was that under law in Sweden, she wouldn't be committing a crime by selling sex but he would be. So then she could rob him and he'd be less likely to report it as he would be implicating himself in a crime while she wouldn't by definition be taking part in a crime.

And in possibly a better example, she could blackmail him with photos of them engaging in the act, for example, and he would know that if the photos were passed on to the police, she wouldn't get in trouble. So she could pass them on to others to extort money from him (or do it herself).

_Beau_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The two activities are very different and that needs to be acknowledged. Comparing them on the basis of their motivation alone would be narrow-minded and it would be similar to comparing a person going into politics to person cleaning public toilets for a living because the motivation behind their behaviour is no different - to earn money carrying out services for the public. Can you say that being an elected member of the Dail is no different to being a public toilet cleaner? It may appear inconsistent to you to apply different moral standards, but, that's only because you're dismissing the differences between the two activities.

In fact, a woman might prefer the second route because it offers greater privacy — if she poses for photos, there's a much greater chance of friends and family seeing them in magazines or online.

I'm assuming that you're male? Given the choice, I'd imagine that most women would choose the former as its less invasive.

Any woman who goes to a nightclub in a short skirt and low-cut top is exhibiting her legs and breasts in the hopes of attracting a mate. Should that be banned, too?

Why should that be banned? Do you understand why I would be against legalising prostitution?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Why are you mentioning feminism?

Your analysis of the situation seemed liked a feminist one.

The Turn Off the Blue Light group's analysis of the situation is that feminists are one of the two groups who are putting information and analysis out they disagree with/view as problematic/incorrect:

We aim to raise awareness of the reality of sex work in Ireland, put forward constructive ways of dealing with the problems that exist, and counter the false information currently being put out there by organisations with religious and radical feminist agendas on prostitution.

(from http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/about/ )

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

The scenario was that under law in Sweden, she wouldn't be committing a crime by selling sex but he would be. So then she could rob him and he'd be less likely to report it as he would be implicating himself in a crime while she wouldn't by definition be taking part in a crime.

And in possibly a better example, she could blackmail him with photos of them engaging in the act, for example, and he would know that if the photos were passed on to the police, she wouldn't get in trouble. So she could pass them on to others to extort money from him (or do it herself).

Again, a person whose criminal behaviour lead to further criminal behaviour cannot really claim to be a victim as the extortion that he experienced would have been a direct result of his own (criminal) behaviour.

It would be like me breaking into a person's house and being bitten by the house owner's dog and then claiming to be a victim because the dog bit me.

Does that makes sense?

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Your analysis of the situation seemed liked a feminist one.

The Turn Off the Blue Light group's analysis of the situation is that feminists are one of the two groups who are putting information and analysis out they disagree with/view as problematic/incorrect:

I have no affiliation with any group, movement or NGO and I'd rather not have my views compared to those of any group, movement or NGO simply because the similarities between our views are coincidental.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

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, 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.

As for the rest of what you said, I would view a male sex worker no differently to his female counterpart, in that, they're both likely victims of their circumstances. I'm not claiming that female sex workers are victims simply because of their gender.

Assuming that they're responsible for their choices, would be like assuming that the poor are fully responsible for being poor. It neglects to acknowledge the reality that some people are simply born into circumstances that lead them into undesirable life choices and that their circumstances are the culprit, not their choices, because their choices are rather limited. The same can be said of any sex worker, regardless of their gender.

But you haven't explicitly said that many men who do other dangerous jobs e.g. working at a height, working in the military, working in mines, etc are victims of circumstances.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

The scenario was that under law in Sweden, she wouldn't be committing a crime by selling sex but he would be. So then she could rob him and he'd be less likely to report it as he would be implicating himself in a crime while she wouldn't by definition be taking part in a crime.

And in possibly a better example, she could blackmail him with photos of them engaging in the act, for example, and he would know that if the photos were passed on to the police, she wouldn't get in trouble. So she could pass them on to others to extort money from him (or do it herself).

Again, a person whose criminal behaviour lead to further criminal behaviour cannot really claim to be a victim as the extortion that he experienced would have been a direct result of his own (criminal) behaviour.

It would be like me breaking into a person's house and being bitten by the house owner's dog and then claiming to be a victim because the dog bit me.

Does that makes sense?

It's ignoring the fact that currently it's not a crime what the man is doing. So not alone does the change in the law have a direct effect, it also has some indirect effects. It is perhaps comparable to alcohol being made illegal in the future - one could look at indirect effects as well as direct effects of what might happen to people.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

But you haven't explicitly said that many men who do other dangerous jobs e.g. working at a height, working in the military, working in mines, etc are victims of circumstances.

Of course they are. What is your point?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Of course they are. What is your point?

We don't say the people who employ them should be criminalised.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

It's ignoring the fact that currently it's not a crime what the man is doing. So not alone does the change in the law have a direct effect, it also has some indirect effects. It is perhaps comparable to alcohol being made illegal in the future - one could look at indirect effects as well as direct effects of what might happen to people.

You've lost me now. I thought that you said that it was illegal (in Sweden?).

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

We don't say the people who employ them should be criminalised.

You don't seem to understand why I'm against legalising prostitution in Ireland. The mistreatment of workers would likely remain, as a culture like that would be difficult to change, and the State would essentially be legalising that mistreatment.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

It's ignoring the fact that currently it's not a crime what the man is doing. So not alone does the change in the law have a direct effect, it also has some indirect effects. It is perhaps comparable to alcohol being made illegal in the future - one could look at indirect effects as well as direct effects of what might happen to people.

You've lost me now. I thought that you said that it was illegal (in Sweden?).

Men buying sex isn't currently a crime. If the same laws as are in Sweden were adopted, it would be a crime. So one would look at the direct and indirect effects this could have. If alcohol was criminalised, some people would still continue using it and this might cause extra problems e.g. perhaps extortion might happen, with photos of them being taken consuming alcohol (to try to make the analogy as close as possible). If it were the case that somebody wouldn't get in trouble for selling alcohol, only customers would get in trouble, there could be an added risk of extortion. This might be comparable to the situation in Sweden where the prostitute is not seen as committing an offence.

goose2005

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

I thought it was that they needed the money and selling sex for €200 an hour was a more attractive prospect than gutting fish for €200 a week. In any case, other people's self-esteem is not my responsibility.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

You don't seem to understand why I'm against legalising prostitution in Ireland. The mistreatment of workers would likely remain, as a culture like that would be difficult to change, and the State would essentially be legalising that mistreatment.

But one could say asking somebody to be potentially shot or maimed or exposing somebody to the horrors of war is legalising mistreatment - but that's what people can happen to people who feel forced through circumstances to enter the military. Similarly mining work, security work, etc. In the service industry, one will be "mistreated" by customers. It's a vague term.

Alopex

ihacs wrote: »

But one could say asking somebody to be potentially shot or maimed or exposing somebody to the horrors of war is legalising mistreatment - but that's what people can happen to people who feel forced through circumstances to enter the military. Similarly mining work, security work, etc. In the service industry, one will be "mistreated" by customers. It's a vague term.

That's a good point. It would be genuine struggle for me to choose between becoming a prostitute for 6 months earning 1000 euro a week cash in hand from 10-12 hours of work or going on a 6-month tour of Afghanistan for about 18K.

Both would be horrific but thousands of people join the army.

Just heard Mary White (FF senator) said this

“Within my own party I have seen decisions being made too hastily to criminalise purchasers of sex” she said.

“Realistically, this has been going on since the beginning of time. We have to face reality. I am not condoning it, but since the beginning of time sex has been purchased.

“There is a case for saying that women are perhaps being protected from rape because in some countries, prostitution is legalised.”

Wonder did she mean the prostitutes themselves or women in general, from the way she worded it looks to me like she meant the latter, which is a very taboo claim.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

Men buying sex isn't currently a crime. If the same laws as are in Sweden were adopted, it would be a crime. So one would look at the direct and indirect effects this could have...

There is no risk of extortion - unless, of course, a man breaks the Law and that is the bottom line, just as there is no risk of my arm being bitten by a house owner's dog while breaking into it until I choose to break into that house.

One cannot wilfully break the Law and then claim to be a victim because one's criminal actions lead to further criminal behaviour being inflicted upon them.

As for direct and indirect effects of adopting Sweden's laws - the first thing that springs to my mind is that those who are being trafficked can go to the police without the threat of being prosecuted themselves.

Surely the protection of the women within the industry is what's important, not the protection of men from the possible outcome of using these women.

_Beau_

goose2005 wrote: »

I thought it was that they needed the money and selling sex for €200 an hour was a more attractive prospect than gutting fish for €200 a week.

Prostitutes in the UK are paid £30 for half an hour. They get a percentage of that. In all probability, women in Ireland are paid much the same. Where are you getting this €200 figure from?

In any case, other people's self-esteem is not my responsibility.

That's a random comment to make and I don't understand what ties that to this topic.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

But one could say asking somebody to be potentially shot or maimed or exposing somebody to the horrors of war is legalising mistreatment - but that's what people can happen to people who feel forced through circumstances to enter the military. Similarly mining work, security work, etc. In the service industry, one will be "mistreated" by customers. It's a vague term.

I'm not referring to customers - I'm talking about the prostitutes employers.

_Beau_

Alopex wrote:

Just heard Mary White (FF senator) said this:

“There is a case for saying that women are perhaps being protected from rape because in some countries, prostitution is legalised.”

A taboo claim? Evidence doesn't support that myth. Men generally don't rape because they're horny - they rape because they want to rape. It's about sexual dominance rather than "normal" sexual desire.

_Beau_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said 'most', which is true.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Originally Posted by ihacs
But one could say asking somebody to be potentially shot or maimed or exposing somebody to the horrors of war is legalising mistreatment - but that's what people can happen to people who feel forced through circumstances to enter the military. Similarly mining work, security work, etc. In the service industry, one will be "mistreated" by customers. It's a vague term.

I'm not referring to customers - I'm talking about the prostitutes employers.

Are madams, for example, generally terrible? What about if collectives were set up? I'm not sure it has to be the case the employers would always be abusive.

Also, I wouldn't have a fondness for the military being my employers.

Arfan

Evidence doesn't support that myth.

What evidence?

*Also you can edit posts rather than having to reply to each one individually.

Alopex

_Beau_ wrote: »

A taboo claim? Evidence doesn't support that myth. Men generally don't rape because they're horny - they rape because they want to rape. It's about sexual dominance rather than "normal" sexual desire.

Edit your post. It looks like I said that. I was quoting Mary White

And yes, obviously. That's why I think she's mental to have said such a thing.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

There is no risk of extortion - unless, of course, a man breaks the Law and that is the bottom line

This is going around in circles so I'm going to spend much time replying. There clearly is a higher risk of extortion (a point another person brought up initially) if the law was changed - who knows what the magnitude of this increased risk is. What I am saying in general is that there can be both direct and indirect effects of a change in the law.

If a new law (I don't know - like some sort of driving offence like not wearing your seat belt in the back seats (don't claim this is a good example, just an example of something which changed)), was going some big indirect effect, that could be considered relevant to the discussion. It would not simply be the case that because the person had broken the new law, one has no sympathy for them. One looks at things on a case by case basis.

_Beau_

Arfan wrote: »

What evidence?

Studies carried out on rapists.

You're still avoiding my question from earlier.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

This is going around in circles so I'm going to spend much time replying. There clearly is a higher risk of extortion (a point another person brought up initially) if the law was changed - who knows what the magnitude of this increased risk is. What I am saying in general is that there can be both direct and indirect effects of a change in the law.

You're missing the fundamental benefit of such a law - protection of women within the industry.

If a man is willing to risk having money extorted from him just so that he can cum, then let him take that risk.

Arfan

_Beau_ wrote: »

Studies carried out on rapists.

You're still avoiding my question from earlier.

Answered on page four!

Also I would like to read these studies please.