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

_Beau_

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Says YOU. I wonder what the prostitutes would have to say on the matter?

I don't say it - the studies on prostitutes themselves that I cited throughout this thread have all found it to be true. Prostitution is traumatic and most prostitutes want to leave the industry.

Do you think that prostitutes enjoy their work? Genuine question.

_Beau_

_Beau_ wrote: »

Studies cited in the following source state that they found that although it is sometimes assumed that the prostitution of males is qualitatively different to that of females, their studies did not find that to be true. Comparing women, men and transgendered prostitutes, there was no difference in PTSD. For men, boys and the transgendered, the experience of being a prostitute was similar to that of a woman; it was no less traumatic.

Source: Farley, M., et al, (1998) ‘Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’ in Feminism and Psychology, Vol 8 (4) London: Sage at 405-425.

Prostitutes don't want to be prostitutes - you're kidding yourself if you believe that they work as prostitutes because that's what they want to do with their lives.

The question is not, should one have the choice to be a prostitute? The question is, does one have the right not to be a prostitute?

It is the poor and the desperate who usually find themselves in this industry. It is not by choice. Prostitutes in First World countries are disproportionately from poor and racially marginalised groups.

Source: Raymond, J., (1995) Report to the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women. Geneva: United Nations

Those who end up as prostitutes are likely to have been abused as children and prostitution continues this history of sexual abuse. ‘Several studies report a positive correlation between a history of childhood sexual assault and symptoms of PTSD in adult women (Farley and Keaney, 1994, 1997; Rodriguez et al., 1997). Since almost all prostituted women have histories of childhood sexual abuse, this undoubtedly contributes to their current symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Prolonged and repeated trauma usually precedes entry into prostitution. From 55 to 90 percent of those in prostitution report a childhood sexual abuse history.’

‘Women in prostitution are often sought specifically for acts that are humiliating, degrading and violent. One study found that while there is more physical violence in street, as distinct from, brothel prostitution, there is no difference in the psychological trauma. The psychological damage is intrinsic to the act of prostitution.’

PTSD was widely prevalent among prostitutes across five different countries. Despite major cultural differences, the harm caused by prostitution is not culturally bound. The traumatic experience of prostitution is a more potent variable than race, gender or the country where the person was born.

Legalising or decriminalising of prostitution would normalise prostitution; it benefits customers and pimps, not prostitutes. It would not improve the lives of the prostitutes. Apparently, legalising prostitution makes their lives worse. It puts the State in the role of the pimp, ensuring that the customers are provided with prostitutes that are HIV and STI-free.

Source: Farley, M., et al, (1998) ‘Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’ in Feminism and Psychology, Vol 8 (4) London: Sage at 405-425.

Systemised degradation inflicted on women in brothels is in many ways worse than street prostitution. Prostitutes in brothels are completely under the control of pimps and brothel owners. They’re not allowed to refuse customers. They are not allowed to choose their own physicians and are regularly sexually assaulted by physicians who practiced in brothels.

Source: Hoigard, C. and Finstad, L., (1992) Backstreets: Prostitution, Money and Love, Pennsylania: Pennsylviana State University Press.

So, what do you think? Do you think that prostitutes in Ireland would want the State to be their pimp?

_Beau_ can you please provide a bit of evidence that isn't 15-20 years old and also evidence that would relate to the independent nature of escorting in Ireland?

In the last 10 years the internet has led to a massive rise in an ability to go into business for yourself and I would imagine has hit many brothels in the pocket.

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

A person who sees it is not consenting. Two adults consenting to have sex in private is incomparable

Prostitution is not comparable to working in MacDonald's, yet, you compared them.

Fast-food employees don't suffer from PTSD and I wouldn't describe their job as being traumatic.

28064212

_Beau_ wrote: »

Prostitution is not comparable to working in MacDonald's, yet, you compared them.

They are if you're going to continue to throw out factors like socio-economic circumstances and job enjoyment

_Beau_ wrote: »

Fast-food employees don't suffer from PTSD and I wouldn't describe their job as being traumatic.

Because fast-food is not illegal and they aren't forced to work in secret for criminals

T runner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being a TD and a prostitute is not dissimalar either. In both cases someone decides to become a MP and/or perform sexual acts for econimic gain. The person can do both by getting elected and then becoming prostitute.

I think it has been asceratined and substantiated well enough that the act of prostitution is by its nature degrading for the woman.

A woman can discretely earn money from sex by becoming a call girl. This allows her to carry on an alternate life in the sex trade without producing compromising photographs or video footage that anyone (family, friends, co-workers, fellow students) could see. It also avoids the possibility of Uncle Joe coming into the strip bar while she's wrapped around a pole wearing nothing but a thong.

This hypothetical situation only describes a tiny fraction of prostutes. As teh vast majority of prostitutes in Ireland are foreign: we can safely assume that the mother wont be seeing their daughter anytime soon. Vulnerable, abused, degraded would describe a large number of prostitutes that teh average happy go lucky irish male chooses to **** for money. And this gentleman will be made a criminal very shortly. Finally treated for the scum he is TBH.

I do — but you can maintain your position only by refusing to acknowledge that an intelligent, assertive adult could consentingly engage in prostitution for her own economic gain. Your argument holds only so long as we accept your claim that every prostitute is degraded, exploited, and abused against her will.

First of all you are probably talking about a tiny minority of women in this happy 100% consenting position.

Second of all, any one of her clients can make her feel degraded. Many men who use prostitutes do generally have a distortion with how they view women. The using of the prostitute as a sex object reflects their views on women in general. If the client communicates this to the prostitute in any way: that he sees her as nothing more than a sex object, then this is degradation. She is degraded to the status of sex vessel: and she is getting paid to have sex with someone who views her as little more than an animal. That is degradation and that is outside her control.

So even in the case of your tiny majority of prostitutes who enter the trade without any underlying duress or issues: they are still degraded, and they will still have to face the psycholigical repurcussions of that.

28064212

T runner wrote: »

I think it has been asceratined and substantiated well enough that the act of prostitution is by its nature degrading for the woman.

It's been stated. That's not the same thing as being substantiated

T runner

28064212 wrote: »

Replace "prostitute" with "fast-food worker" in those three paragraphs and they all still hold true.

One should have both the right to be and not be a prostitute. They should also have the right not to be assaulted, trafficked, abused, none of which people are trying to change. They should also have the rights that other employees/self-employed people have with regard to working conditions

People should also have the right not to be degraded. If a man you are having sex with communicates to you in some way that he views you as nothing more than a sex object then that is degradation. He is viewing you as less than himself. Your personality, character, mean nothing, you are just an animal who he is using for sex. Not quite teh same attitude as someone who may look down on a McDonalds worker s it?

T runner

28064212 wrote: »

It's been stated. That's not the same thing as being substantiated

References have been given which amounts to substantiation. You could try and substantiate your arguments. Id argue that you cant.

_Beau_

Alopex wrote: »

Will you grow up and stop dodging the point. Clear you know you're wrong because you conveniently left out my quote about the soldier vessel analogy.

Are you denying that a prostitute acts as a vessel? An object? Isn't that precisely what a prostitute is?

Your soldier analogy is not apt. The work of a soldier is not sexually invasive, there is no stigma attached to that work, there is no shame in being a soldier, and they are not degraded. All of those aspect compound the trauma of being a prostitute.

I didn't dispute that for a second. I meant one study doesn't prove they suffer worse than soldiers.

All of the studies that I've cited proved that they suffer from PTSD.

Of course it matters. That's how you differentiate between correlation and causation.

Every country studied found the same results. The prevalence of PTSD is not bound by culture.

The reverse of this is that if criminalised the girls will just move to London, Amsterdam etc. You really think they're going to put up with working in mcdonalds after earning so much in prostitution? Get real.

Can you support that conjecture?

The gardai reported the normal situation in ireland is the woman keeps around half the money. If you go to escort sites they charge over 200euro per hour.

What percentage does the prostitute get?

That seems better than the street walking types. If properly legalised they'd get to keep a much higher proportion. They could just hire a security firm like anyone else to ensure their safety.

You're ignoring a vital point - prostitution is traumatic. Do you honestly believe that women want to work as prostitutes? In the studies that I cited, they found that most wanted to leave the industry.

I don't accept that as necessarily being fact. And a bunch of biased studies from the journal of women studies isn't going to change that.

Some of the studies were conducted by men, and some were carried out by women, therefore, your bias is showing in your refusal to accept their findings.

And yes I would prefer a few hours(amount required to match a soldier's pay) a week prostituting than a tour of Afghanistan. For a variety of reasons:

I don't think I could handle killing people. Be they taliban fighters or children who accidently get hit by my granade launcher when I was targeting someone else

I don't think I could deal with being blinded, maimed, loss of limbs.

I don't think I could deal with the fear of being kidknapped and tortured. Look at the Israeli guy who just got released by Hamas, he'll never be the same again.

I'm from Northern Ireland so I actually know people who've gone there. Its not at all like the MOD make it out to be in their recruitment drives.

You would genuinely rather service middle-aged men daily than go to Afghanistan on tour?

I don't believe that you understand the impact of sexual abuse on a person.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

But you’re free not to do it. Your opinion hasn’t been forced on other people who either want to earn money in the industry or who pay to use the industry.

I'm not judging those who use prostitutes; I'm simply stating the effects of prostitution on the women.

_Beau_

_Beau_ wrote: »

You would genuinely rather service middle-aged men daily than go to Afghanistan on tour?

I don't believe that you understand the impact of sexual abuse on a person.

You don't get paid 1000 euro a day for risking your life in Afghanistan.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

But not everyone agrees that if one person agrees to have sex with another person for money, it is wrong. Different people view different things as "wrong".

Sleeping with a person who would not otherwise sleep with you is unethical.

Do you enjoy having sex with someone who isn't turned on?

How is that even arousing?

Do you pretend that she's turned on, or do you just not care?

Paparazzo

_Beau_ wrote: »

Sleeping with a person who would not otherwise sleep with you is unethical.

Do you enjoy having sex with someone who isn't turned on?

How is that even arousing?

Do you pretend that she's turned on, or do you just not care?

None of those are reasons to criminalise it.

pablomakaveli

I think a more apprpriate analogy, instead of soldiers or fast-food workers, would be the example of people submitting for medical testing where new medications and cosmetics are tested on them.

They may be doing it out of financial necessity, they are providing their bodies for a fee yet it is still something they enter into of their own free will. We might think these people are mad to do this given the risks but we have no right to prevent them from doing it either.

The same could be said for prostitutes.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

But you’re free not to do it. Your opinion hasn’t been forced on other people who either want to earn money in the industry or who pay to use the industry.

I'm not judging those who use prostitutes; I'm simply stating the effects of prostitution on the women.

You're saying people who use prostitutes shouldn't be legally allowed to do it; but you also disagree with the eating dead animals industry. However, you don't get to impose your views on others in that industry or who use that industry.

28064212

T runner wrote: »

People should also have the right not to be degraded. If a man you are having sex with communicates to you in some way that he views you as nothing more than a sex object then that is degradation. He is viewing you as less than himself. Your personality, character, mean nothing, you are just an animal who he is using for sex. Not quite teh same attitude as someone who may look down on a McDonalds worker s it?

If a man walking down the street communicates to you in some way that he views you as nothing more than a sex object, what's that? And actually, I'd say someone that treats a McDonald's worker as nothing more than a conveyor belt for food is degrading them.

T runner wrote: »

References have been given which amounts to substantiation. You could try and substantiate your arguments. Id argue that you cant.

"The act of prostitution is by its nature degrading for the woman" - which reference says this? Which reference says that it is absolutely impossible for a person to accept payment for providing a sexual service without them being degraded?

_Beau_ wrote: »

Are you denying that a prostitute acts as a vessel? An object? Isn't that precisely what a prostitute is?

Are you denying that a fast-food-worker acts as a food transporter? An object? Isn't that precisely what a fast-food-worker is?

_Beau_ wrote: »

I don't believe that you understand the impact of sexual abuse on a person.

I don't believe you've shown that prostitution = sexual abuse.

_Beau_ wrote: »

Sleeping with a person who would not otherwise sleep with you is unethical.

Why? Is it more unethical than being brought food by someone who would not otherwise do it? What about being massaged?

Can either of you answer this question for me:

28064212 wrote: »

If a person decides, competely informed and of her own free will, that, rather than work in McDonalds or go on the dole, she would like to be a prostitute. She was not coerced, she was not trafficked, she is not on drugs, she employs herself, she was not abused as a child, she practices sex that is as safe as possible and she has no objections to whether clients see her as a sex object or not. Should what she wants to do be illegal? Why?

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

Sleeping with a person who would not otherwise sleep with you is unethical.

Do you enjoy having sex with someone who isn't turned on?

How is that even arousing?

Do you pretend that she's turned on, or do you just not care?

Tbh that can happen to a lot of couples who fall out of love with each other or lose interest.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

Do you enjoy having sex with someone who isn't turned on?

How is that even arousing?

Do you pretend that she's turned on, or do you just not care?

I thought I'd make it clear in a separate post that I have never used a prostitute.

This sort of questioning shows to me why men might be reluctant to properly engage in a discussion on prostitution in the real world. So one ends up with a one-sided debate.

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

But not everyone agrees that if one person agrees to have sex with another person for money, it is wrong. Different people view different things as "wrong".

Sleeping with a person who would not otherwise sleep with you is unethical.

But we don't impose that as law in other circumstances e.g. marriage, where one person can have a lot more assets or income than others. We don't specify that the only people who can marry each other are people with a similar amount of assets or income.

Also, many people might say where there is a difference in the assets going into a marriage, or during the marriage, each is at least partly exploiting the other - the exploitation is not one way.

rodento

I always wondered what would happen to prositutes and their families if you suddenly cut off their bread line.

Do people care that they'll be making people suffer even more

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

I consider this discussion is artificial if the only view allowed in it is that the only women in society who have sex with others to obtain money or material benefits are prostitutes.

And it's not just me who believe some other women behave in this way. Women will sometimes use the word "gold-digger" to describe a particular woman.

Wealthy women also marry young, attractive men. Are those men prostitutes?

As for it not just being you who believes that, that does not make something true.

Many people believe that the world is a few thousand years old, for instance.

And there are different ways to look at it in terms of who is exploiting who in such a relationship.

And we don't ban such relationships. We don't say, "you're a vulnerable woman, we think you may be at a vulnerable point in your life and shouldn't be allowed marry such a man". Nor do we criminalise the man.

It's not prostitution.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

It's not prostitution.

Is it your position that you don't like the idea of prostitution at all? How do you feel about homosexual sex?

I'd suggest that if you don't like it, you don't do it - but let other consenting adults decide for themselves what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

_Beau_

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

_Beau_ can you please provide a bit of evidence that isn't 15-20 years old and also evidence that would relate to the independent nature of escorting in Ireland?

The studies that I cited were carried out internationally over a twenty year period and the effects of prostitution were not affected by culture nor country. The date on the calendar has no impact upon its effects. If you have citations that refute the findings that I have posted, feel free to share them.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Seeing as _Beau_ won't answer my question, maybe you can: If there were to be a poll taken of all prostitutes in Ireland today, do you think any would be in favour of making the practice illegal?

I don't. I believe there would be a landslide victory for keeping the practice legal. So in essence you are saying that you know better than the women and men who are employed in the industry. And to be frank, you don't.

That's conjecture. Do you have any evidence to support it?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

I consider this discussion is artificial if the only view allowed in it is that the only women in society who have sex with others to obtain money or material benefits are prostitutes.

And it's not just me who believe some other women behave in this way. Women will sometimes use the word "gold-digger" to describe a particular woman.

Wealthy women also marry young, attractive men. Are those men prostitutes?

As for it not just being you who believes that, that does not make something true.

Many people believe that the world is a few thousand years old, for instance.

The alternative position is that nobody has ever been influenced by the assets or income of the person they are going to marry and would marry them no matter what their assets or income. It's a difficult thing to prove. I suspect the group of people who would honestly say that they believe that in every marriage that has ever taken place, the couple would have got married if one person's assets had been similar to the other person's would be a smaller group than those who believe there have been marriages which might not have taken place if it were not for one person having more assets or income than the other.

Examples that might come up when discussing this are Anna Nicole Smith (young model) and the octogenarian millionaire, "mail order" brides, etc.

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

One should have both the right to be and not be a prostitute. They should also have the right not to be assaulted, trafficked, abused, none of which people are trying to change. They should also have the rights that other employees/self-employed people have with regard to working conditions

80% of women who work in brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked. Between 70 and 90 percent of prostitutes are assaulted and abused, whether it's legal or not. Legalising it does not stop decrease the incidents of assault and abuse.

As for working conditions, servicing men that one wouldn't otherwise have sex with is pretty much a fundamental part of the job, so I'm not sure how you would propose to improve that condition.

_Beau_

28064212 wrote: »

Because fast-food is not illegal and they aren't forced to work in secret for criminals

Secrecy and working for criminals leads to PTSD?

What a bizarre claim.

Prove it. I'm confident that you cannot.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

80% of women who work in brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked.

Source? Are you distinguishing between trafficked women and women who travel to work in the far better and safer Dutch market?

I once sat in a Dutch police station waiting in a line to report a stolen bag. The woman ahead of me in the queue was a prostitute who wanted to ask the police what were the formalities required for a friend of hers from her home country (in Eastern Europe) to come to work in the Dutch sex industry. Was she trafficking her friend?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

And there are different ways to look at it in terms of who is exploiting who in such a relationship.

And we don't ban such relationships. We don't say, "you're a vulnerable woman, we think you may be at a vulnerable point in your life and shouldn't be allowed marry such a man". Nor do we criminalise the man.

It's not prostitution.

What is the distinction? If the man wouldn't have given her things if she would never have sex with him and the woman wouldn't have married the man if he had the same assets as her and wouldn't be in position to transfer some of his assets to her, what is the difference with prostitution? Is it that this exchange is ok inside marriage but isn't ok outside of marriage?

anymore

_Beau_ wrote: »

The State is obliged to legislate to protect people, that's why we have speed limits, laws regarding assault and bodily harm, children's rights, protection of the elderly and the vulnerable and so on.

Prostitution is a form of abuse and prostitutes require protection.

As for interfering, it is illegal to have sex in public. Is the State interfering there?

Quite often, I must put it to you, that it is prostitues who are exploiting people - there is a tendency to portray prostitues as always being poor oppressed women suffering mercilessly at the hands of crueal men. Our court recrds indicate that this is not always the case. It suits the feminists lobby of course -

_Beau_

Paparazzo wrote: »

None of those are reasons to criminalise it.

If a woman is not enjoying the sexual experience, and she is in an inferior position to the man, and she relies on this transaction to survive, and is psychologically damaged by this line of work and he has sex with her and doesn't care that she's not aroused, and feels no empathy for her emotional wellbeing, and uses her as an object, then I'm afraid to inform you but those are valid reasons to criminalise a client.