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

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

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.

What are the psychological effects of these tests on volunteers?

The psychological, emotional and physical effects of prostitution make a fair argument for criminalising the client.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

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

What if she relies on the transaction to earn a 6-figure tax-free income with no special skills, education or training?

The rest of your post is poppycock. You could make the same arguments about casual one night stands in Copper Face Jack's - should we criminalise that too?

anymore

_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?

I dont disagree with your basic premise about not wanting to be prostitutes, but the same applies to many who spend thier lives working as labourers on building sites or as cleaners doing what society sees as menial work. Frankly there are women who choose not to do this sort of hard physical and often debilitating kind of work. I have never seen the feminists of the world complaining too much about the people who do the kind of dirty menial work they themselves wouldn't do for a living.

28064212

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

Sources?

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

Obviously, the fundamental part is not what I'm talking about. When prostitution is illegal, a prostitute is not entitled to a safe working environment. They're not entitled to health benefits, they're not entitled to the things that you take for granted in your workplace. Legalising and regulating means that they can be provided with these things.

_Beau_ wrote: »

Secrecy and working for criminals leads to PTSD?

What a bizarre claim.

Prove it. I'm confident that you cannot.

Prove that having sex for money causes it. You haven't yet.

Having sex for money where it's illegal and the industry is in the hands of criminals and prostitutes have no legal protection, yes, I'll accept that increases instances of PTSD.

Any chance you could provide an answer to this question btw?

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?

Paparazzo

_Beau_ wrote: »

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.

Because one partner might not enjoy sex as much as the other, it's no reason to ban it. Go to ranting and raving. Most people in the retail industry hate customers, but they do their job because they have to.
Why stop at sex? Any action where everyone in the group isn't enjoying it on the same level should be banned? Ikea would close down tomorrow!

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

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.

I don't impose my views on those who eat meat; they're free to do whatever they choose, as long as its legal.

28064212 wrote: »

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?

Yes. Unlike prostitution, serving food is not traumatic.

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

I have. Read the studies that I cited.

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

The effects of prostitution don't compare to the effects of serving food. The customer is not invading the body of the employee who serves them food.

Can either of you answer this question for me:

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?

Do we make laws to suit one person? If not, why not?

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

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.

I thought that you were the chap who had disclosed being a sex addict who used prostitutes?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

ihacs wrote:

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.

I don't impose my views on those who eat meat; they're free to do whatever they choose, as long as its legal.

It's only legal because people who disagree with, like yourself, have not been allowed make it become illegal; they/you have not been allowed force their/your views on others so that others can't either earn money from the industry or enjoy the industry because it gives them sensual pleasure. Instead, it can exist, but you don't have to either avail of the industry or take part.

28064212

_Beau_ wrote: »

Yes. Unlike prostitution, serving food is not traumatic.

A claim you have yet to substantiate

_Beau_ wrote: »

I have. Read the studies that I cited.

I've read some of them, some I don't have access to. Can you post some stats/info that shows accepting sex in exchange for money is sexual abuse? Note: shows that this is the sole cause. Not working in a criminal industry, not assault, not drugs. Exchanging money for sex

_Beau_ wrote: »

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?

Do we make laws to suit one person? If not, why not?

What does one person have to do with anything? There could be one person exactly like that, there could be one million. The number is totally irrelevant.

So any chance you could actually answer the question instead of dodging it?

ihacs

_Beau_ wrote: »

I thought that you were the chap who had disclosed being a sex addict who used prostitutes?

Another example of how dangerous it would be to have such a discussion in the real world.

I said I believe men generally have been landed with an addiction, for want of a better word, to sex (basically I believe we are born with it, but it doesn't kick in till puberty which is why I use the wording "landed with"). So not just a few men, but men generally. I said this in the context of why I look at the issue differently from you. I never mentioned using prostitutes myself because I haven't.

Dr Galen

Is it possible that soem people do not view sex as the invasive and emotional that others do? I've known quite a few people over the years that view sex as little more than a body function like breathing, and have often had sex in less than ideal circumstances simply to get "it" out of their system?

Geekness1234

Just a quick question,what about escourts?

Monty Burnz

Dr Galen wrote: »

Is it possible that soem people do not view sex as the invasive and emotional that others do? I've known quite a few people over the years that view sex as little more than a body function like breathing, and have often had sex in less than ideal circumstances simply to get "it" out of their system?

Yes it is. But some people will insist on restraining such people with their own version of morality and restricting their freedom to make their own decisions.

Dr Galen

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Just a quick question,what about escourts?

same thing

anymore

Dr Galen wrote: »

Is it possible that soem people do not view sex as the invasive and emotional that others do? I've known quite a few people over the years that view sex as little more than a body function like breathing, and have often had sex in less than ideal circumstances simply to get "it" out of their system?

I suggest that more sex is treated as just another every day recreational activity, the more valid is that point. Frankly, seeing a couple copulating late at night down some side street, is not as unusual now as once it would have been.
There seems to be an element of having thier cake and eating as regards sex these days.

Dr Galen

anymore wrote: »

I suggest that more sex is treated as just another every day recreational activity, the more valid is that point. Frankly, seeing a couple copulating late at night down some side street, is not as unusual now as once it would have been.
There seems to be an element of having thier cake and eating as regards sex these days.

Cake and hookers? :eek::p

I'm not sure I get you though?

anymore

Dr Galen wrote: »

Cake and hookers? :eek::p

I'm not sure I get you though?

Excuse the clumsy phrasing - failing eyesight.
You know the phrase ' having your cake and eating it ?
Well if sex is now such an inconsequential thing, something without much significance and to be indulged for recreational purposes as and when one pleases, then maybe the selling of it may be thought of as less serious or significant as it once might have been.

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

What are the psychological effects of these tests on volunteers?

The psychological, emotional and physical effects of prostitution make a fair argument for criminalising the client.

They can suffer physically if they have a bad reaction to the substance being tested on them. Yet they know the risks and choose to do so.

pablomakaveli

Dr Galen wrote: »

Is it possible that soem people do not view sex as the invasive and emotional that others do? I've known quite a few people over the years that view sex as little more than a body function like breathing, and have often had sex in less than ideal circumstances simply to get "it" out of their system?

I get the impression from her posts that Beau views sex as something that degrades a woman. My view of sex is that it can be as meaningful or as meaningless as a person wants it to be.

If a prostitute views the sex with the guy whos paying her as being meaningless sex then how would it leave her with PTSD.

In fact doesn't one have to go through severe trauma to get PTSD in the first place?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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.

My position is that prostitution has been proven to be detrimental to the health and psychological wellbeing of prostitutes.

When an occupation has been proven to be psychologically damaging, it's not simply a case of 'let other consenting adults decide for themselves'. The State is obliged to protect those people.

Are you against criminalising Johns? If so, why?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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?

The document here explains how Dutch laws have accommodated trafficking by also allowing sex workers to enter the country.

anymore

_Beau_ wrote: »

My position is that prostitution has been proven to be detrimental to the health and psychological wellbeing of prostitutes.

When an occupation has been proven to be psychologically damaging, it's not simply a case of 'let other consenting adults decide for themselves'. The State is obliged to protect those people.

Are you against criminalising Johns? If so, why?

It is very clear that many who sell drugs at street level would fall into the same kinds of categories as prostitutes, i.e they tend to be vulnerable individuals, many will be addicted ti drugs, some may be indebted to drug sellers themselves and in fear of their9er lives. So logically and to be consistent, we should criminalise the purchasers of the drugs these vulnerable people are selling. except that doesnt happen, does it < In fact as we saw in the not too distant past, well heeled purchasers of drugs are almost raised to 'Saint Hood' and our Public Broadcaster completely ignores it pubic duty remit and even censors itself.

BlackRoom

Most pro's i've been with enjoy their job. The hours are good, they travel europe and they make some decent cash.

_Beau_

ihacs wrote: »

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?

Describing a wealthy man as a pimp and his bride as a prostitute is a bizarre and judgemental view of their marriage.

Paul McCartney has just married a young attractive woman. Is her her pimp?

pablomakaveli

_Beau_ wrote: »

My position is that prostitution has been proven to be detrimental to the health and psychological wellbeing of prostitutes.

When an occupation has been proven to be psychologically damaging, it's not simply a case of 'let other consenting adults decide for themselves'. The State is obliged to protect those people.

Are you against criminalising Johns? If so, why?

People working as soldiers and police officers can suffer psychologically in their occupations. Should they be stopped from working too.

And before you say those examples are not like prostitution take note of what you say in the quote in bold above.

_Beau_

anymore wrote: »

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 -

Can you prove any of that?

_Beau_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What if she relies on the transaction to earn a 6-figure tax-free income with no special skills, education or training?

The rest of your post is poppycock. You could make the same arguments about casual one night stands in Copper Face Jack's - should we criminalise that too?

If the man paid for it, yes.

Why are against criminalising clients?

_Beau_

anymore wrote: »

I dont disagree with your basic premise about not wanting to be prostitutes, but the same applies to many who spend thier lives working as labourers on building sites or as cleaners doing what society sees as menial work. Frankly there are women who choose not to do this sort of hard physical and often debilitating kind of work. I have never seen the feminists of the world complaining too much about the people who do the kind of dirty menial work they themselves wouldn't do for a living.

Is the work traumatising? That's the premise for my argument.

Monty Burnz

_Beau_ wrote: »

Can you prove any of that?

What right do you have to demand proof when you have been asked for proof of the statistics you posted earlier and you just ignored it?

_Beau_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

People working as soldiers and police officers can suffer psychologically in their occupations. Should they be stopped from working too.

And before you say those examples are not like prostitution take note of what you say in the quote in bold above.

I'm not pro-military action; I'm a pacifist.

You continually ignore the sexually invasive nature of prostitution.