Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should prostitution be legalised? Or what...
Comments
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Out of interest could you let me know what my case is?
I am talking about any case against the idea of legalizing and regulating prostitution.jonniebgood1 wrote: »We have to deal in reality.
Indeed and as I said the reality is that we can not indict an industry with the crimes of people emulating that industry in the Black Market.
The Cigarette industry is not guilty of the crimes of the touts selling Black Market versions on Henry Street in Dublin. The clothing industry is not guilty of the crimes of those who use child slave labor to produce clothes. The Prostitution industry is not guilty of the crimes of those who would kidnap and traffic human beings.
That is the reality, and as you yourself say you have to deal with it.
The question on the table should be whether prostitution in and of itself should be considered moral/immoral, legal/illegal, right/wrong or whatever way you want to frame it. Currently I know of no legitimate arguments against it and I think it perfectly moral, right and I think it should be fully legal and regulated like any service industry, with all the taxes, worker protection and more that come with that status.
If that decision has side effects then we need to deal with them. IF (and I highlight the IF there because your report establishes the possibility NOT the fact) one of those side effects is an increase in Human Trafficking then we need to deal with that. What we do not need to do is indict the genuine, above board, legitimate industry with the crimes committed by others however.
So the onus of proof you imagine is just that. Imagined.jonniebgood1 wrote: »it is clearly something that needs to be considered beforehand and dealt with before any legislation.
Here we are in agreement, and I think from the last reply to me Corinthian is too. Reports like the one you linked to are not arguments against prostitution but are still massively useful information. They tell us what the side effects of us doing what otherwise is the RIGHT thing will be and so we can, in advance and "beforehand" take steps to deal with and minimize the impact of these effects.
The point I keep making and repeat once again here is that we can not indict prostitution itself with these side effects, but instead the right thing to do would be to proceed with legalization and regulation and ALSO proceed with measures, steps and protocols for dealing with the criminals that would take advantage of our choices.
What I can not abide is letting criminals dictate to us what we should be doing, especially when everything else suggests it to be the right and moral thing to do.0 -
Well you did really; while it did not change my mind on the subject on balance, I will readily admit that it has moved me ever so slightly against legalization. It appears to have made no difference to you whatsoever, which is why I feel you have completely dismissed it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »^ I do not completely dismiss it though.
That's not true. As I already said, you are never going to find a perfect solution, only the best or sometimes simply the least worst.jonniebgood1 wrote: »You are correct- it is only one aspect but it needs to be dealt with by those who are pro- legalising. It is normal that if we want to change a law such as this that we need to show how trafficking in this example would not increase.
For example, 'no fault' divorce can be shown to lead to an increase the rate of marital breakup in a society. However on balance it is deemed to be better available than not. Using your logic, where we would need to first eliminate the negative consequences of its introduction regardless of its merits on balance, divorce would still be illegal in Ireland today.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well you did really; while it did not change my mind on the subject on balance, I will readily admit that it has moved me ever so slightly against legalization. It appears to have made no difference to you whatsoever, which is why I feel you have completely dismissed it.
Not sure what else to say. I have explained exactly what I think the importance of such a report is, how it can be applied, and how it should influence us going forward. That is the exact opposite of dismissing it. So if you want to think I am dismissing it anyway, that is entirely your choice. It seems however you are misconstruing my applying of the report in a different way to you as being synonymous with dismissing the report entirely.0 -
Just to qualify my previous response. Naturally negative consequences of any policy should be considered and, if possible, the policy be amended to limit them. However the merits of a policy should be assessed on the aggregate merits and demerits it will bring, rather than focusing on a single consequence.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Here we are in agreement, and I think from the last reply to me Corinthian is too.
Fair enough, I just found it strange that it seemingly made no difference to your position whatsoever. It didn't change my own position, but that does not mean it had no effect either.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not sure what else to say. I have explained exactly what I think the importance of such a report is, how it can be applied, and how it should influence us going forward. That is the exact opposite of dismissing it. So if you want to think I am dismissing it anyway, that is entirely your choice. It seems however you are misconstruing my applying of the report in a different way to you as being synonymous with dismissing the report entirely.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Naturally negative consequences of any policy should be considered and, if possible, the policy be amended to limit them.
That's pretty much what I am saying too. Almost precisely my position.
To put my position a little clearer, I think it important to distinguish between data that is a direct argument against a policy... and arguments for things to watch out for / account for when you implement a policy.
The actions of criminals are almost never, to me, an argument against doing the right thing. Reports like the one we speak of are great because they highlight just what kind of criminal activity we should prepare for, design our policy to combat and so forth.
An argument against doing the policy itself however I do not think it is at all and it sways me not a jot towards thinking legalizing and regulating prostitution is not the right thing to do. That is not equivalent to dismissing or ignoring the report however. It is just about where I apply the implications of that report.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
I am talking about any case against the idea of legalizing and regulating prostitution.Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
Out of interest could you let me know what my case is?
Yes and for the record that is not a case I am arguing against. If you look at my OP and indeed subsequent posts you will see that. What I have done is try to look at the question objectively give the large amount of people who agree on one side in the poll.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Yes and for the record that is not a case I am arguing against. If you look at my OP and indeed subsequent posts you will see that. What I have done is try to look at the question objectively give the large amount of people who agree on one side in the poll.
Indeed, and a good endeavor it is too.
The issue is for me that I can not find any arguments against prostitution to base an opinion that it should be considered immoral or made illegal. All I seem to come across... objectively.... are arguments for the benefits of making it legal and regulated.
The counter arguments I do hear are rarely rational or objective. They are usually arguments that declare prostitution to be immoral and hence bad. Or arguments based on a personal opinion of what sex "should" be. I would like to hear objective rational arguments from the "other" side, but alas they are not forthcoming.
The report you linked is a good one, but more as a warning on what to expect when legalizing and regulating prostitution, and the kind of things we should be prepared to deal with.0 -
The question on the table should be whether prostitution in and of itself should be considered moral/immoral, legal/illegal, right/wrong or whatever way you want to frame it.
The above seems to conflict with this:The counter arguments I do hear are rarely rational or objective. They are usually arguments that declare prostitution to be immoral and hence bad. Or arguments based on a personal opinion of what sex "should" be. I would like to hear objective rational arguments from the "other" side, but alas they are not forthcoming.
Prostitution is the sale of sex so in order for one to argue rationally on this, the definition of sex has to be defined. Is it a purely physical act? Is it a physical act that involves the emotions / mind / (soul in my case)? I would be interested to hear your definition of sex because we all have one.
For the moment I am going to examine sex from a purely physical activity and as a transaction it all sounds reasonable and rational. However, this too has its problems. Say I am a punter looking for a woman to have sex with. We strike a deal where I pay her X amount for half an hour of her time which can include full sex, blow jobs and hand jobs but no anal. That has been the agreement but I decide I want to have anal so I force it on her. I achieve this through the element of surprise because I know I want anal but she doesn't. That is a breach of contract, now one could counter argue that contracts get broken all the time, which is true but in this instance not only would I be breaching a contract I would be physically raping someone which is breaking the law and causing potential injury to her body because she has not been prepared properly.
If one then considers the emotional impact as well, she will feel dehumanised and powerless along with the accompanying emotions that rape victims feel.
Now one could argue that in a regulated brothel I could be kicked out or banned from returning but let's say I am powerful and influential client who brings in a large number of customers. If they have a go at me I can easily threaten them that I will ensure none of my friends / clients will visit the brothel. The likehood is that the management will acquiese as they are in the business of making money and will ignore the breach of contract. The woman in question will have a choice of shut up or ship out.
Now one could counter argue that a regulated industry would not operate in this manner well I can tell you that an example of regulation gone wrong is the banking industry here in Ireland. The banks pushed their weight around with government and the regulator and its the little man on the street that is paying the price. Regulated prostitutes will not get a look in so a regulated prostituted industry sounds good in theory, in reality it won't work.
In terms of the impact of regulated prostitution on society and the local environment, below is an excerpt from http://www.lauraagustin.com/whats-happening-in-amsterdam-an-independent-view.
"1. The Amsterdam Red Light District (Walletjes): Project 1012
On 5 December 2008, the City of Amsterdam presented a ‘strategy paper’ with a set of plans that will have a huge impact on the Red Light District. The Coalition project 1012 (named after the postal code of the inner city) aims to make the area safer, more attractive and more liveable. The two main reasons:
During the last decade, the inner city has become more and more under the influence of organised crime.
The inner city needs a quality impulse, to upgrade the entrance of Amsterdam (from Central Station to Dam square).
Crime
The argument is this: prostitution is not criminal, but the social and economic structure of prostitution give criminals opportunities. Therefore prostitution shall not be abolished but decreased and concentrated."
The arguements on this thread have said that legalised prostitution will reduce organised crime whereas in Amsterdam their actual experience has been the reverse and they have amended their policies to make the city safer and attractive to the wider community.0 -
The above seems to conflict with this:
Prostitution is the sale of sex so in order for one to argue rationally on this, the definition of sex has to be defined. Is it a purely physical act? Is it a physical act that involves the emotions / mind / (soul in my case)? I would be interested to hear your definition of sex because we all have one.
There is no conflict in what I wrote because no I do not see there being one definition as you seem to expect.
I once heard someone ask "Should we go eat... or have McDonalds?". Funny at the time but a useful analogy here. There is no single definition of eating. Sometimes we do it for pleasure alone. Sometimes we do it to stay healthy and alive. Sometimes we do it to allay hunger. Sometimes we do it without thinking or even noticing we are doing it... such as when I eat a sandwich while reading and then can not even remember eating it.... and sometimes we do it with every fiber of our attention focused on the experience.
Sex is similar. There is no one definition of what sex is, what it "should" be, how it should be performed, or what meaning it should have at the time. It can be fully of emotion and meaning one time.... and lust and excitement the next.... or any mix of the two.
So no I do not see any sensible way to define what sex should be physically, spiritually, emotionally or morally and hence arguments against prostitution that are based on it contravening what you personally feel sex should be or should mean are not likely to be convincing to anyone.
If sex has a particular meaning to YOU then by all means do not engage in any practices that contravene that meaning. The mistake however would be to extrapolate that into suggesting there is something wrong with prostitution or... worse... that prostitution should be considered immoral or even illegal.
It is... alas... a common human failing to extrapolate "I do not want/like X" into "Therefore no one else should want/have it either".
The rest of your post seems to go off on a tangent about Rape. This discussion is not about Rape. If Rape occurs in any scenario, not just that of the sex trade, then this is a problem and it needs to be dealt with and the perpetrator prosecuted and jailed. Rape however is not what we are talking about here.
Again however you are using the argument of people committing crimes within an industry as being an argument against that industry. I have not heard it suggested that because some people in the Banking industry committed fraud and other crimes that therefore we should make banks and banking illegal. So it would clearly be ludicrous to suggest that because someone in the sex industry committed or facilitated rape that therefore the industry itself should be make illegal.
If crimes were committed in Banking we do not do away with Banking. We look at improving our regulation and understanding where it went wrong. Why do you feel the sex industry should be any different?0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If legalising prostitution causes "increased trafficking", it is clearly an argument against legalising prostitution. If you cannot recognise that then we don't have a clear starting point for this discussion.
We have to deal in reality.
Legalising video game sales causes increased video game piracy (assuming there is no ability to download games). So should we ban video games altogether?
Also, all we can say from the article is that legalising prostitution in Germany led to more cases of trafficking being reported/investigated, we have no way of telling if there actually was an increase in the numbers being traffic and if that increase in numbers constitutes an increase in percentage. It could be argued that legalising prostitution in Germany has made it easier for trafficking to be found out and investigated.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So no I do not see any sensible way to define what sex should be physically, spiritually, emotionally or morally and hence arguments against prostitution that are based on it contravening what you personally feel sex should be or should mean are not likely to be convincing to anyone.
Is there not a legal definition of sex? Is there not a legal difference between, say, full penetrative rape (physical act of sex) and looking at a woman lustfully (mental act of sex)? I can't imagine current laws concerning sexual activity between people concerning anything but the physical act so I don't see any issue here. Legally, only the physical aspect is in question, all the rest is subjective and irrelevant to regulation. The emotional or spiritual aspect could never be policed or regulated in any type of sex, consenting or otherwise, anyway.0 -
Isn't that a question that should be answered by proper regulation to protect sex workers?Now one could argue that in a regulated brothel I could be kicked out or banned from returning but let's say I am powerful and influential client who brings in a large number of customers. If they have a go at me I can easily threaten them that I will ensure none of my friends / clients will visit the brothel. The likehood is that the management will acquiese as they are in the business of making money and will ignore the breach of contract. The woman in question will have a choice of shut up or ship out.
Simply legalizing prostitution is a bad idea, in the same way that allowing absolutely no regulation - or very bad regulation - in any industry is. Indeed, legalized prostitution probably differs greatly from country to country, in how it is handled; sometimes well, sometimes badly.
Indeed, this would probably, for me, be the biggest argument against legalizing prostitution in Ireland; we would make a pig's ear of it.
AFAIK, rape is defined by penetrative sex using the penis. This is why in Ireland women cannot legally rape anyone.Mark Hamill wrote: »Is there not a legal definition of sex? Is there not a legal difference between, say, full penetrative rape (physical act of sex) and looking at a woman lustfully (mental act of sex)?
Other countries have various other definitions; on one extreme, some countries still do not recognize marital rape, at the other they include coerced sex as rape, where, for example, a woman being (not even very) drunk may be deemed to have been raped. If the latter definition was introduced in Ireland, I suspect two thirds of the male population would be in prison.0 -
Not a valid analogy. Were video games illegal anyway?Mark Hamill wrote: »Legalising video game sales causes increased video game piracy (assuming there is no ability to download games). So should we ban video games altogether?
The report concludes exactly what you now say we 'have no way of telling'. What makes you assume the following "all we can say from the article is that legalising prostitution in Germany led to more cases of trafficking being reported/investigated"Mark Hamill wrote: »Also, all we can say from the article is that legalising prostitution in Germany led to more cases of trafficking being reported/investigated, we have no way of telling if there actually was an increase in the numbers being traffic and if that increase in numbers constitutes an increase in percentage. It could be argued that legalising prostitution in Germany has made it easier for trafficking to be found out and investigated.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Not a valid analogy. Were video games illegal anyway?
Its irrelevant whether or not they ever illegal, my analogy applies to nearly anything that could be made illegal. If you have something illegal and then make it legal, the pirated form wont automatically disappear, for quite a few things you will actually increase the amount of pirated goods, as the amount of pirate-able originals will increase and the cost of pirating will decrease. You cant make something illegal simply because an underground version of it exists. Banned video-games are pirated all the time (places like Australia and Germany ban games from time to time).jonniebgood1 wrote: »The report concludes exactly what you now say we 'have no way of telling'. What makes you assume the following "all we can say from the article is that legalising prostitution in Germany led to more cases of trafficking being reported/investigated"
Because that is all we can say. In Germany, prostitution was legalised and a increase in the number of trafficking events reported investigated was observed. This could be because trafficking increased since prostitution was legalised, but it could equally be because since prostitution was legalised, the level of trafficking has stayed the same but the number of reports has increased (maybe because prostitutes have felt safer to report perpetrators or because its simply easier to for the police to discover traffickers in a regulated environment). In fact the level of trafficking could have decreased while reports increased and you would see the same overall effect of prostitution legalised-more reports of trafficking.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »AFAIK, rape is defined by penetrative sex using the penis.
So sex is defined, in some way, in legislature. And it is defined purely in a physical sense.The Corinthian wrote: »This is why in Ireland women cannot legally rape anyone.
Other countries have various other definitions; on one extreme, some countries still do not recognize marital rape, at the other they include coerced sex as rape, where, for example, a woman being (not even very) drunk may be deemed to have been raped. If the latter definition was introduced in Ireland, I suspect two thirds of the male population would be in prison.
Even with these issues, the problem is either physical or in properly defining and applying consent, not in the law being unable to apply the spiritual or emotional aspects of sex.0 -
What is this recent obsession that people are developing for the 'spiritual'? Or is this just a lazy way of writing psychological?Mark Hamill wrote: »Even with these issues, the problem is either physical or in properly defining and applying consent, not in the law being unable to apply the spiritual or emotional aspects of sex.
Did you all find God recently? If so, it wasn't in a rational discussion.0 -
What is this recent obsession that people are developing for the 'spiritual'?
Maybe this could be a separate humanities topic but its not a recent thing. Sex and spirituality have always been interlinked and I am not talking from a biblical or Christian perspective as I am not a Christian. The relationship between spirit and sex goes back to pre-Christian times, in particular if one looks at the history of tantra its core premise is the weaving of sexuality with spirit.Did you all find God recently? If so, it wasn't in a rational discussion.
Lol. I guess some of us did, but again maybe not so recently.
The bottom line in this debate is that if tomorrow a vote was put to legalise prostitution, well judging by the number of voters in this poll it would pass by flying colours, I and others who oppose it would have to accept this but for now it is illegal.
Throughout this debate I have stated why I would vote against it both for practical and spiritual reasons. They may not appear to be rational to you but I know I have given this matter and the matter of sexuality deep thought and exploration over the years.0 -
It might be a something for one of the Religion & Spirituality fora, but I very much doubt that it would be appropriate for Humanities. Discussing whether God, gods or the soul exist, sure, but any discussion that begins with the premise that they do is better suited there.Maybe this could be a separate humanities topic but its not a recent thing. Sex and spirituality have always been interlinked and I am not talking from a biblical or Christian perspective as I am not a Christian. The relationship between spirit and sex goes back to pre-Christian times, in particular if one looks at the history of tantra its core premise is the weaving of sexuality with spirit.
I wouldn't take the polls on Boards too seriously. If those who frequent this site were in any way representative of the Real World, Ireland would resemble a Hibernicized version of Logan's Run.The bottom line in this debate is that if tomorrow a vote was put to legalise prostitution, well judging by the number of voters in this poll it would pass by flying colours, I and others who oppose it would have to accept this but for now it is illegal.
They don't appear rational because they're ultimately based on faith and faith is not rational.Throughout this debate I have stated why I would vote against it both for practical and spiritual reasons. They may not appear to be rational to you but I know I have given this matter and the matter of sexuality deep thought and exploration over the years.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »What is this recent obsession that people are developing for the 'spiritual'? Or is this just a lazy way of writing psychological?
Did you all find God recently? If so, it wasn't in a rational discussion.
I think you misunderstand me (I'm an atheist and, imo, sex as more than a physical act is a subjective viewpoint) My point is a counter to miec asking the question: "Prostitution is the sale of sex so in order for one to argue rationally on this, the definition of sex has to be defined. Is it a purely physical act? Is it a physical act that involves the emotions / mind / (soul in my case)?"
The way I see it is miec is trying to put forward an aspect of sex more than the physical, an aspect that makes the selling and regulation of it impossible in some way. Asking about rape was my way of pointing out that sex has a presence in legislature and that this presence is purely physical. i.e in terms of the law, sex is already defined as just a physical act, so there should be no problem in regulating the selling of it.0 -
Throughout this debate I have stated why I would vote against it both for practical and spiritual reasons. They may not appear to be rational to you but I know I have given this matter and the matter of sexuality deep thought and exploration over the years.
But the spiritual aspects are subjective to you though. Even if we agree that there does exist some spiritual side (I would call it psychological or emotional though), that you have come the conclusion that this aspect is inherent to sex only means that it is inherent for you, that doesn't mean it is inherent for everyone else or that it should be inherent for everyone else. Why would you limit other peoples sexual activities based purely on your sexual taste?0 -
Advertisement
-
Others in this thread have said the same thing to me. To be honest I can't really answer that question.
Normally, or at least under other circumstances I would not shove my beliefs onto others. For example I am pro-choice (this is just an example) but for me when it comes to prostitution I want it to remain illegal because if it is made legal then it is deemed okay / acceptable to society. I am aware that I am pressing / shoving my viewpoint down on to others, and again I will re-iterate that if the laws surrounding it changed I would have to suck it up, but I cannot help how I feel nor would I be willing to alter my viewpoint. I should add that previously I was of the viewpoint that prostitution should be legalised and its no harm if its two consenting adults. Now having understood it better/ learning more about its effects and examining human sexuality deeper I cannot condone it.0 -
I think the principle criticism of your position here is that it is effectively a religious one. Not religious in the sense of doctrine, but still based upon para-psychological axioms and that's really not good enough for a rational discussion.
Personally, I'm a little surprised as I didn't take you as someone who bought into this New Age mumbo-jumbo.0 -
-
Personally, I'm a little surprised as I didn't take you as someone who bought into this New Age mumbo-jumbo.
Guilty as charged but in seriousness I realise that I have expressed my views in an inappropriate forum here on boards. I am unable to separate the sexual from the spiritual so it is best if I keep out of these types of debates for future reference.Have you learned about human sexuality or have you learned about your own sexuality?
Both. As stated above and in respect to the views of this particular thread / forum it is best I don't comment any further.0 -
Once again i'm seeing proof as many time before 'the majority are always wrong .0
-
Guilty as charged but in seriousness I realise that I have expressed my views in an inappropriate forum here on boards. I am unable to separate the sexual from the spiritual so it is best if I keep out of these types of debates for future reference.
Both. As stated above and in respect to the views of this particular thread / forum it is best I don't comment any further.
I dont think the problem is you seeing a more-than-physical side inherent in sex. The problem is that your arguments for such are 100% subjective and so in no way support the idea that other peoples sexual freedom should be limited because of it. That's why I asked the question I did in my previous post - how do you know that you examined human sexual nature and not just your own sexual nature? Regardless of the specifics of what you actually believe about sex, how could you possibly know that they apply to everyone?0 -
-
Please don't encourage him. Last thing we need in this thread is encouraging a member of the 'I Have an Opinion and Must Share it with the World' crowd.Mark Hamill wrote: »Care to elaborate?
If they were to try to justify it, they'll just end up making fools of themselves because it'll be the first time they've ever thought it through, and then they'll just get angry and abusive and derail the thread.0 -
Popular ideas have always floundered sooner or later . Excellence has ALWAYS been the preserve of a few .We have Popular Democracy/Entertainment/Drinks/and everything else very popular with the Masses is fifth rate and i took a very different route than most people because i recognised that fact .We do not have to be wealthy to have good standards .Some ideas are treacherous .Especially using Prostitutes because Murder is not very far away and it's not a bit of fun when later on the result is Awful .Ectopic pregnancies and Diseases that never go away and the list has no real ending but can affect generations .Google it and see for yourselves .0
-
Advertisement
-
Do you speak in broad clichés in real life or is this something you limit to Boards?
Let's pick a few choice ones:
Is this statement in support of hierarchical systems or crazed loaners? Unibomber anyone?Excellence has ALWAYS been the preserve of a few .
Or you could just be a misanthrope (one of those aforementioned crazed loaners).i took a very different route than most people because i recognised that fact .
Like yours? You've certainly not produced any evidence that your ideas are any less 'treacherous' than anyone elses.Some ideas are treacherous .
All prostitutes are murdered? Or most of them? Is this what you are saying, given murder is supposedly not far away. Or maybe you mean the prostitutes are the murderers?Especially using Prostitutes because Murder is not very far away and it's not a bit of fun when later on the result is Awful .
Too funny for words.0
Advertisement