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...
Options
Comments
-
People always seem to address issues which are already illegal. Trafficking - Illegal, Violence Illegal, Street Prostitution - Illegal. All any sane person would agree all that is perfectly reasonable.
Abuses of the current system (it is not currently illegal) would be better served by regulating the industry rather than banning it. Lets not forget the who we're trying to assist here - the women. Banning it will simply force it further underground increasing the ratio of reward to risk for pimps. Clients will be less inclined to report it when they feel women are underage or trafficked.
EDIT - Honestly if I could make a living at it I'd be at it like a shot.0 -
The physical and mental implications for a coal miner are probably much worse but nobody stops them.
Also prostitutes would have much better mental health if they didnt have thousands of religious groups telling them that they are bad people.0 -
It seems, to me at least, that a lot of the perceived negative affect of prostitutes and the consequences of their profession (broken women in dire straits, trapped in a life that they don't want, vunerable to the worst that society has to offer, etc.) is a consequence of its criminalisation. The stricter the legislation against prostitution, the further it'll be pushed into the criminal world, the less control the government will have, and the worse the lives of prostitutes will become. It's an absolutely naive view to believe that further legislation will eradicate or even mitigate the problems associated with prostitution or the prevalence of prostitution itself.
That prostitutes often come from poor backgrounds, suffer from drug addictions, were subject to poverty in their youth, etc., isn't a consequence of prostitution. If a person really cares about the well-being of these women, then why not tackle the issues that cause a woman to become a prostitute? The criminalisation of prostitution doesn't address any of the root causes, but pushes the women who engage in it into further trouble. Criminalisation of a consequence while ignoring the root cause is foolish. All of this is ignoring the fact that not all prostitutes are forced by their circumstances to become such, but a lot of them have chosen of their own unencumbered volition.
As nozz said above, assuming that prostitution is a problem and then regarding anything that mitigates its presence as being good is fallacious. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why prostitution, in an extremely well regulated and controlled form, would be bad. If anything, having a legal, non-taboo route to becoming a prostitute might lessen its perceived negative effects, and, if anything, it won't make things worse.0 -
Yes, put simply prostitution is indeed a very bad thing
Says you but I have yet to hear an argument as to what is wrong with it. You mention "scholarly articles" but do not actually cite any and I am not alone in the people replying to you so far that are not simply going to take your word for it.
You declaring it to be a bad thing does not automatically magically make it so. It is a choice and one I think any woman has the right to make.0 -
His need is such that the threat of conviction means he would cease using prostitutes out of fear or embarrasment. Yep, that guy is the one with the choice. Arrest that scumbag.
T runner, in Humanities one is expected to contribute calmly and rationally. Statements like "arrest that scumbag" are not appropriate. Please try to contribute with less raw emotion.
ER.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »There are plenty of jobs out there that are less than ideal - psychologically or physically. Should we outlaw them all?
Not necessarily. Many are already illegal and rightly so.Actually, I'm challenging your claim that it is bona fida data. From what I can see, the vast majority is propaganda which, if traced, tends to find either a religious or Feminist sponsor.
Heres a scholarly article (one of many) on the harms of Prostitution. It quotes many authentic reports. She describes the 5 countries report which interviewed 475 prostitutes across 5 countries: ( US, S.Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Zambia.) This describes how 72% of respondents reported physical assault while working as a prostitute, 63% reported rape : 46% at least 5 times.
http://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oxR9kWK7C_0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA386&dq=is+prostitution+harmful&ots=rk1omyzMNv&sig=_P_JxriUl3JAyKcP02bCuKcMgms&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=is%20prostitution%20harmful&f=false
Here is what independent Irish prostitutes have to say (not those doing promotional interviews at the behest of pimps):
http://www.turnofftheredlight.ie/learn-more/testimonies/[/URL
These are the groups who are involved in the campaign.
http://www.turnofftheredlight.ie/about/whos-involved/
As one can see a comprehensive cross section of Irish society. Have all of these religious or feminist sponsors as you claim?
And What groups are against this campaign? The profiteers from the sex industry? Some users of prostitutes? The odd disgruntled fella (im a male myself although not disgrunled) who tends to think improvements in womens and childrens lots are somehow anti-men?
List them please as i have done!!
Glad this is going to pass. Less demand=less supply=less prostitution=less violence, rape, disease, psychological issues after abuse, for vulnerable women, children and men (usually young boys).You're the very one who has raised the claim that prostitution results in "degradation and physical and mental ill health", so perhaps we should put more resources in demographics that are more likely to suffer from such occupational hazards - like men.
Or is it only worth our attention when it is a woman's "physical and mental ill health" is at risk?
The odd disgruntled fella (im a male myself although not disgrunled) who tends to think improvements in womens and childrens lots are somehow anti-men?
Perhaps your zero-sum view of gender is clouding your thoughts here?Legislation that is good for women and children is not bad for men. You need to stop viewing the world in those narrow men versus women terms. We will all gain in this society by making vulnerable people less exposed to people who would take advantage of that vulnerability.
If you feel there is a male occupation that results in extreme physical and mental degradaton (use the scholarly article i referenced as a guide to extreme pysical and psychological injury if you wish) then start a new thread on it with your ideas for solving the issues. No more "What about the men..." on this thread please.
The vast amount of goodwill towards this legislation indicates it will be celebrated when it passes. Everyone will see how well it works in hindsight even if their foresight is a little clouded on these issues.
PS the profiteers from teh sex indusrty (not you) who seem to dominate these fora will not see its benefits. Their view is always selfish ofcourse.0 -
That's a non-answer. A sidestep.Not necessarily. Many are already illegal and rightly so.
Errr... where is this article? I can make up figures and reports too - go on, give at least one of the authors a Jewish sounding name so it sounds more academic...Heres a scholarly article (one of many) on the harms of Prostitution. It quotes many authentic reports. She describes the 5 countries report which interviewed 475 prostitutes across 5 countries: ( US, S.Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Zambia.) This describes how 72% of respondents reported physical assault while working as a prostitute, 63% reported rape : 46% at least 5 times.
I've noticed that on this topic, you have a tendency to claim that your views are backed up by 'scholarly' articles, repeatedly state that they're beyond question, yet never actually back anything up or hold your sources up for review.
To date, in the two recent threads on this topic, the closest you've come to doing this has been linking to a single, alleged, interview on an anti-legalization website and another link, from the same site, that proves that the anti-legalization is very good at lobbying.
God forbid you ever actually engage in the discussion or attempt to address points or evidence made by others. Doesn't it ever get a little lonely up there on that soapbox?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That's a non-answer. A sidestep.
Not at all. Apert from prostitution, professions that involve violence, sexual assault and pose a high risk of disease are already illegal in this country. How can you make something illegal that is already illegal? Not a sidestep but a rather obvious fact.Errr... where is this article? I can make up figures and reports too - go on, give at least one of the authors a Jewish sounding name so it sounds more academic......
The strenght of the content of the subject matter is most relevant rather than the ethnicity or otherwise of the author. Attack the post nopt the poster is a motto of this site. Ad hominem attacks of authors seems to be that tactic of those againat the legislation, defunct of ideas to attack the argument.
(Obviously i forgot to post the link: its there now)To date, in the two recent threads on this topic, the closest you've come to doing this has been linking to a single, alleged, interview on an anti-legalization website and another link, from the same site, that proves that the anti-legalization is very good at lobbying.
On the contrary, it proves that a comprehensive and independent array of Irish organsisations have considered and backed this legislation.
All of these organisations have obvioulsy given permission to be displayed as supporters of the legislation. If you believe that these organisations do not support this legislation then please state so with substantiation.
Some of these organisations represent over a 100,000 people individually. You are taking about a serious number of people who wish to reduce teh demand for prostitution by criminalising people who take advantage of vulnerable people.
Again i ask you to supply a list of organisations against the legislation. Apart from the pimp run sex industry...can you provide even one?God forbid you ever actually engage in the discussion or attempt to address points or evidence made by others. Doesn't it ever get a little lonely up there on that soapbox?
You have made no substantiation to back any of your points rather hypocritically. The points of evidence ive seen have amounted to a video of a Swedish prostitute: She is comprimised by the fact that she is making a point that suits those profiting from the sex industry (pimps) while still employed by those people.
Any evidence from independent women (not in the employment of (violent) people with a vested interest in her taking the position she takes) says that their experience of prostitution has been of physical and psychological injury. Studies show us the majority of prostitutes experience physical assault and rape..often on several occasions.
There was a journal article which had to use the assumption that sex was "meaningless" to try and argue that it might not be
Another poster claimed a friend of his, was at a discussion of teh legislation and he heard that the legislation would not be changed as a result of their input. We must assume that he was representing the profiteers of the sex industry (who else is againt this legislation?) and i am not surprised you count hearsay as "evidence".
I wont react to your ad hominem comment the way you wish. Rather to say that i am more comfortable with the position i take in fine company with dozens of reputable organisations, representing undreds of thousands of people who support this legislation. The lonely position must be yours, with only those who profit from the sex industry as poor bed fellows.0 -
Stating a 'fact', be it factual or not, is not the same as an answer to a point. You blurted an irrelevant response that failed to address the question I posed.Not at all. Apert from prostitution, professions that involve violence, sexual assault and pose a high risk of disease are already illegal in this country. How can you make something illegal that is already illegal? Not a sidestep but a rather obvious fact.
Actually I was sarcastically suggesting such a tactic if you wanted to invent a more convincing source and specifically attacking what you wrote - which was claiming to present a study, which in reality you did notThe strenght of the content of the subject matter is most relevant rather than the ethnicity or otherwise of the author. Attack the post nopt the poster is a motto of this site.
You didn't even offer proof that this study even exists.
No it's not.(Obviously i forgot to post the link: its there now)
If you say so, but I know enough about how these organizations and lobbying operates in Ireland to doubt that or that even the people they represent even know about some of these policies.On the contrary, it proves that a comprehensive and independent array of Irish organsisations have considered and backed this legislation.
Actually there were numerous other studies and articles on that thread that supported legalization and rejected your claims, as to the interview how is she compromised? Is she not also making points that support self-employed prostitutes? Indeed, how do you know she is employed?You have made no substantiation to back any of your points rather hypocritically. The points of evidence ive seen have amounted to a video of a Swedish prostitute: She is comprimised by the fact that she is making a point that suits those profiting from the sex industry (pimps) while still employed by those people.
Genuinely, if you have further information, please divulge because you appear to know a lot about her. Otherwise it does sound like you're dismissing her because she disagrees with your World view.
Again, it was not an ad hominem, but if you're going to continue posting claims without showing proof they even exist, then you're going to have to accept that people are going to presume that you're telling porkies in the interests of a soabox agenda.I wont react to your ad hominem comment the way you wish.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Stating a 'fact', be it factual or not, is not the same as an answer to a point. You blurted an irrelevant response that failed to address the question I posed.
Your point was that there are other legal professions involving men that are as dangerous physically and psychologically as prostition. I stated that all such prefessions were already illegal. That categorically answers your point.
Below is a summary of physical and mental injury experienced by 875 prostitutes over 9 countries in a survey from THIS REPORT . Please show me with substantiation a male profession where the risks are equatable? That was your point wasnt it?- 95% experienced sexual harrasment which in the US would be legally sanctionable in a diferent job.
- 65-95% sexuallya ssaulted as children
- 70-75% physically assaulted in prostitution
- 60-65% raped in prostitution
- 75% homeless at some point
- 89% wanted to escape prostitution
- 68% experienced post traumatic stress disorder (severity similar to combat victims of battered women seeking shelter)
- 88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt.
Any comment?
Despite these statistics with women desperate for any change in their circumstances: only 34% thought that prostitution should be made legal, and 46% thought they would be no safer if this was so.
Why should the we not criminalise the bastards (clients) who carry out this abuse on vulnerable people as the figures above so clearly tell us?No it's not.
Yes it is.If you say so, but I know enough about how these organizations and lobbying operates in Ireland to doubt that or that even the people they represent even know about some of these policies.
Youll have to substantiate that. These organisations have put their name behind this campaign. If you believe they are being duped then you will need to show us evidence of that. Can you? You dont expect us to take your word for it do you? (You could be telling Porkies.)
And ill ask you yet again: what organisations besides those who profit directly from prostitution are against this legislation? If you hide from replying yet again. Well assume the answer is ZERO.Actually there were numerous other studies and articles on that thread that supported legalization and rejected your claims,
I havent seen them. I saw the article i linked above which showed that only 34% thought it should be legalised and that despite the horrendous levels of physical assault on rape suffered by the majority of prostitutes only 46% thought they would be safer if it was legalised. Thats pretty damning.
Again you cant expect us to take your word for it. Please link the articles if indeed they exist.Genuinely, if you have further information, please divulge because you appear to know a lot about her. Otherwise it does sound like you're dismissing her because she disagrees with your World view.
Thats the point. I know about as much about her as you do. She is one person and could be saying anything for a variety of motives. Its not evidence: its an opinion at best, a mouth piece for pimps at worst.
Thats why we use big reports and verifyable surveys as evidence like the one i linked which interviews 875 prostitutes over 9 countries.
So where are we?
We have established that this campaign has the backing of an overwhelming cross section of Irish society. You have no evidence whatsoever to refute this. (bar a Porky)
We have established that most prostitues experience rape, assault, violent attack and a list of other criminal acts as part of their profession. And that only a minority think it should be legalised and even if it was 46% think that this would make no difference to their safety.
Can you counter any of this with evidence? Maybe its time for you to leave to leave this fight to the Pimps eh? Nobody else supports it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Heres a scholarly article (one of many)
Where? You linked to a book. When people here say "Article" they generally mean Scientific Articles in Peer Reviewed journals, not books or opinion pieces or blogs or news papers. There are books on every subject supporting every view, right down to the existence of big foot. If you are going to cite an article, then do so, but do not link to a book and call it an article.Here is what independent Irish prostitutes have to say (not those doing promotional interviews at the behest of pimps):
No, they are doing it at the behest of people who are already on an anti prostitution campaign. If you are going to presume to reject interviews that go against your position because you think they are cherry picked by pimps who are for prostitution then you can not expect us to accept interviews from you that were cherry picked by those against it.
It is not one rule for you and one rule for the rest of us.
Nor is listing the groups involved in that campaign useful to us. All you are doing is listing the people who agree with you. What use is that? There either is arguments against prostitution... or there is not.... saying there is and then listing people who agree with you is not an argument.who tends to think improvements in womens and childrens lots are somehow anti-men?
Bull. People like myself are not against making prostitition illegal because it is anti men. We are against it because A) I think it should be the womens choice,
I think they would be better off and safer in a fully legislated and regulated industry C) I am unaware of any arguments... much less from you.... as to why it should be illegal or considered immoral/wrong and I am a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty". 0 -
No you made a vague response which did not carry that meaning from what I can see. Even if it did, it is false and many occupations that are male dominated exist that are as dangerous physically and psychologically as prostitution, if not more so, that are perfectly legal.Your point was that there are other legal professions involving men that are as dangerous physically and psychologically as prostition. I stated that all such prefessions were already illegal. That categorically answers your point.
These include armoured car guard, fire-fighter, miner, trucker, logger, police and, the biggest of all, soldier - which is not only legal, but where conscription exists (with the exception of Israel) requires only men to serve.
Would you like to tell me how prostitution is more dangerous than serving in the military? I need a good laugh.
To begin with, this report is principally the baby of one Melissa Farley, a feminist anti-pornography and anti-prostitution activist - so I'm already going to be suspicious about the objectivity and methodology in this report, as her stated aim is not to study prostitution objectively, but to get her ideological view across. It's called a conflict of interests.Below is a summary of physical and mental injury experienced by 875 prostitutes over 9 countries in a survey from THIS REPORT .
One thing that struck me in the report was the use of the term 'trafficked'; apparently any woman who's migrated to another country must have been trafficked. This I can absolutely tell you is complete rubbish; as someone who's flown between Frankfurt and Budapest, I can categorically state that you will see prostitutes travel. It is extremely obvious that they are prostitutes and what they are doing is commuting of their own volition, rather than being 'trafficked'. Indeed, the presumption that all prostitutes must be 'trafficked' is insane to begin with.
The use of such biased language, emphasis on only the negative aspects of prostitution, questionable authorship and dubious sampling and methodology, leads me to conclude that the report is a work principally of propaganda.
46% thought they would be no safer? Isn't that a minority? How many thought they would be safer or is that even mentioned in the report?Despite these statistics with women desperate for any change in their circumstances: only 34% thought that prostitution should be made legal, and 46% thought they would be no safer if this was so.
Do me a favour and not attempt to tell me black is white; you repeatedly posted alleged data from a report without linking back to it and eventually claimed "obviously i forgot to post the link: its there now" - and then didn't, which is what I was responding to.Yes it is.
It's clear you were avoiding any review of your supported scholarly report, and having finally seen it, I can see why.
I'm sure you have, but as with the interview you dismissed, you've likely dismissed any other source that may not agree with your ideological stance as 'unrepresentative'.I havent seen them.
Of course, the woman in that interview could also be the puppet mouthpiece of the international sex industry too. But it's not as if she's the only sex worker who has challenged the religious-feminist orthodoxy of the industry; Brooke Magnanti, a former escort herself, also did so and she could hardly be called a mouthpiece for her pimp herself. Do you dismiss all such views as somehow coerced, misguided or unrepresentative?
TBH, I've seen few reports that I've thought unbiased on this subject. There was a German one posted here that actually concluded that legalization did indeed increase trafficking, but at the same time felt that one could not necessarily negate the positive consequences of legalization.
Truth be told, it's not exactly a topic I feel strongly about, but I'd tend twoards the legalization side, however after that report, I did shift slightly away from that - because it was an unbiased report that sought truth rather than pushing an agenda.
I may well decide that prostitution is better off illegal (although the gynocentric approach of simply targeting men is flawed, even then), but if I do, it'll be on the basis of rational debate and not the propaganda and lobbying spewed out by a bunch of religious nuts and Femnazis.
And this is where you and I differ; I am open to consider other viewpoints, you're not.
Of course 'you' have. Who is going to come out and campaign on the other side, given the social stigma attached? And this is before you consider that both religious and, in particular, feminist groups are extremely organized in political lobbying circles.We have established that this campaign has the backing of an overwhelming cross section of Irish society.
Honestly, I've no doubt that the law will likely be passed, but it doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that it will make matters any worse - look at prohibition in the US, as a classic example of such flawed policy driven by a blinkered ideological view that was more interested in the end than if the end even made sense.
I should shut up then? That sounds more like your style of democracy, all right.Can you counter any of this with evidence? Maybe its time for you to leave to leave this fight to the Pimps eh? Nobody else supports it.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Where? You linked to a book. When people here say "Article" they generally mean Scientific Articles in Peer Reviewed journals, not books or opinion pieces or blogs or news papers. There are books on every subject supporting every view, right down to the existence of big foot. If you are going to cite an article, then do so, but do not link to a book and call it an article.
No, they are doing it at the behest of people who are already on an anti prostitution campaign. If you are going to presume to reject interviews that go against your position because you think they are cherry picked by pimps who are for prostitution then you can not expect us to accept interviews from you that were cherry picked by those against it.
See this link
The verified testimony of 875 prostitute carries more weight than the opinion of one person. Do you disagree?
•95% experienced sexual harrasment which in the US would be legally sanctionable in a diferent job.
•65-95% sexuallya ssaulted as children
•70-75% physically assaulted in prostitution
•60-65% raped in prostitution
•75% homeless at some point
•89% wanted to escape prostitution
•68% experienced post traumatic stress disorder (severity similar to combat victims of battered women seeking shelter)
•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt.It is not one rule for you and one rule for the rest of us.
Then provide REAL evidence to back your position please.Nor is listing the groups involved in that campaign useful to us. All you are doing is listing the people who agree with you. What use is that? There either is arguments against prostitution... or there is not.... saying there is and then listing people who agree with you is not an argument.
You are not following. A poster (several in fact) have continously advocated that this is some conspiracy of feminists and religious groups. It is in fact backed by a very representative cross section of Irish society. The fact that only groups who profit from the sex industry are against this legislation tells us a lot.A) I think it should be the womens choice,
•95% experienced sexual harrasment which in the US would be legally sanctionable in a diferent job.
•65-95% sexuallya ssaulted as children
•75% homeless at some point in their lives
•89% wanted to escape prostitution
( •70-75% physically assaulted in prostitution
•60-65% raped in prostitution)
These are vulnerable women who are being exploited and violently assaulted by men. Where is the choice here? I think they would be better off and safer in a fully legislated and regulated industry
46% of prostitutes even after experiencing the horrors above siad they felt it would be NO safer if legalised.C) I am unaware of any arguments... much less from you.... as to why it should be illegal or considered immoral/wrong and I am a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty".
See the long list of rape, violent attack, vulnerability and PTSD above taht prostitutes experienced. Is this morally, ethically, legally...or right under any circumstances or through any prism? If you believe so, please explain.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No you made a vague response which did not carry that meaning from what I can see.
None of them are legal. Would have thought that was crystal clear.Even if it did, it is false and many occupations that are male dominated exist that are as dangerous physically and psychologically as prostitution, if not more so, that are perfectly legal.
These include armoured car guard, fire-fighter, miner, trucker, logger, police and, the biggest of all, soldier - which is not only legal, but where conscription exists (with the exception of Israel) requires only men to serve.
I have provided the below figures. Can you provide any substantation for your dubious argument? Or is this more Porkies?
•95% experienced sexual harrasment which in the US would be legally sanctionable in a diferent job.
•65-95% sexually assaulted as children
•70-75% physically assaulted in prostitution
•60-65% raped in prostitution
•75% homeless at some point
•89% wanted to escape prostitution
•68% experienced post traumatic stress disorder (severity similar to combat victims of battered women seeking shelter)
•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt.To begin with,......... It's called a conflict of interests.
And thats called an Ad hominem attack. Attack the report not the reporter.One thing that struck me in the report was the use of the term 'trafficked';etc......
Stop waffling. Youre suspicious of the language? Do you have an issue with the figures i quoted or not?46% thought they would be no safer? Isn't that a minority? How many thought they would be safer or is that even mentioned in the report?
Only 34% thought that it should be legalised. You see, if a majority of women are being assaulted and raped in prostitution, 89% want out.... then they would jump at any chance of an improvement....Jump at it. That makes 46% an incredibly low figure.I'm sure you have, but as with the interview you dismissed, you've likely dismissed any other source that may not agree with your ideological stance as 'unrepresentative'.
Ive explained why that interview carries no weight: it is just one person saying their opinion. I have described the type of evidence i view as credible. The standard of reporting and data collection in the 9 countries report being an example. Can you provide any such evidence of similar veribility?
Your opinion carries as much weight in terms of evidence. Perhaps you cans ee my point now?Of course, the woman in that interview ......... Do you dismiss all such views as somehow coerced, misguided or unrepresentative?
You are taking the opinion of one individual over the experience of over 875 prostitutes over 9 countries in a verifyable report. Your bias is clear.TBH, I've seen few reports that I've thought unbiased on this subject. There was ...............because it was an unbiased report that sought truth rather than pushing an agenda.
I hope teh 9 countries report has opened your eyes to the horrors of prostitution and not just trafficking.I may well decide that prostitution is better off illegal (although the gynocentric approach of simply targeting men is flawed, even then),........ lobbying spewed out by a bunch of religious nuts and Femnazis.
Weve been through all that. A strong representation of Irish society backs it. Many reports are amde by people with an interest in the area. Thats why there are checks and standards that must be met in such reporting. Your ad hominem approach therefore is flawed.And this is where you and I differ; I am open to consider other viewpoints, you're not.
You give more weight to one persons testamony which agrees with your viewpoint than to that of 875 in a verifyable report. You refute your argument yourself.Of course 'you' have. Who is going to come out and campaign on the other side, given the social stigma attached?
Answer: people who feel strongly that it will improve the lot of vulnerable women..and those who profit from the sex industry because there is more profit in legalisation than criminalisation. Only the sex profiteers have togged out for this cause seemingly.Honestly, I've no doubt that the law will likely be passed, but it doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that it will make matters any worse - look at prohibition in the US, as a classic example of such flawed policy driven by a blinkered ideological view that was more interested in the end than if the end even made sense.
Liquor was the social drug of the day and also is addictive. There is a massive difference between banning liquor and banning paying for sex.I should shut up then? That sounds more like your style of democracy, all right.
Your style of argument this thread demanded, you claimed, was to back up argument with substantaition. Apart from 1 wikipedia link in this post you have failed to make any attempt to so yourself. If you dont like the rules then dont make them.0 -
I will slightly reorder your list because my responses to different parts of it are the same. Also you pointlessly repeated the list twice as if saying it more often magically makes it more convincing, so I will only respond to the list once.•95% experienced sexual harrasment which in the US would be legally sanctionable in a diferent job.
•70-75% physically assaulted in prostitution
•60-65% raped in prostitution
•68% experienced post traumatic stress disorder (severity similar to combat victims of battered women seeking shelter)
This is an argument FOR legalizing prostitution and regulating it, not against. So I feel you have shot yourself in the foot here. One of the reasons people like myself are so pro-legalization and regulation is so that such harassment and assault WOULD be legally sanctionable and prostitutes would be afforded all the same work place protections that you and I enjoy.
Further since sexual harassment can occur in any job I am not sure why you suddenly feel it is an argument against Prostitution per se. If it emerged that of all the current work roles that being a Secretary had the highest chance of you being sexually harassed, would you call for it to be illegal to have secretaries? Clearly not, that would be ridiculous, yet here you make that very same argument with a straight face.•65-95% sexuallya ssaulted as children
•75% homeless at some point
•89% wanted to escape prostitution
These three lines are entirely irrelevant. The question in this thread is whether the trade should be illegal or legal. Whether women and men should have the choice to enter into the trade of their own free volition or not. Their own personal sexual histories are not relevant to this. Nor are their own personal living situations. And if they want to "escape" the trade then so be it, we should do what we can to allow all people to leave their current job and enter a new one.
Sexual assault on children is bad and illegal and we should do what we can to prevent it. Being homeless is bad and we should do what we can to house people. Wanting to leave your job but being unable is bad too and where possible we should help facilitate people to do that.
What any of THAT has to do with prostitution however is not clear. I think you are opportunistically trying to indict prostitution with things that have absolutely nothing to do with it in order to bolster an otherwise baseless argument against it.•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt.
So do tax collectors, and repo men, to name but two of a potentially long long list. So what your point HERE is I have to admit is entirely opaque to me.46% of prostitutes even after experiencing the horrors above siad they felt it would be NO safer if legalised.
How would they know? This is just their opinion. It would entirely depend on what laws and regulations are brought it.
Plus you are quick to bring in Post Traumatic Stress when you mistakenly feel it supports your argument. You seemingly ignore it however when doing so also supports your argument. Often when people experience horror they will never feel safe no matter what you do. So specifically asking people who have undergone horror if they would feel safe will likely get you the answer you want. Their opinion on the matter is more than a little tainted.Then provide REAL evidence to back your position please.
Which position exactly have I espoused that you want me to back up? Thus far I have been considering and discussing YOUR position so I am not sure what you feel I have said that I have not yet backed up?Is this morally, ethically, legally...or right under any circumstances or through any prism? If you believe so, please explain.
That is a bit disingenuous. Let us not go around pretending that people who are disagreeing with you are somehow saying these things are ok. We are not. We just do not see that they are arguments against prostitution in and of itself. They are crimes. Crimes being perpetrated by criminals. You are trying to indict prostitution with the crimes of those who use the product. That is hardly fair.
If for example you found animals were being grossly mistreated in the industry that produces meat would you go around declaring the production of meat should be illegal, or would it make more sense to go around promoting proper legislation, regulation and more to ensure the proper treatment of animals in that industry? Point being: The indictment of an industry with the crimes of people using that industry is grossly unfair and devoid of any reasoning.And thats called an Ad hominem attack. Attack the report not the reporter.
Bull. Actually questioning the possible conflicts of interest of the writers of a report is a very valid and important step in the methodologies of interpreting report results. In fact many reports and studies will even include a section where the writers of the report try to declare their conflicts up front in an attempt to give transparency to their reports.0 -
Except for armoured car guard, fire-fighter, miner, trucker, logger, police and soldier - to name but a few.None of them are legal. Would have thought that was crystal clear.
On what, how the above occupations are perfectly legal forms of occupation, principally performed by men that are as dangerous, if not more so, than prostitution?I have provided the below figures. Can you provide any substantiation for your dubious argument? Or is this more Porkies?
I mean, do you really need to have statistics to prove that having a job that involves people shooting at you is dangerous?
Or do you mean to respond to a report that I have already concluded is not a credible source of unbiased data?
I accept that you're unwilling to accept pro-sex work activist reports, interviews or viewpoints as being unbiased, but if so, it's a bit cheeky that you expect everyone else to accept your 'evidence' as being unbiased either.
No, it's called a conflict of interests, just as putting someone who is a shareholder in a major tobacco company on a government health board is.And thats called an Ad hominem attack. Attack the report not the reporter.
It's pretty bizarre that you'd accuse the activist in the video of being somehow in cahoots with pimps and thus question her validity, then claim an ad hominem when someone does the same to your source.
Yes and I said so. That it implies (through it's exclusive use of language) something that is patently untrue - that all women are trafficked - already discredits it.Stop waffling. Youre suspicious of the language? Do you have an issue with the figures i quoted or not?
To me it would be like accepting a report on the health benefits of smoking from the aforementioned tobacco company shareholder.
That's not what I asked. More sidestepping?Only 34% thought that it should be legalised. You see, if a majority of women are being assaulted and raped in prostitution, 89% want out.... then they would jump at any chance of an improvement....Jump at it. That makes 46% an incredibly low figure.
So my opinion carries as much weight as someone who actually works or has worked in the sex industry? I suppose if your viewpoint is that you know best as how to save all these "vulnerable women", then that makes sense.Your opinion carries as much weight in terms of evidence. Perhaps you cans ee my point now?
Actually, I cited a second one also - which you've conveniently ignored.You are taking the opinion of one individual over the experience of over 875 prostitutes over 9 countries in a verifyable report. Your bias is clear.
And I've even stated that I have read enough to have shifted my view somewhat away from the pro-legalization position. But certainly being told in crypto-religious terms how what you're claiming is true, based upon what is clearly propaganda is not going to sway anyone who bothers to stop and think critically.
But don't worry, most people don't bother to do that, so you should be all right.
I think people who feel strongly about improving the lot of vulnerable people (men too, but let's not put too much attention to your biases) would seek to find out what the real story is, rather than beginning from a position whereby they've already decided if it is good or evil and then constructing psudo-academic arguments to support their agenda.Answer: people who feel strongly that it will improve the lot of vulnerable women..and those who profit from the sex industry because there is more profit in legalisation than criminalisation. Only the sex profiteers have togged out for this cause seemingly.
Because if you do that, you don't truly test your thesis and all you may end up doing is making matters worse and not better.
Nope. Both are examples of social engineering, both were or are designed to lessen the negative effects of what they targeted and both were or are driven by subjective ideology rather than an objective attempt to examine the problems they sought to solve.Liquor was the social drug of the day and also is addictive. There is a massive difference between banning liquor and banning paying for sex.
And in the case of prohibition, it was an abject disaster. Not all fanatics are religious, you know.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Except for armoured car guard, fire-fighter, miner, trucker, logger, police and soldier - to name but a few.......
.......
Ok you have been asked 3 times to substantiate whatever dubious point youre trying to make. I have shown that you are more likley than not to get raped, sexually abused and violently assaulted, suffer PTSD as a prostitute than not. Enough whataboutery. Set up a thread for your truckers elsewhere.I accept that you're unwilling to accept pro-sex work activist reports, interviews or viewpoints as being unbiased
but if so, it's a bit cheeky that you expect everyone else to accept your 'evidence' as being unbiased either...No, it's called a conflict of interests.........
I accept the evidence of a comrehensive journal that Includes full citations for sources that are verifyable and have been peer reviewed before publication. I give fair weight to one persons opinion on a video, which is very little. If you have verifyable evidence to advance your points feel free to add. I must give equal weight to verifyable scolarly articles no matter who the author. I just dont see any........
Have you really anything more than your distrust of feminists to go on here to demonstrate that people including her peers have been duped by this report?So my opinion carries as much weight as someone who actually works or has worked in the sex industry? I suppose if your viewpoint is that you know best as how to save all these "vulnerable women", then that makes sense.
Individual unverifyable opinions should carry equal weight, should they not?And I've even stated that I have read enough to have shifted my view somewhat away from the pro-legalization position. But certainly being told in crypto-religious terms how what you're claiming is true, based upon what is clearly propaganda is not going to sway anyone who bothers to stop and think critically.
This legislation only reflects reality. That clients who buy prostitutes take advantage of vulnerable women by raping, assaulting and abusing them. They behave like criminals so they should be treated as such under teh eys of the law.I think people who feel strongly about improving the lot of vulnerable people (men too, but let's not put too much attention to your biases) would seek to find out what the real story is, rather than beginning from a position whereby they've already decided if it is good or evil and then constructing psudo-academic arguments to support their agenda.
There you go again with the defensive man thing....i do think youre judgement on these issues is clouded on these issues.
Look, we have established that a cross section of Irish society support the legislation so the feminist/religious conspiracy theory is out.
We have established by verifyable evidence that a prostitute is a vulnerable person (and lets be accurate, a tiny percentage are men) most likely to be raped and violently assaulted by the people who buy her. Any argument that it is a safe profession between two consenting adults is also blown away.
Criminalsation is the only route.
Because if you do that, you don't truly test your thesis and all you may end up doing is making matters worse and not better.
True.Nope. Both are examples of social engineeringboth were or are designed to lessen the negative effects of what they targeted
Trueand both were or are driven by subjective ideology rather than an objective attempt to examine the problems they sought to solve.
False. Prostitution Law is driven by the fact that Prostitutes experience brutal and illegal violence and harm as part of their profession. Clients subject them to this illegal activity. Criminalising it just makes official what clients are actually doing and strikes a blow at demand which exonomics tells us directs supply.And in the case of prohibition, it was an abject disaster. Not all fanatics are religious, you know.
Talking away teh drug of teh people will have that affect. Abusing vulnerable people and children isnt the drug of the people is it?0 -
Now you're telling porkies, because I responded to your original challenge to come up with comparable male examples of occupations that had as "severe affect on the physical and mental health of prostitutes".Ok you have been asked 3 times to substantiate whatever dubious point youre trying to make. I have shown that you are more likley than not to get raped, sexually abused and violently assaulted, suffer PTSD as a prostitute than not. Enough whataboutery. Set up a thread for your truckers elsewhere.
Peer reviewed? LOL. Comrade reviewed more like - who 'peer reviewed' this paper?I accept the evidence of a comrehensive journal that Includes full citations for sources that are verifyable and have been peer reviewed before publication.
Actually none. And you ignored my reference to Brooke Magnanti completely.I give fair weight to one persons opinion on a video, which is very little.
Actually, I've already stated that the anti-legalization campaign appears to be championed not simply by the Feminist left, but the religious right too - it's not even a Feminist position, as there is disagreement even in Feminism on the subject.Have you really anything more than your distrust of feminists to go on here to demonstrate that people including her peers have been duped by this report?
Ultimately, I have a distrust of demagoguery and fanaticism, regardless of te label you would like to attach to it.
Are you doubting that she was or is a prostitute? If not, I would expect she would have much greater weight to you or I - unless, you are a prostitute, of course.Individual unverifyable opinions should carry equal weight, should they not?
Grand so. Then all legislation reflects reality and we need never introduce abortion in Ireland. Agreed? Or is it just the legislation you agree with?This legislation only reflects reality.
I was pointing out that your judgement is clouded on these issues.There you go again with the defensive man thing....i do think youre judgement on these issues is clouded on these issues.
No, we have not. You have presented a piece of propaganda which has been rejected as untrustworthy, both here and on the other thread you're posting to.We have established by verifyable evidence that a prostitute is a vulnerable person (and lets be accurate, a tiny percentage are men) most likely to be raped and violently assaulted by the people who buy her.
Not from what I can see - it looks more like it's being driven by a bunch of fanatics, on both extremes of the political spectrum, to me.False. Prostitution Law is driven by the fact that Prostitutes experience brutal and illegal violence and harm as part of their profession.
All sex is sin or rape, depending upon your particular ideological insanity.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Now you're telling porkies, because I responded to your original challenge to come up with comparable male examples of occupations that had as "severe affect on the physical and mental health of prostitutes".
That is false. You originally asserted that many male professions were as dangerous as being a prostitute. That has been proven to be false. Please substantiate your argument (whatever that is) with evidence.Actually, I've already stated that the anti-legalization campaign appears to be championed not simply by the Feminist left, but the religious right too - ..........
And every others section of Irish society which you ignore againUltimately, I have a distrust of demagoguery and fanaticism, regardless of te label you would like to attach to it.
You see men haters everywhere.Are you doubting that she was or is a prostitute? If not, I would expect she would have much greater weight to you or I - unless, you are a prostitute, of course.
Does she have more weight than the testimony of 875 prostitutes?Grand so. Then all legislation reflects reality and we need never introduce abortion in Ireland. Agreed? Or is it just the legislation you agree with?
Youve lost me. Rape and assault are already crminal acts. If clients of prostitutes carry out tehse acts on women they buy, then they are already acting criminally.I was pointing out that your judgement is clouded on these issues.
I dont see men haters everywhere.No, we have not. You have presented a piece of propaganda which has been rejected as untrustworthy, both here and on the other thread you're posting to.
They are just unsubstantiated wild claims!!! Its a verifyable scholarly article. Does taht eman Nothing to you????Not from what I can see - it looks more like it's being driven by a bunch of fanatics, on both extremes of the political spectrum, to me.
I cant see how youd think that when a cross section of every organisation in Irish society supports it. Then you only see what you want to see, tahts clear.All sex is sin or rape, depending upon your particular ideological insanity.
Rape would be defined as forcing a woman to ahve sex against their will. Are you implying taht the women surveyed did not know what rape was?
Can you substantiate that..or just another wild swipe?0 -
Are you joking me? Are you suggesting that being a combat soldier is less dangerous than being a prostitute? Or even a miner? Or a tucker?That is false. You originally asserted that many male professions were as dangerous as being a prostitute. That has been proven to be false. Please substantiate your argument (whatever that is) with evidence.
Why are you even questioning this? Seriously, who in their right mind would consider prostitution to be more harmful than spending a tour of duty somewhere like Fallujah, where if you don't get killed or a limb blown off, you're more than likely going to suffer psychological trauma for the rest of your life? This is beyond belief.
A piece of advice for you; if someone raises a point about dangerous jobs that primarily affect men and why you're only concentrating on those that primarily affect women, the 'correct' answer is to to suggest that those too are bad, but at present we're dealing with the one at hand that happens to affect primarily women.
The 'wrong' answer, which you came out with, is to dismiss or question that men have such jobs, despite every statistic on the planet showing that over ninety percent of work related injuries and fatalities are to men.
Such responses, as with repeatedly couching things in gender specific terms (such as referring to vulnerable women, rather than people) do little for your credibility, and make you look little more than some misandrist Femnazi, which no doubt you're not...
I mentioned the legitimacy of the abortion's illegality, as per your ridiculous assertion that "legislation only reflects reality", which you've ignored.Youve lost me. Rape and assault are already crminal acts. If clients of prostitutes carry out tehse acts on women they buy, then they are already acting criminally.
No one mentioned rape, but if we were to I totally agree that rape and assault are already criminal acts and should be prosecuted, something that I suspect may be easier to do were it legalized and regulated.
Of course it does. If it is so verifiable, verify it.They are just unsubstantiated wild claims!!! Its a verifyable scholarly article. Does taht eman Nothing to you????
No, it was a commentary on the morality of fanaticism. Religious fanatics tend to view all but the most narrowly defined sex as sinful. Radical Feminists tend to see all but the most narrowly defined sex as rape.Can you substantiate that..or just another wild swipe?0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Are you joking me? Are you suggesting that being a combat soldier is less dangerous than being a prostitute? Or even a miner? Or a tucker?
Posting links are to entire articles proves nothing except that you are lazy and are wasting my time! We all know that soldiering is dangerous. We are inteersted in how dangerous!!! For example: 67% of Prostitutes experience PTSD at a similar level of severity to that experienced by soldiers. But what % of soldiers suffer from PMDS? 5%? too generous?Why are you even questioning this? Seriously, who in their right mind would consider prostitution to be more harmful than spending a tour of duty somewhere like Fallujah, where if you don't get killed or a limb blown off, you're more than likely going to suffer psychological trauma for the rest of your life? This is beyond belief.
Every prostitute is more likley than not to suffer psychological trauma for teh rest of tehir lives. How many soldiers in the Curragh suffer from it?
sexually assaulted as a child, violently assaulted as a child, sexually assaulted as an adult, violently assaulted as an adult,
51% of all prostitutes ahve experienced 3-4 of these.
Back to the lads in the Curragh?A piece of advice for you; if someone raises a point about dangerous jobs that primarily affect men and why you're only concentrating on those that primarily affect women, the 'correct' answer is to to suggest that those too are bad, but at present we're dealing with the one at hand that happens to affect primarily women.
I merely replied that tehre was no other legal job where you were more likely than not to be raped, sexually assaulted and suffer PTSD.
In fairness i called your point on whataboutery several times.The 'wrong' answer, which you came out with, is to dismiss or question that men have such jobs, despite every statistic on the planet showing that over ninety percent of work related injuries and fatalities are to men.
As I said whataboutery.Such responses, as with repeatedly couching things in gender specific terms (such as referring to vulnerable women, rather than people) do little for your credibility, and make you look little more than some misandrist Femnazi, which no doubt you're not...
You see femnazis everywhere, whatever they are. I am a feminist and proud of it though. Are all my comments now discredited?I mentioned the legitimacy of the abortion's illegality, as per your ridiculous assertion that "legislation only reflects reality", which you've ignored.
To repeat again: Clients (nearly always male) rape and assault vulnerable people (nearly always women and children) under the guise of buying sex. Buying sex in reality involves criminal activity ergo criminalise it.No one mentioned rape, but if we were to I totally agree that rape and assault are already criminal acts and should be prosecuted, something that I suspect may be easier to do were it legalized and regulated.
You miss the point completely. You need to understand what the clients want when they buy a woman. Why do yo think the rape figures are so high? Why do you think the assault figures are so high? Do you think these clients motivations for buying women will change because it is legal?
That is why only 34% of prostitutes wanted legalization: they know that the clients who buy a woman with the intention of assaulting and raping them will do so anyway.Of course it does. If it is so verifiable, verify it.
Verifyable means, It is a scholarly article and has been verified by people who are experts in the field. This articles authenticity has not been challenged by anyone! (bar you). It is bona fide. If it was not it would have been discredited by commentators with credibility. Can you find any? No?No, it was a commentary on the morality of fanaticism. Religious fanatics tend to view all but the most narrowly defined sex as sinful. Radical Feminists tend to see all but the most narrowly defined sex as rape.[/Q
The repondents were asked "have you been raped", "who raped you", "how many times were you raped".
It is the individual prostitutes whose interpretation of rape is relevant here.
Again, if you have any link to any credible commentator who has discredited thsi report tahn share it. Otherwise you should drop your ad hominem approach to scholarly articles that disagree with your world view.0 -
You mean like your posting a link to the entire 'scholarly' article, without citing pages and/or paragraphs? I genuinely don't know, at this stage, if you can see the irony in that much of what you've accused me of, you are guilty of yourself.Posting links are to entire articles proves nothing except that you are lazy and are wasting my time!
TBH, and on the subject of wasting my time, I really should know better that to argue with certain people. I think I'll get off the carousel now.0 -
T runner:
Do you really think that further legislation and the criminalisation of paying for sex (with the decriminalisation of receiving money for sex) will result in significantly less prostitution? Or less abuse of those who continue to be prostitutes?
I think that's a naive view. Since when does criminalisation of something such as prostitution work? From what I've seen any attempts at criminalising the activity have failed miserably. What leads you to believe this would be any different, or any more successful?0 -
To repeat again: Clients (nearly always male) rape and assault vulnerable people (nearly always women and children) under the guise of buying sex. Buying sex in reality involves criminal activity ergo criminalise it.
That's simply not true. Not all sex workers are victims. In fact I would say the victims of trafficking among sex workers in this country at least, are in the minority. How does buying sex involve criminal activity if both people are consenting? Is everyone in government a criminal because a few people have corrupted it? Prostitution in itself is neither good nor bad, each person brings to it what they will.0 -
Prostitution is disgraceful and i'm very dissapointed that so many people in this poll think it should be legalised.
Most people who have sex with prostitutes are filthy old men. How a girl can bare that is beyond me. Alot of them have huge problems, have histories of sexual abuse or are addicted to a substance!
I have very little, if any respect for anyone who 'uses' prostitutes. Get yourself a girlfriend. If you can't, take more care of yourself; Lose some weight, wear decent clothes etc. get yourself ready for a girlfriend and sign up to a dating website.
I have never in my twenty-five years even considered being with a prostitute. It disgusts me. Anyways, i'm lucky enough to have a beautiful girlfriend.
Girls, don't consider being a prostitute, no decent man will ever want to be with a girl who has screwed half the country. Trust me on that!
- Sponge250 -
Prostitution is disgraceful and i'm very dissapointed that so many people in this poll think it should be legalised.
Most people who have sex with prostitutes are filthy old men. How a girl can bare that is beyond me. Alot of them have huge problems, have histories of sexual abuse or are addicted to a substance!
I have very little, if any respect for anyone who 'uses' prostitutes. Get yourself a girlfriend. If you can't, take more care of yourself; Lose some weight, wear decent clothes etc. get yourself ready for a girlfriend and sign up to a dating website.
I have never in my twenty-five years even considered being with a prostitute. It disgusts me. Anyways, i'm lucky enough to have a beautiful girlfriend.
Girls, don't consider being a prostitute, no decent man will ever want to be with a girl who has screwed half the country. Trust me on that!
- Sponge25
God I don't know where to start with this. Firstly, it doesn't need to be disgraceful if the people are consenting. How is it any worse than getting a girl drunk and having a one night stand with her on a car bonnet?
Not everyone who uses prostitutes are filthy old men. They come from all walks of life right across the social spectrum.
Not all prostitutes are victims of trafficking, drug use etc.
Not everyone wants a girlfriend or partner. They may just want sex without the emotional baggage. Either way there's a stigma.
There's a stigma associated with going out and looking for sex through the conventional routes. I’ve often heard women complain about been approached by guys in clubs who are only after one thing. “Ohh there’s so many creeps who are only looking for a shag.” Some people don't want or need to put up with that contempt.
What about men with disabilities or someone with aspergers or other illness? It's going to be more difficult for someone like that to find casual sex. I think you need to do a bit more research on the topic.0 -
Prostitution is disgraceful
Why? Because you say so? Id say if you want to affect the minds of the people who have polled very strongly against you above you would want a better reason than that.Most people who have sex with prostitutes are filthy old men.
Why? Because you say so? Have you got access to statistics on who uses the service? Ages, genders, personal hygiene, backgrounds, incomes and so forth? Or do you just make it up because it sounds good?I have never in my twenty-five years even considered being with a prostitute. It disgusts me.
Then do not. Simples. There is a world of difference however between "I do not like X and do not want it" and "No one should like X and want it". The former is your opinion and you are welcome to it. The latter takes some more arguments or, in your case, at least one would be nice.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Why? Because you say so? Id say if you want to affect the minds of the people who have polled very strongly against you above you would want a better reason than that.
Why? Because you say so? Have you got access to statistics on who uses the service? Ages, genders, personal hygiene, backgrounds, incomes and so forth? Or do you just make it up because it sounds good?
Then do not. Simples. There is a world of difference however between "I do not like X and do not want it" and "No one should like X and want it". The former is your opinion and you are welcome to it. The latter takes some more arguments or, in your case, at least one would be nice.
Do ya know how I know anyone who uses a prostitute is filth? Because only a filthy man would sleep with a whore! That's what prostitutes are, whores. They can dress up how they like (escorts etc!) but they're nothing but whores. There's alot of poor girls in the world trafficked to prostitute (even in Ireland!) I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for these girls and I hope the people who put them out to prostitute have nothing but misery and misfortune for the entirety of their disgraceful lives.
Alot of the girls out there are victims of rapes, beat downs, murders and all kinds of disgusting things. This is FACT!
Prostitution isn't disgraceful because I say it is; It's disgraceful because that's what it is. How on earth anyone can justify being a whore is beyond me?
What ever happened to falling in love with a girl and sex being special? Those girls are someones daughter, someones sister and the vast majority do NOT want to do it. They're almost forced or actually forced into it!
Please people reconsider using prostitutes, it's not fair on the girls. Yeah they might pretend to like it but they don't. Just think about it.0 -
Daveysil15 wrote: »God I don't know where to start with this. Firstly, it doesn't need to be disgraceful if the people are consenting. How is it any worse than getting a girl drunk and having a one night stand with her on a car bonnet?
Not everyone who uses prostitutes are filthy old men. They come from all walks of life right across the social spectrum.
Not all prostitutes are victims of trafficking, drug use etc.
Not everyone wants a girlfriend or partner. They may just want sex without the emotional baggage. Either way there's a stigma.
There's a stigma associated with going out and looking for sex through the conventional routes. I’ve often heard women complain about been approached by guys in clubs who are only after one thing. “Ohh there’s so many creeps who are only looking for a shag.” Some people don't want or need to put up with that contempt.
What about men with disabilities or someone with aspergers or other illness? It's going to be more difficult for someone like that to find casual sex. I think you need to do a bit more research on the topic.
There's a little difference between a guy and girl getting carried away and sleeping together and a girl sleeping with 15 men a day. One had a hot night with a guy the others a whore worth little!0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement