Why is it illegal to sell/purchase sex?

Mister Vain

westcoast66 wrote: »

I lived in Brazil for while years ago. There was this girl that I met at a bar and got her number. I used to ring and she'd come over and we'd have sex. Then she'd ask for $100 for the taxi home. Was she a prostitute? Who knows. The lines seemed to be very blurred over there. Great arrangement though.

That's a great idea actually. And apparently if you put the money in an envelope and leave it on her table then you're not technically paying for sex either. You could be just putting money towards her bills.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

Without getting deep into the philosophical aspects, love requires free-will. Animals have/experience bonding and attachments but it isn't love. Love isn't an emotion or just a feeling. Love is the name given to the human experience. The animal experience should go by a different name because it is something different.

Can you prove any of this please?

floggg

Gerry T wrote: »

If the trade is legalised it takes it out of the hands of pimps. That way women that want to be prostitutes will work for a legal brothel. If men go there the street walkers, where many are forced, will be out of business and won't be forced.
What's your thoughts on married women forced to give sex to their loving husbands, is that ok ? it happens...using your logic we should ban marriage.

Marital rape is illegal in this country (rightly so).

OldNotWIse

lazybones32 wrote: »

I understand the point you make but when ever is there a necessity to sell yourself for sex? Personally, I'd rob a shop or sell dope before turning to prostitution. There is such variety and opportunity in the life of crime!
I don't knowingly know any prostitutes but I can't imagine a scenario whereby someone decides as a career (porn aside) to sleep with whoever offers you money.

There obviously are people who don't see any other option, otherwise the "trade" wouldn't exist. It's easy for you or I to say "oh I'd rather do XY or Z than sell my body" but we don't know what kind of circumstances other people might find themselves in, so we can't impose our rationality on them.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There obviously are people who don't see any other option, otherwise the "trade" wouldn't exist.

I think the first part of your sentence is entirely 100% true. There are clearly and unfortunately people who enter this line of work because they see no other choice - and they do not want to be there. (Though - worth noting - there MANY people who fit that description in nearly ALL lines of work. The number of people who studied one thing and ended up doing another because there was no work for them - is truly unfortunate.

The second half however I am not buying. It would still exist - just with less people in it - if we removed only the people who do not want to be there. Some people are perfectly happy to be doing it. Actual figures on which is which I would be happy to see - would that we could get some - but I do not think the numerical disparity between the two groups is as wide as many would seem to assume.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

I understand the point you make but when ever is there a necessity to sell yourself for sex? Personally, I'd rob a shop or sell dope before turning to prostitution.

Then you differ strongly from me and many others - because I certainly respect the law for one - and the rights of others even more so. Prostitution were it legal is therefore something I would consider WELL before the concept of stealing property from others. I would take the victimless route every time.

Even if it were not legal - and I felt compelled to enter the world of crime - I would still choose victimless crimes over the alternative.

lazybones32 wrote: »

I can't imagine a scenario whereby someone decides as a career (porn aside) to sleep with whoever offers you money.

Yet I can. Not the least because unlike yourself I have known someone doing it.

But even then I can still imagine the scenarios you suggest you can not. You say - for example - "porn aside". And actually there is good reason why people would choose sex for money over porn. Because porn IS sex for money - with the difference that it is filmed and distributed.

And there are many people who would prefer - hands down - sex for money that is over and done with once it is over - to sex for money that is distributed - anyone might see it - and could come back to haunt you later. Even if the latter pays multiple times as much money as the former.

floggg

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There obviously are people who don't see any other option, otherwise the "trade" wouldn't exist. It's easy for you or I to say "oh I'd rather do XY or Z than sell my body" but we don't know what kind of circumstances other people might find themselves in, so we can't impose our rationality on them.

I don't know if we can say that these people don't see other options. I would think there are plenty of men and women who do sex work by choice and would enjoy their work (or at least aspects of it).

I'm not going to lie, as somebody who enjoys sex recreationally, getting paid to do it sounds like a perfect job in theory.

The reality of it would likely involve more over weight elderly men than I would be prepared to deal with.

I also doubt I have the rock hard abs and chiseled jaw needed for the "high class escort" job title which I aspire too.

Grayson

catallus wrote: »

An. end. in. itself.

Does not compute

Sex can be about getting your rocks off and that's all.



It's like a meal. Sometimes a meal is two people sitting down with candles, red wine and romance. It's intimate and special.

Sometimes it's a greasy kebab because your fecking starving and lets face it, it's fcuking great.

Uncle Ruckus

Because people are idiots. To expound; we still suffer from a Victorian and Catholic cultural hangover. Moreover, it's like the war on drugs. Most conservatives and liberals don't understand supply and demand, despite the fact that it's pretty basic stuff. Anyway, a big step backwards. Can't wait for our version of the Tories (Fine Gael) to get kicked out. Might as well give the Shinners a go. Some of their economic policies are a tad naïve but we've been fecked over by the right wing for long enough. Hopefully the left will use a bit of lube on us.

newport2

Mister Vain wrote: »

That's a great idea actually. And apparently if you put the money in an envelope and leave it on her table then you're not technically paying for sex either. You could be just putting money towards her bills.

Sure stick your camera phone on and you're paying her as a model to make a private porn video.

Grayson

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

Because people are idiots. To expound; we still suffer from a Victorian and Catholic cultural hangover. Moreover, it's like the war on drugs. Most conservatives and liberals don't understand supply and demand, despite the fact that it's pretty basic stuff. Anyway, a big step backwards. Can't wait for our version of the Tories (Fine Gael) to get kicked out. Might as well give the Shinners a go. Some of their economic policies are a tad naïve but we've been fecked over by the right wing for long enough. Hopefully the left will use a bit of lube on us.

If FG are our version of the tories, who are FF?

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

If FG are our version of the tories, who are FF?

criminals

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you prove any of this please?

How? By posting references of what someone else says? Why believe them over me...
Can you prove you love your bf/gf/parents, siblings, hamster and can you prove they love you back?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There obviously are people who don't see any other option, otherwise the "trade" wouldn't exist. It's easy for you or I to say "oh I'd rather do XY or Z than sell my body" but we don't know what kind of circumstances other people might find themselves in, so we can't impose our rationality on them.

I disagree with you highly. Not every prostitute is there because of seeing no other way. Escorts make a fortune from their decision to prostitute themselves. They could stand on street corners - where their good looks would get them plenty of work - but they chose a different route to the same destination. About 5 years ago, there was a story on the radio of a College student who decided to sell herself because she was in financial difficulty. Her sugar-daddy took care of all her material needs. Yet she didn't think of going to the S.U. to avail of the help they offer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then you differ strongly from me and many others - because I certainly respect the law for one - and the rights of others even more so. Prostitution were it legal is therefore something I would consider WELL before the concept of stealing property from others. I would take the victimless route every time.

Even if it were not legal - and I felt compelled to enter the world of crime - I would still choose victimless crimes over the alternative.





And there are many people who would prefer - hands down - sex for money that is over and done with once it is over - to sex for money that is distributed - anyone might see it - and could come back to haunt you later. Even if the latter pays multiple times as much money as the former.

Offer up your ass all you want but in the year 2014 in this State, there is no need to turn to prostitution as a means of staying alive. I wonder would you advise your daughter - in a worst case scenario* - to turn to crime or stand on street corners at night, selling herself to whoever will pay?

*assuming the State or agencies cannot or will not help.

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

What you talkin' 'bout Scumlord? Read some Hume ffs!

I prefer to get my facts from modern scientists thanks.

You love your doggie, we get it, we all like doggies, they're delicious, but you were imprinted with that emotional template due to your place and time of birth so you ascribe some sort of human understanding upon them!? They have no idea about human emotions. They eat dogs in Asia, ffs!

Dogs are probably the only other animal that understands human emotion. The dog more than likely domesticated itself and then spent the thousands of years by our side adapting to understanding human emotion. This isn't a philosophy it's scientific fact. Dogs evolutionary tactic has been one of understanding human behaviour and inserting itself into human society. Dogs have shown near chimp like mental abilities simply down to the fact they have had to adapt to human thinking and emotion.

What the dog has achieved for itself is actually quite amazing. It's not the smartest animal on the planet but it was smart enough to get in with humans early and now it's a species that enjoys a life of luxury and leisure in many parts of the world.

catallus

The last time there was a dog in my house it pissed on my floor.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

How? By posting references of what someone else says? Why believe them over me...
Can you prove you love your bf/gf/parents, siblings, hamster and can you prove they love you back?

You are making the assertion that our bio-chemical interactions cause a feeling that is not replicated in animals (even though those animals have same/similar chemical interactions).
The onus of proof is on you to back up your statement. Otherwise it is just your personal opinion based on belief and not worth the paper that it is written on.

Basically I call "Bullsh*t" on your opinions

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

Offer up your ass all you want but in the year 2014 in this State, there is no need to turn to prostitution as a means of staying alive.

I did not say there was a "need". I was addressing your comment that IF there was a need THEN you would turn to theft and drug running before prostitution.

In other words your point was hypothetical - and so also therefore was my reply in that spirit. The same spirit as the caveat you added with an *asterix at the end of your last post.

lazybones32 wrote: »

I wonder would you advise your daughter - in a worst case scenario* - to turn to crime or stand on street corners at night, selling herself to whoever will pay?

Nice attempt at an argument from emotion but if it came to that then my own ideals would not break or be compromised simply because it is her. I would still advise anyone towards no crime over victimless crime - and victimless crimes - over victim crimes - if crime was the only and final option available.

Crime - the nature of crime - and the harms of crime do not all magically evaporate because the person engaging in it happens to be dear to me.

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

The last time there was a dog in my house it pissed on my floor.

if that's the metric for what can or cannot experience love then you're going to exclude a lot of people :P

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

You are making the assertion that our bio-chemical interactions cause a feeling that is not replicated in animals (even though those animals have same/similar chemical interactions).
The onus of proof is on you to back up your statement. Otherwise it is just your personal opinion based on belief and not worth the paper that it is written on.

Basically I call "Bullsh*t" on your opinions

I wrote nothing about bio-chemical interactions and effects, so I couldn't have made that assertion.

I wrote: "Love is a human word to express a human condition. Applying human terms to non-human or inanimate objects is anthropomorphism" and "Without getting deep into the philosophical aspects, love requires free-will. Animals have/experience bonding and attachments but it isn't love. Love isn't an emotion or just a feeling. Love is the name given to the human experience. The animal experience should go by a different name because it is something different."

Call bull**** on my opinions all you want but at least (try to) understand them before doing so.

You - in #35 - asked if animals can love? and then in # 53 "The chemical nature of love is not unique to humans. So why do you assume that only humans love?" You made the assertion. The onus is on you. Provide your proof or blah, blah, blah *imitates your hypocritical stance*

It's interesting how I must answer your Q's but you fail to answer mine...more hypocrisy?

Reoil

catallus wrote: »

But we are above animals, just as we are beneath God.

I am beneath no God.

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice attempt at an argument from emotion but if it came to that then my own ideals would not break or be compromised simply because it is her. I would still advise anyone towards no crime over victimless crime - and victimless crimes - over victim crimes - if crime was the only and final option available.

Crime - the nature of crime - and the harms of crime do not all magically evaporate because the person engaging in it happens to be dear to me.

Argument from emotion? It's a scenario and I asked you how do you think you'd react in such a scenario...emotions do influence our decisions and that's not always a bad thing. (It is part of our humanity and I don't understand people's obsession with Dr. Spock and the scientific method as being the preferable way to make all decisions.) Personally, I'd advise her to hit the supermarket or people's clotheslines before recommending her to let someone lob it in for a few euro. I reckon - and this is my bias - it'd be easier to live with the notion of robbing food than of allowing someone cum inside you for money.

Cienciano

catallus wrote: »

Because sexual relations are the essence of our humanity; the taboo is against selling your humanity.

When I read this I thought "what the fúck is he talking about?"

catallus wrote: »

I'm sure it suits your misanthropic pov to believe so. But we are above animals, just as we are beneath God.

But the bit in bold explains it. There's a hell of a lot more to humanity than sex.

Is having a **** relinquishing your humanity?

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

I wrote nothing about bio-chemical interactions and effects, so I couldn't have made that assertion.

I wrote: "Love is a human word to express a human condition. Applying human terms to non-human or inanimate objects is anthropomorphism" and "Without getting deep into the philosophical aspects, love requires free-will. Animals have/experience bonding and attachments but it isn't love. Love isn't an emotion or just a feeling. Love is the name given to the human experience. The animal experience should go by a different name because it is something different."

Call bull**** on my opinions all you want but at least (try to) understand them before doing so.

You - in #35 - asked if animals can love? and then in # 53 "The chemical nature of love is not unique to humans. So why do you assume that only humans love?" You made the assertion. The onus is on you. Provide your proof or blah, blah, blah *imitates your hypocritical stance*

It's interesting how I must answer your Q's but you fail to answer mine...more hypocrisy?

Read the quoted post in #35. The poster stated that sex was a manifestation of Love. Animals have sex so I ASKED if animals can love.

"Love is a human word to express a human condition" You made this statement. Please explain this condition? There are a series of chemical (hormonal) actions that occur around this time, which are replicated through out the natural world, which would suggest that our "love" is just a biologically driven reaction to finding a suitable mate.
Seeing as (other) animals have the same chemical changes, I asked how you make the statement that they can NOT feel love.

You are the one presenting an opinion as fact. Opinions that have no information to back them up are groundless and basically bullcrap

catallus

Cienciano wrote: »

Is having a **** relinquishing your humanity?

That question deserves a thread all of its own

But yes, yes it does.

catallus

catallus wrote: »

That question deserves a thread all of its own

But yes, yes it does.

Why, where has this been proven? Where is it stated?

catallus

Deleted User wrote: »

Why, where has this been proven? Where is it stated?

It is self evident! Jeez you're such a literalist.

Obviously not self evident. You are making the claim could you please back it up even just a tiny bit.

Are your statements OPINION or FACT?

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

That question deserves a thread all of its own

But yes, yes it does.

I'd hate to see what would happen if some said "show a little humanity" to you. Would you whip it out and blow the load on them. :pac:

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

It is self evident! Jeez you're such a literalist.

So a person doesn't experience what it is to be fully human if they don't have sex. But if they pay for it or masturbate, they relinquish their humanity?

the dark phantom

lazybones32 wrote: »

Why exactly, if anyone knows?

We 'sell' our skills, ideas and our bodies (manual workers, soldiers, black-market organs, etc) but sex is still a crime to purchase with money. Paying for sex with candles, dinner and wine is called romance.


Instead of punishing one party to a 'criminal activity', should it just be legalised?

Because Irish Catholics say so...:rolleyes: