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
So is prostitution to be outlawed in Ireland or what?
Options
Comments
-
Irrelevant. What I do think is you've based your opinion on a number (not just one, so try not to focus on only the one) of dubious presumptions and if any of them are false, so is your opinion.Still think brothels are safer in a new law Ireland?
In that light I'd take what you say on the subject with a healthy dose of salt. Or may no dog bark?0 -
Canterelle wrote: »But is consent not the freedom to agree to something without any limiting considerations?
Consent is to give permission, consent is to be able to give permission.
Consent is not without it's limitations.
Let me put the way I was taught in sex ed.
Yes means yes, No means no, even if you is paying the ***.0 -
This law is designed to make life hell on earth for sex workers and will force a lot of Eastern European escorts who seem to dominate the market here to leave (and they are here voluntarily!)!0
-
Should we also feel bad for the natural model looks high end escorts flitting around the globe business class taking thousands per client for a few hours of in out.
Here is a beautiful women who has modelled, is/was a very expensive escort who does a lot of globe trotting. Does she sound happy to you?
https://www.facebook.com/callgirlru/posts/1422750844694019
0 -
Connacht15 wrote: »This law is designed to make life hell on earth for sex workers
it might make their lives worse but I'm not really sure if thats what the people behind the law want0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok so...rereading this my comment about consent was stupid. What I was trying to describe was situation where sw does not want to have sex with John but doesn't see they have a choice, perhaps because they are pimped or drug addicted. And ok legally it is still consent.0
-
Primetime were looking for trafficked women, but failed to find any, there is definitely a pimp involved driving women to various towns and cities, but once he drives away I really don't see whats stopping the women from just walking out the door if they want to, it doesn't really fit the definition of trafficking, its still all about the money
Many years ago I was in a go-go bar and invited to sit in the corner. The bar offered sexual services (illegally) and girls could be bar-fined (a legal escorting loophole). 5 girls pushed another forward, they encouraged/persuaded/coerced her. She was quite and never said a word. She never once looked me in the eye.
When I left that bar, I was happy. I had just had sex with a pretty girl (18 or 19) with an audience, a first. BUT the sexual service did not appear on my bill. No condom had been provided. She was too docile and compliant. There had been too much coercion and supervision going on.
She had been recruited as an "entertainer", was indebted to the tune of one year's salary back home, had 2 months to pay it back (that part was always kept hidden from new recruits) and had no choice but to comply and prostitute. It was patently obvious that she had no desire or inclination to prostitute.
I had just "broken her in" on behalf of the bar, I had just raped a girl and all her "workmates" and her "manager" had encouraged me. She was trafficked. The term wasn't widely used then, that was just how women were recruited.
I returned to the bar a few days later looking for her. I didn't know what I was going to say, I had no plan but I wanted to find her. She was gone and everybody denied ever having seen me.
I did see her 3 or 4 months later in another bar, she was dancing on the stage. She recognised me. She climbed down, walked straight up to me, said "F_ck You" and walked away.
You really don't see what would stop her from walking away! She had her passport, she could have just caught a plane home. But what is she going to tell her family? That she was now in debt, that her debt had been passed on to gangsters, that her siblings will have to quit school because she can not pay for them. Is she going to tell her parents she was forced to prostitute and risk being ostracised and disowned, forever branded a whore anyway?
She was trapped and even her workmates knew it. I think they had drugged her that night to help her get it over with. She had the freedom to walk away, but she was never going to do that. She had "agency" but she was trapped and there was only one way out, comply.
Trafficking is incredibly easy if the trap is set correctly. Once prostitution is legalised, decriminalised or otherwise normalised, it gets ever easier, almost completely risk free and very lucrative.0 -
Firstly, no one is suggesting that anyone coerced by a pimp has a choice.Canterelle wrote: »Ok so...rereading this my comment about consent was stupid. What I was trying to describe was situation where sw does not want to have sex with John but doesn't see they have a choice, perhaps because they are pimped or drug addicted. And ok legally it is still consent.
Secondly, if you mug someone to feed your drug addiction, does that mean you had no choice?
Reality is life is full of situations where you'll find yourself doing things you don't want to, but have limited choice - to get up in the morning to go into a crap job, so you can keep a roof over your head, for example. Or to charge a fortified position with your rifle while they're shooting at you.
Some people, for financial reasons, do choose to engage in prostitution. Doesn't mean that they like their job. Doesn't mean that they had plenty of choices (indeed, often the reason they don't is often because of previous choices).
Out of curiosity, how do you know what her story was? Or that she had her passport? And when she was recruited, do you know what for, if not prostitution? I presume she said a little more than "fu*k you".SoupMonster wrote: »She had been recruited as an "entertainer", was indebted to the tune of one year's salary back home, had 2 months to pay it back (that part was always kept hidden from new recruits) and had no choice but to comply and prostitute. It was patently obvious that she had no desire or inclination to prostitute.
I had just "broken her in" on behalf of the bar, I had just raped a girl and all her "workmates" and her "manager" had encouraged me. She was trafficked. The term wasn't widely used then, that was just how women were recruited.
I returned to the bar a few days later looking for her. I didn't know what I was going to say, I had no plan but I wanted to find her. She was gone and everybody denied ever having seen me.
I did see her 3 or 4 months later in another bar, she was dancing on the stage. She recognised me. She climbed down, walked straight up to me, said "F_ck You" and walked away.
You really don't see what would stop her from walking away! She had her passport, she could have just caught a plane home. But what is she going to tell her family? That she was now in debt, that her debt had been passed on to gangsters, that her siblings will have to quit school because she can not pay for them. Is she going to tell her parents she was forced to prostitute and risk being ostracised and disowned, forever branded a whore anyway?
She was trapped and even her workmates knew it. I think they had drugged her that night to help her get it over with. She had the freedom to walk away, but she was never going to do that. She had "agency" but she was trapped and there was only one way out, comply.0 -
-
my position is very simple, if two consenting adults chose to have sex then its nobodies business but their own, and to make one of them a criminal is total madness, just because money changed hands
And who decides what is a consenting adult? Oh that's right, society. Other people have stuck their nose in your business, whether you like it or not, and decided that you cannot have sex with an 11 year old because society has decided that an 11 year old is not an adult. Guess others should just mind their own business huh?you people are crazy, and your ideas are based on lies and bull****
Better crazy than a sleazy creep;).0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Ask yourself the question many have already alluded to. What is the difference - SPECIFICALLY in terms of treating humans like a commodity - between a sex worker and a general masseur.
STDs don't result, pregnancy doesn't result, and people don't view massage as the most intimate act between two people.Deleted User wrote: »In both cases are we not purchasing time with the body of another individual - the sole purpose of whom is to manipulate OUR body in some pleasurable way using theirs - in exchange for cash? Are we treating masseurs like commmodities then? If no - then how is your point relevant at all? If yes - then what exactly is the issue with another industry doing the same thing?
Engaging in sex is not, nor has it ever been, the same as other "commodities". Which is why there are entire laws written specifically for it. At this point it's plain to see you're being deliberately dishonest/arrogant.Deleted User wrote: »Indeed - but it is none of their business really. If someone does not want to purchase a product - they should not purchase that product. If someone does not want someone ELSE to purchase it - then I would move to attempt to hear them validate that. And I see no validation for their sticking their nose into what other consenting adults do.
Unfortunately for you, you live in the real world where people are responsible to the morals and ethics of wider society, and where people can and do police the actions of others. I suggest you move to a different planet if you dislike that aspect of living.Deleted User wrote: »And I am happy to have the stigmatization taken away from it. Sex workers should not be stigmatised for doing nothing wrong.
I was referring to those that buy sex, not sell it.Deleted User wrote: »I do not see much anger. One user is hardly a mob. The main issue the majority appear to have with Jacks posts are that he will make claims that there are "reality based reasons". Or that the exchange of cash somehow changes Consent into Coercion.
Of course you don't. You are on the pro-prostitution side and are remaining willfully ignorant of the hatred coming from posters who agree with you. So much so that a pro-prostitution poster actually got banned. But I don't really think that you, tax, are in any position to lecture others on minding their own business or not speaking on behalf of others like some in here were doing so when they were speaking for prostitutes. You did, after all, once argue that people who don't like sex don't know what they're missing. So I guess it's okay for you to speak for others and tell them what they like, but it's not okay for others to do so? Hypocrisy, thy name is taxAHcruel.
But you know what I love most about these kinds of threads tax? It's how many times the re-reg trolls come out of the woodwork to thank you and other posters of your ilk, or how many times posters on the opposing side of my argument thank the posts of the re-reg trolls. It lends that much more credibility to my argument.0 -
I have a huge problem with legislating against certain morals. The argument has been made that women have been trafficked to work in the sex trade, therefore we should ban sex work to stop this trafficking. There were reports this week about people being trafficked to work in the fishery industry, but there was no call to ban the fishing industry? People are trafficked and enslaved and forced to work in landscape gardening - but there is never a call to outlaw these industries. Why is that?
There are plenty of people working willingly in the fishing and landscaping industry. There are also plenty of people working willingly in the sex industry. Why aren't the opponents of the sex trade targetting the trafficking of people in the fishing industry? Because they want to use their morals as the basis for legislation. They think that people who choose to have sex for money should be criminalised, but there is no problem with people being enslaved to work on a fishing boat.0 -
And who decides what is a consenting adult? Oh that's right, society. Other people have stuck their nose in your business, whether you like it or not, and decided that you cannot have sex with an 11 year old because society has decided that an 11 year old is not an adult. Guess others should just mind their own business huh?
thats a very different thing as most sane people can see, it has no effect on the nature of consent between two adultsBetter crazy than a sleazy creep;).
I'n no more or less a sleazy creep than you are0 -
Engaging in sex is not, nor has it ever been, the same as other "commodities".[ /QUOTE]
Really ?
Look at the wives of some wealthy men.
See if you can spot a trend.0 -
It's the most intimate thing two humans can do with one another. How about that for a start. I really weep for humanity when people equate sex with other "professions" or commodities.
Ok, how about that for starters?
Intimate how, exactly? Are we talking physically intimate? Are you talking emotionally intimate? Etc? Could you quantify intimacy? Presumably so, as you've ranked sex number one. Would you be of the opinion that all sex everywhere between anyone should be rated as more intimate than anything else that has ever taken place between two people?
Is there some kind of sliding scale of intimacy for you? Is something more or less legitimate as a saleable activity depending on the degree of intimacy involved? What comes after sex? Is that thing below the intimacy threshold for being considered saleable? Where's the cut off point? What's above and below it?
So, it's the most intimate thing that two people can do with one another? Let's go with that for starters as above.
What's next?0 -
STDs don't result, pregnancy doesn't result, and people don't view massage as the most intimate act between two people.
All of which is irrelevant to the question I asked. It is you asserting it to be "the most intimate" based on nothing. You just declare it to be so. Massage can be quite intimate for some people - who are not generally used to consenting to that level of tactility with another human being. YOUR personal measures might mean sex is the most intimate thing for you. But YOUR measures are not universal. So my question remains unanswered.Engaging in sex is not, nor has it ever been, the same as other "commodities". Which is why there are entire laws written specifically for it. At this point it's plain to see you're being deliberately dishonest/arrogant.
Name calling does not answer the question. Nor does dodging the question by merely declaring it to be dishonest. The question stands. In BOTH cases we are paying another human being to use their body in some way to pleasure ours. And you appear to be unable to erect an argument why there should be some difference there - other than to repeat over and over that you personally find sex to be more intimate.Unfortunately for you, you live in the real world where people are responsible to the morals and ethics of wider society, and where people can and do police the actions of others. I suggest you move to a different planet if you dislike that aspect of living.
Perfectly happy to live in that world - so long as the people attempting to control the actions of others are able to erect actual arguments for doing so. And it is quite plain to see over numerous posts now that you have not erected a single argument as to why we should be policing the consenting sex between consenting adults.I was referring to those that buy sex, not sell it.
And I am referring to both. Which covers your "point" nicely.Of course you don't. You are on the pro-prostitution side and are remaining willfully ignorant of the hatred coming from posters who agree with you. So much so that a pro-prostitution poster actually got banned.
And as I said - one user is not a mob. And given I acknowledged that one user in my post - the accusation of "willfully ignorant" is just hot air from you. I did indeed see bad posts coming from one user - and I am glad to see that user removed. But extrapolating the actions of one user to some imaginary "hatred" from the pro group as a whole - is just agenda driven fabrication on your part.You did, after all, once argue that people who don't like sex don't know what they're missing.
I have no idea what you are referring to here - and I note you did not deign to offer a quote or citation. I somewhat suspect however that whatever it is you are referring to has been taken out of context entirely. But by all means cite a link in your next post and let me know to what you refer.It lends that much more credibility to my argument.
No it does not. Let us evaluate the arguments on the merits - if any - they hold. The activities of trolls have nothing to do with your arguments - and they certainly have nothing to do with me - so I think you are just throwing distractionary tangents around now.It's the most intimate thing two humans can do with one another. How about that for a start. I really weep for humanity when people equate sex with other "professions" or commodities.
It _can_ be that for many people. But it does not have to be. Your measure of intimacy is not universal. There are other things people consider more and less "intimate" than just sex.
A lot of the issues people have with prostitution comes down to this - that they think themselves they know what sex is "for" or how it should be. But for some people it is intimacy - for some people it is just some fun - for some people it is reproduction - and for many people it can be a all three - at different times or all together.
So there is no reason to weep - just because people share different standards to you. And there is certainly no argument for it being illegal based on this. People using sex differently - or for different reasons or motivations - than you - has no bearing on the argument about law.And who decides what is a consenting adult? Oh that's right, society.
Guess others should just mind their own business huh?
Not sure that is what the user is saying at all. Nor would I say anything like that either. I have no issue with the concept of informed consent - or with it "sticking its nose in my business". I am happy to have a society level conversation about consent and for it to be modified and used over time.
But what the user and I would be saying is GIVEN we have this concept of informed adult consent - there is no reason to be making illegal the consensual sex between two adults involving money changing hands.
If you wish to start a separate debate on our current definition of consent - that's fine too. But in the light of our current one - the point the other user was making stands.0 -
Nobody seems to have noticed yet, but at last friday's Seanad Committee stage it became clear that the intention is to decriminalise street workers under the proposed Sexual Offences Act while recriminalising them by amendment to the Public Order Act 1994, with harsher penalties than at present.
This is just a briefing page of relevant details and links:
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/the-covert-recriminalistation-of-irish-street-workers/0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement