So is prostitution to be outlawed in Ireland or what?

For ever odd

Under_Graduate wrote: »

For the uninitiated here, could anyone take the trouble to explain what this, "Swedish Practice or Rule or Law", whatever, is??

They have sex workers in Sweden, right?

Costs the equivalent of €300-400, with good reason, getting laid in Sweden is easy.

They don't get many callers!

One eyed Jack

nokia69 wrote: »

absolute complete and total nonsense, you're making a fool of yourself

looks I need to ask the same question again, could you define consent for me, jackie, when it comes to sex between two adults

Self awareness clearly isn't one of your strengths.

You keep ignoring the fact that the other person is only engaged in sexual activity because they are being paid to do so. Therefore, it is coerced, not consensual.

If you tried to argue in front of a court that you had consensual sex because you paid someone for sex, you'll be laughed out of it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Therefore, it is coerced, not consensual.

Are you coerced by your employer to work for them?

Not for the first time I have to ask, do you ever read your own posts?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep ignoring the fact that the other person is only engaged in sexual activity because they are being paid to do so. Therefore, it is coerced, not consensual.

Oh no - I was at the super market just today and the Guy who served me at the checkout was paid to be there. I thought he might have consented to his line of work - I had no idea his being paid for it meant he was coerced!

I will endeavor to apologize to him sometime early Monday.

One eyed Jack

Under_Graduate wrote: »

Why the oppositional stance?

Quite simply, I've seen enough lives destroyed, I've seen enough people destroyed, in the sex industry to motivate me to actively campaign against prostitution in society.

You may not agree that I have a point, but then you haven't shared my personal perspective either, and so I understand why you would oppose any such measures.

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Are you coerced by your employer to work for them?

Not for the first time I have to ask, do you ever read your own posts?

I'm self-employed, so that question wouldn't apply to me, notwithstanding the fact that it's a completely different context. Employment is perfectly legal.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've seen enough lives destroyed, I've seen enough people destroyed, in the sex industry to motivate me to actively campaign against prostitution in society.

Sounds like you have some very personal dog in this fight and you feel "showing your hand" will make an argument for you where you have other wise failed to make one.

I could show a similar hand. I have seen enough lives destroyed, I've seen enough people destroyed, in the police force. But somehow I do not feel compelled to campaign against them.

Horrors exist in every industry. And the CORRECT response - regardless of whatever personal pain you might be under - is to _improve_ that industry and everything around it.

The incorrect response - almost every time - is to indict any one industry with the horrors that go on within it.

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's a completely different context.

You were laying out a line of argument. It clearly failed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Employment is perfectly legal.

As has been pointed out on numerous times on this thread. So is prostitution.

nokia69

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Self awareness clearly isn't one of your
strengths.

it looks like logic and reason are your achilles heel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep ignoring the fact that the other person is only engaged in sexual activity because they are being paid to do so. Therefore, it is coerced, not consensual.

paying a fair price for something is not coercion, its a deal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you tried to argue in front of a court that you had consensual sex because you paid someone for sex, you'll be laughed out of it.

its not consensual because its paid for, and nobody would argue that case, its consensual because the other party agreed to it, this is where you are in error

I will again ask the same question, could you define consent for me, jackie, when it comes to sex between two adults, at this point I'm dying to hear your definition

seriously, and I mean this as no joke, you really are making a fool of yourself

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds like you have some very personal dog in this fight and you feel "showing your hand" will make an argument for you where you have other wise failed to make one.

I could show a similar hand. I have seen enough lives destroyed, I've seen enough people destroyed, in the police force. But somehow I do not feel compelled to campaign against them.

Horrors exist in every industry. And the CORRECT response - regardless of whatever personal pain you might be under - is to _improve_ that industry and everything around it.

The incorrect response - almost every time - is to indict any one industry with the horrors that go on within it.

Yet again tax, our perspectives differ. This is why I saw no point in engaging before. It wasn't because I was ignoring you, I find your perspective on various issues is always interesting and informed. I'm just not sure we would ever reach an amicable or agreeable resolution whenever we engage as I'm genuinely and honestly never quite sure how to respond to you or what to say to you other than I can only respectfully disagree with your opinion in this instance.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you tried to argue in front of a court that you had consensual sex because you paid someone for sex, you'll be laughed out of it.

I think you have an ace up your sleeve here. You are going to cite for us a case with a ruling of this sort and show us all up

I can not wait to read the judges reports on one or more of these cases - please link me to one - any one - where consent and transaction came into it - and mirth followed

nokia69

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

to be honest I'm not sure if people in the court would even laugh, they would be so dumbfounded

I suspect they would be calling for men in white coats

One eyed Jack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You were laying out a line of argument. It clearly failed.

Because you moved the goalposts, I missed? Hardly surprising.

As has been pointed out on numerous times on this thread. So is prostitution.

The laws regarding prostitution are somewhat more nuanced than that. Prostitution is legal, but certain activities pertaining to prostitution are illegal.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yet again tax, our perspectives differ.

Not just you and me but you and quite a lot of people on this and other threads it seems. I guess if you wander through life spouting unsubstantiated nonsense - then this is a theme you are going to come up with again and again

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is why I saw no point in engaging before.

Actually "before" all I did was ask you a very simple and easily answered question. A question that was entirely based on a clear statement from you.

But it seems that ignoring the first post - and engaging the second post with a host of irrelevancies - is the new MO you are operating under.

mecanno37

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because you moved the goalposts, I missed? Hardly surprising.





The laws regarding prostitution are somewhat more nuanced than that. Prostitution is legal, but certain activities pertaining to prostitution are illegal.

The same could be said for a lot of jobs, but they , like prostitution are legal.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you have an ace up your sleeve here. You are going to cite for us a case with a ruling of this sort and show us all up

I can not wait to read the judges reports on one or more of these cases - please link me to one - any one - where consent and transaction came into it - and mirth followed

See what I mean? I said "if". There would be no need for you to assume dishonesty on my part if you simply read what I wrote. I'm not aware of any circumstances in which it has ever been argued, because it would be an utterly futile thing to try and argue if you were being charged with soliciting the services of a sex worker.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See what I mean? I said "if".

So.... without any of this "whatiffery" would you like to scroll back and answer the first post - the one you ignored - and can not answer - which had a very simple layout and question in it Or is your MO forever going to be to ignore initial challenges to anything you say - in favor of pedantic linguistic nonsense you can eventually win WAY down the line?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So.... without any of this "whatiffery" would you like to scroll back and answer the first post - the one you ignored - and can not answer - which had a very simple layout and question in it Or is your MO forever going to be to ignore initial challenges to anything you say - in favor of pedantic linguistic nonsense you can eventually win WAY down the line?

What can I say tax? I just don't know what to say to you because you appear to ascribe all sorts of motives and to be frank, it just isn't worth the engagement as we're likely to go nowhere.

I think it'd be both a waste of your time, and my time, to even try and have a discussion on any issue tbh as we're two very different people.

Azalea

Deleted User wrote: »

Horrors exist in every industry. And the CORRECT response - regardless of whatever personal pain you might be under - is to _improve_ that industry and everything around it.

I really agree. Even if it's made illegal, it will continue - and imagine the awful stuff that could go on within it then...

Avatar MIA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The laws regarding prostitution are somewhat more nuanced than that. Prostitution is legal, but certain activities pertaining to prostitution are illegal.

Erm, the only one moving the goalposts here is you.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What can I say tax?

I have no idea. That is the point of a question. I asked you a question. You did not answer it then. You have not answered it now. And I have a sinking feeling you are not likely to answer it any time soon.

So what can you say? No idea? Try answering the question? That would be my advice. Just this once?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

we're two very different people.

Yea you tried this cop out on another thread but it was equally irrelevant there. It has nothing to do with what kind of person YOU are or what kind of person I am. The fact is you claimed that: "Good thing they're not outlawing anything for morality reasons then, but for reality reasons"

And the only thing I did was to call you on that and simply ask what those reasons where. And all of a sudden I get this complete smoke screen response of how conversation is suddenly pointless because of how different we are.

This ploy you have is only going to work for so long. At some point people are going to start to get hip to the fact that you are just throwing out nonsense and then just doing fire control to get out of it later.

paleoperson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The advertising is done to people in Ireland. You can't broadcast or put whatever you want to people in the country and say it's all legal.

It doesn't even matter if it's legal or not. Honestly I don't mind the idea that on the very odd occasion I'm doing something highly criminal. I want to be a criminal ffs.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

At some point people are going to start to get hip to the fact that you are just throwing out nonsense and then just doing fire control to get out of it later.

That point is firmly set in the past.

OEJ is interesting because of his passion, but it's frustrating that the passion is too often devoid of logic.

Some1somewhere

Criminalising the purchase of sexual services

Minister Fitzgerald confirmed that two new offences are to be introduced which criminalise paying for sexual activity with a prostitute. These offences specifically target the demand for prostitution. The first is a general offence of paying to engage in sexual activity with a prostitute and the second is the more serious offence of paying to engage in such sexual activity with a person who has been trafficked. In both cases, the person providing the sexual service does not commit an offence.



The Minister stated: “I am committed to addressing the very real and tragic crimes of trafficking and exploitation associated with prostitution. I am convinced that targeting the demand for such services is the way forward.



The Minister added that: “the proposal I am announcing today mirrors the approach adopted in Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions which have seen a reduction in demand and notably, over time, an increase in support for similar laws. This Bill reflects an All-Island consensus to targeting the predominantly exploitative nature of prostitution.”

Minister Fitzgerald also today confirmed that she is examining the possibility of introducing proposals which would decriminalise a person offering sexual services from the existing offences of soliciting and loitering for the purposes of prostitution under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993. Any proposals brought forward in this area will need to ensure that appropriate tools remain to address any public nuisance concerns which may arise.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Some good things there.

Target those who go to trafficked ie against their will Escorts.
Right now Escorts are taken to court and fined for being escorts which is stupid if the law is saying those Escorts are forced and pimped, fine the victims is what is going on now.

New laws will fine the idiots going to Escorts who may be in a bad situation, maybe punters will be more careful of the person they choose to spend their time with if they the punter will be fined.


"predominantly exploitative nature of prostitution"

Predominantly suggests recognition of some Escorts being willing to be Escorts.

Who could guess, men and women who like sex and money are willing to be Escorts and make love and money.

nokia69

paleoperson wrote: »

You can't broadcast or put whatever you want to people in the country and say it's all legal.

yeah you can

2 stroke

I bring a friend to an appointment with an escort a few times a year, this is the only sex this guy has, and it's a totally consensual arrangement. This lady organises her own appointments and is no more enslaved than any of us that have a mortgage and bills to pay. She doe's have expensive taste in shoes and holidays and drives a nice car. She considers her employment less demeaning than than cooking, cleaning or waiting tables. I see no reason why either of them should be classed as a criminal. Consensual sex between adults is none of the states business.

paleoperson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's completely different to saying they're "legal". That's like saying if someone can get away with murder it's legal because the state and its various organs were unable to stop them.