Should the purchase of sex be legal or illegal in Ireland?

IrishTrajan

Illegal. It's just like using cheat codes.

esforum

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well legalish, but it's a very covert industry in Ireland, there's a lot of offenses attached to it, we're not exactly like Amsterdam over here.

well I wouldnt really like to be like Amsterdam, even if you have an innocent view of the place.

I wouldnt say we are very covert, ads are obvious, websites are obvious, streetwalkers are freely working away.

talked about and accepted? Certainly not, I would agree there but covert? Only very very slightly to the extent that you cant just decide randomly to visit a brothel without prior thought but 2 minutes research will get you a booking.

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some of them get ferociously horny, but under current law it is unlawful for anyone to have sex with them anyway.

Others in a similar boat can, they can also marry as well. It depends on levels and ability of both parties.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Read the thread and that is the message that people seem to be giving. When I am making a point, it is not always about you or what you said directly.

Yet I do not see that message in most of the posts I have read, if any. I think you may be reading more into what is there to make it easier to rebut. But as I said since I did not make any of these alleged points, there is not much more I need to say about them.

Olishi4 wrote: »

If you don't understand the point, fine but it's a waste of time explaining in detail every single sentence.

Then you must be overjoyed to find I did not ask you to explain every single sentence. I asked you to explain one single thing. But you wont. Or cant.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Sexual liberation, empowerment etc. have been associated with sex work in the thread. YOU spoke about right to choice and implied that criminalizing it was suppressing people's right to individuality.

A different point entirely. And actually when I said it I was quoting someone else, it was not my own point. I was pointing out that OEJ had dodged the message of the video he had merely dismissed. The message being that people seem intent on removing choice and autonomy under the guise of protecting people. It was not MY point, I was merely summarizing the point another user was dodging, and has not stopped dodging since.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Glamorising it.

Then again you must be overjoyed to find I have not argued for glamorizing it. I have argued for legalizing and normalizing it. Massively different things. And normalizing it DOES give them a place to go. Because those sex workers who have had abuse or crimes committed on them, for example, would more readily feel like they could go to the police. For example.

smash wrote: »

There was a documentary on C4

Alas I do not put much stock in television documentries at the best of times. They make their bread and butter on spin, offence, outrage and shock. I would prefer actual studies. And studies that show more than just "correlation".

And as I said even then I would want specifics and details. Not just "Implementing regulation led to increased trafficiking". I would want to know WHAT regulations, HOW they were implemented and policed and maintained (if at all), WHAT were the increases specifically and with what cause.

And so forth. Because without any of that the correlation, even if validated, says nothing, means nothing, and tells us nothing.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In contrast to that - facilitating the sex industry and attempting to regulate the industry would cost the State far more than it's worth.

Again, since you outright ignored me asking already, I would like to see your workings here. What you think it costs to enforce laws against it, what you think it costs to enforce a regulated legal system. And what you think it is "worth". I am not seeing any of these workings AT ALL to support what otherwise are just your outright assertions. Assertions you appear to want to support by nothing other than ignoring the people who question them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Many of them have no education or transferable skills to be able to do anything else, and so they become the State's problem, again.

Again.... not seeing your figures here on the backgrounds and numbers of the people you are talking about. Where are you getting these "facts" exactly?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

instead of encouraging and allowing for, and facilitating that choice, should be focused on enabling people and giving them more choices so that they aren't choosing the sex industry out of necessity.

Again since you ignored it also before, I pointed out that this is something we should be doing ANYWAY. So it is irrelevant to the discussion whether the sex trade should be illegal or not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but society should have no obligation then to facilitate those people doing what they like if they already think they're above the laws of that society

But this thread is not about people who think they are above the law. If the law is against prostitution and people engage in prostitution anyway, then sure the law would apply and that is as it should be.

But the thread is about whether it should be illegal or legal in the first place. And if it is illegal then your point is stating nothing but the obvious. If it is to be legal then your point is basically irrelevant. So either way your point is not worth making or cluttering the posts or thread with.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But sex is already freely available, to anyone!

Yes, stating the obvious again. What should also be obvious is that people who go to sex workers do so for more reasons that merely wanting sex to be easily available or free. There are other motivations and reasons for it. And the demand for it is anything but "artificial", nor does it require magical powers of them. Just because YOU can not see a point to the sex industry, does not magically mean there is one. There is just not one for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's how marketing works, that's how they were able to monetise bottled water even though 70% of the planet is covered in it!

And are the reasons why that happened as opaque to you as the reason people still go to sex workers even if sex is "readily available" as you claim?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the whole point of the Swedish model though - is that the seller won't be criminalised, but the buyer will.

I am still waiting for SOME level of reply from you as to why you wish to criminalize something when you lack any argument at all for it being "wrong" in the first place. Surely to argue for something to be illegal, there should at least be some reasoning available for it to be illegal???

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The other thing I don't think you're acknowledging is that many of the sex workers are from other countries where their first language isn't english, so their ability to seek assistance in a country they know nothing about is somewhat hampered by the fact they also don't speak the language

As with other points you have made, this has nothing to do with the sex work, but is a general problem we should do our best to address with or without legal or illegal sex work. Because when people come to a country where they do not speak the language, they are prone and open to exploitation of one for or another. Even when seeking a rental contract here in Germany for example, I had attempts to use my lack of German as a means to exploit me into signing and agreeing to things no one would ask of a native.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I was pointing out that OEJ had dodged the message of the video he had merely dismissed.

Bit of decorum there nozz

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, stating the obvious again. What should also be obvious is that people who go to sex workers do so for more reasons that merely wanting sex to be easily available or free. There are other motivations and reasons for it. And the demand for it is anything but "artificial", nor does it require magical powers of them. Just because YOU can not see a point to the sex industry, does not magically mean there is one. There is just not one for you.

Rather than expect me to deduce the obvious, could you elaborate on what these reasons are beyond sex?

YOU see a point to the sex industry, but you never explain what is so unique about the sex industry that those people's needs couldn't be fulfilled through any number of alternative activities?

And are the reasons why that happened as opaque to you as the reason people still go to sex workers even if sex is "readily available" as you claim?

Any time you feel like explaining the reasons why you imagine sex workers provide such a unique service that they can charge for what the rest of society avails of for free, I'm all ears!

I am still waiting for SOME level of reply from you as to why you wish to criminalize something when you lack any argument at all for it being "wrong" in the first place. Surely to argue for something to be illegal, there should at least be some reasoning available for it to be illegal???

Quite frankly, I can't be bothered my bollocks entertaining you. I'll answer whatever I want to answer, whenever I want to answer, and I'm under no obligation to do otherwise, so I'm not sure what gives you the impression I'm dodging when the explanation is so much more obvious - I simply can't be arsed entertaining you as you're not paying me for my time.

As with other points you have made, this has nothing to do with the sex work, but is a general problem we should do our best to address with or without legal or illegal sex work. Because when people come to a country where they do not speak the language, they are prone and open to exploitation of one for or another. Even when seeking a rental contract here in Germany for example, I had attempts to use my lack of German as a means to exploit me into signing and agreeing to things no one would ask of a native.

That was only a rental contract. It's not nice when it happens, is it? Now imagine you're in a position where you are being subjected to exploitation several times per day, every day. That's what causes the burnout and mental health issues in the vast, vast majority of sex workers.

That's not a correlation btw - sex work is a direct causative contributing factor in the ill mental, physical and sexual health of people who engage in sex work.

melissak

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The same can be said for all crime.

Yes it can. Very true.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

but that's presumptuous on your part. Its like saying you don't need weed, do a trail run, the buzz is better than any artificial chemical

It's not presumptuous at all though. The fact is that nobody needs to visit sex workers, and people don't need to become sex workers. There really isn't any need in society for the sex work industry to continue to exist, and there has never been any convincing argument made to necessitate it's continued existence.

but nobody knows who future sex workers are going to be , if they include girls going to college its not people in dire straits , its just a choice to make a credit card debt go away or what not. I assume a lot are not even from the host country so it wouldn't be Ireland's problem to sort in this case.

People going to college can often find themselves in dire straits, and rather than encouraging them to view sex work as an way to alleviate those dire straits, they should be encouraged to seek alternative means to repay their debts, like legitimate employment, the same as every other college going student.

It becomes Ireland's problem when those people from other countries are lobbying to decriminalise sex work in Ireland so they can expand their market share without contributing a cent in revenue to the host country, while the Irish tax payer picks up the cost of regulation and policing involved. I'm certainly not willing to pay any more tax to set up a system that's encouraging exploitation of anyone at my expense. I don't mind paying tax for initiatives that encourage education and employment and encourage people to become responsible citizens who look out for each others welfare as opposed to "It's my life, you're not the boss of me!". That's like something I'd expect out of a stroppy teenager who had no sense of social responsibility.

melissak

Because of the exploitation. Because drug addiction and desperation force some women into this industry so it is not a matter of consenting adults and too lax laws will encourage sex tourism. These are the issues I have with it.

esforum

melissak wrote: »

Because of the exploitation.

people arent being exploited now as a result of being outside the law and unable to have their grievances aired via legal channels? Making prostitution illegal encourages criminals as they are now the only avenue for it.

Prohibition, if you ban something that people want, criminals will provide it.

melissak wrote: »

Because drug addiction and desperation force some women into this industry

those same women will still be in the same boat, no one is suggesting licensing drug addicts who are injecting heroin, therefore a heroin addict hooker shall remain an illegal hooker. legalising wont change anything.

melissak wrote: »

so it is not a matter of consenting adults

the definition of consent is voluntary agreement, being paid for performing a sex act for drugs is not consent but being paid to sweep the roads to buy food is? I doubt you will find a road sweeper who dreamed of it as a child.

melissak wrote: »

lax laws will encourage sex tourism.

how so? I dont know anyone that travels to Amsterdam for a hooker. Unless you are using the likes of Bangkok as an example

melissak

eviltwin wrote: »

Should be legal and treated as a legitimate job, nothing wrong with it and what consenting adults do is their own business.

No. I don't agree, even if legal It shouldn't be treated as a legitimate job Imo. It should be kept discreet and kept behind closed doors.If It is not my business it shouldn't be made my business by flaunting it in front of me.

melissak

esforum wrote: »

people arent being exploited now as a result of being outside the law and unable to have their grievances aired via legal channels? Making prostitution illegal encourages criminals as they are now the only avenue for it.
True
Prohibition, if you ban something that people want, criminals will provide it.


True


those same women will still be in the same boat, no one is suggesting licensing drug addicts who are injecting heroin, therefore a heroin addict hooker shall remain an illegal hooker. legalising wont change anything.


But how many irish women who are not addicted or otherwise desperate would sell sex for 50 to 100 euros. Will we be importing people to meet demand? Will there be visas to be got because we can't fill the "job"

the definition of consent is voluntary agreement, being paid for performing a sex act for drugs is not consent but being paid to sweep the roads to buy food is? I doubt you will find a road sweeper who dreamed of it

Road sweepers can go home to their wife or husband and complain about their day, if they don't like it they can seek other employment

hochildI dont know anyone that travels to Amsterdam for a hooker. Unless you are using the likes of Bangkok as an example

I am using Bangkok particularly. The red light district in Amsterdam is a bit seedy but it is prudish in comparison

esforum

melissak wrote: »

I am using Bangkok particularly. The red light district in Amsterdam is a bit seedy but it is prudish in comparison

Would you be shocked to know that prostitution is actually illegal in Thailand?

melissak

esforum wrote: »

Would you be shocked to know that prostitution is actually illegal in Thailand?

Yeah. So are drugs.... The police have to buy their nice houses somehow.....

esforum

melissak wrote: »

No. I don't agree, even if legal It shouldn't be treated as a legitimate job Imo. It should be kept discreet and kept behind closed doors.If It is not my business it shouldn't be made my business by flaunting it in front of me.

HOw would it be flounted in front of you anymore than strip bars are?

melissak

esforum wrote: »

HOw would it be flounted in front of you anymore than strip bars are?

I thought the poster I responded to was implying that it was the same as any other job. For example when my daughter goes to a career guidance class I do not want prostitute as an option to be considered.

One eyed Jack

esforum wrote: »

people arent being exploited now as a result of being outside the law and unable to have their grievances aired via legal channels? Making prostitution illegal encourages criminals as they are now the only avenue for it.

Shouldn't we be doing everything we can then to make sure that there is no market to legitimise criminal behaviour? It's the buyers of sexual services should rightly be criminalised as they are supporting the criminal enterprises and continued exploitation of human beings. Society shouldn't and doesn't stand for that, and rightly so, because facilitating such exploitation by legislating for it would be tacit approval of said exploitation. Is that really a society that anyone wants to live in? I certainly don't.

Prohibition, if you ban something that people want, criminals will provide it.

And that's why we go after the criminals, those people in society who figure they are above the law, or that the law shouldn't apply to them in exactly the same way it applies to everyone else within that society.

those same women will still be in the same boat, no one is suggesting licensing drug addicts who are injecting heroin, therefore a heroin addict hooker shall remain an illegal hooker. legalising wont change anything.

Then we get those same women (and men remember? There are male sex workers too in that same boat), out of that boat. What we absolutely don't do, is facilitate the people who would want to keep people in that boat to have their own needs satisfied.

the definition of consent is voluntary agreement, being paid for performing a sex act for drugs is not consent but being paid to sweep the roads to buy food is? I doubt you will find a road sweeper who dreamed of it as a child.

There's no voluntary agreement in someone only performing a service because you're paying them to provide a service. People who sweep the roads are being paid to sweep the roads. If they were doing it voluntarily they wouldn't expect to be paid. I know plenty people who dreamed of being a road sweeper as a child, the same as I know plenty people who as children wanted to become porn stars. As they grew up, their expectations for themselves changed as they came to realise the chasm between their dreams and reality. Thanks to society moving on, we no longer shove children up chimneys either.

Society has moved past the point where the sex industry is necessary, and some people in the sex industry (the real earners) and the people who want to exploit other people for their own ends, are desperate to drag society backwards.

how so? I dont know anyone that travels to Amsterdam for a hooker. Unless you are using the likes of Bangkok as an example

You may not know anyone personally who travels to Amsterdam to avail of the services of sex workers, but there are plenty people that do, and like I said earlier - the local people living in Amsterdam are sick of it. The rest of the Netherlands are just glad they don't have to live there. For years Amsterdam was used as the model to decriminalise sex work. It's not any more. There's a reason for that.

melissak

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Shouldn't we be doing everything we can then to make sure that there is no market to legitimise criminal behaviour? It's the buyers of sexual services should rightly be criminalised as they are supporting the criminal enterprises and continued exploitation of human beings. Society shouldn't and doesn't stand for that, and rightly so, because facilitating such exploitation by legislating for it would be tacit approval of said exploitation. Is that really a society that anyone wants to live in? I certainly don't.





And that's why we go after the criminals, those people in society who figure they are above the law, or that the law shouldn't apply to them in exactly the same way it applies to everyone else within that society.





Then we get those same women (and men remember? There are male sex workers too in that same boat), out of that boat. What we absolutely don't do, is facilitate the people who would want to keep people in that boat to have their own needs satisfied.





There's no voluntary agreement in someone only performing a service because you're paying them to provide a service. People who sweep the roads are being paid to sweep the roads. If they were doing it voluntarily they wouldn't expect to be paid. I know plenty people who dreamed of being a road sweeper as a child, the same as I know plenty people who as children wanted to become porn stars. As they grew up, their expectations for themselves changed as they came to realise the chasm between their dreams and reality. Thanks to society moving on, we no longer shove children up chimneys either.

Society has moved past the point where the sex industry is necessary, and some people in the sex industry (the real earners) and the people who want to exploit other people for their own ends, are desperate to drag society backwards.





You may not know anyone personally who travels to Amsterdam to avail of the services of sex workers, but there are plenty people that do, and like I said earlier - the local people living in Amsterdam are sick of it. The rest of the Netherlands are just glad they don't have to live there. For years Amsterdam was used as the model to decriminalise sex work. It's not any more. There's a reason for that.

Has it not worked out in Amsterdam?

One eyed Jack

melissak wrote: »

Has it not worked out in Amsterdam?

Nope, it's gone tits up, that's why they've been trying to introduce all sorts of measures to clean up the city and they're keen to adopt the Swedish model. Amsterdam has so, so much more to offer tourists besides the sex industry, but that's what it's mostly known for, and local councillors want to change the image of the city for tourists and it's own citizens alike.

melissak

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, it's gone tits up, that's why they've been trying to introduce all sorts of measures to clean up the city and they're keen to adopt the Swedish model. Amsterdam has so, so much more to offer tourists besides the sex industry, but that's what it's mostly known for, and local councillors want to change the image of the city for tourists and it's own citizens alike.

What are the swedes doing?

Eramen

Yamanoto wrote: »

Hell of a statistic, but you provide no source.

"The average age of a girl entering the sex trade is only 14 in the Netherlands"


Why does there seem to be a fantastic air of disbelief surrounding the facts on this thread? Are you so caught up in your own ideology or your own behinds that you're putting up deflective walls around a lost position? You guys keep making it out to be a sort of gleeful and 'empowering' affair.. Far from it.

As a matter of fact, 14 is relatively 'old' in comparison to most countries in the world (and even Europe) to start out a 'career' in prostitution.


- The average age women become involved being just 12yrs old. [UK] - Published by the UK Home Office

- 3 out of 4 women in prostitution become involved aged 21 or younger, and 1 in 2 aged 18 or younger

- 75% of children abused through prostitution had been missing from school


Research, then have an opinion..


The Report: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary

melissak

Eramen wrote: »

"The average age of a girl entering the sex trade is only 14 in the Netherlands"


Why does there seem to be a fantastic air of disbelief surrounding the facts on this thread? Are you so caught up in your own ideology or your own behinds that you're putting up deflective walls around a lost position? You guys keep making it out to be a sort of gleeful and 'empowering' affair.. Far from it.

As a matter of fact, 14 is relatively 'old' in comparison to most countries in the world (and even Europe) to start out a 'career' in prostitution.


- The average age women become involved being just 12yrs old. [UK] - Published by the UK Home Office

- 3 out of 4 women in prostitution become involved aged 21 or younger, and 1 in 2 aged 18 or younger

- 75% of children abused through prostitution had been missing from school


Lads, go off and research..


The Report: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary

Why did that download a document to my phone? I'm not sure I want a document about prostitution on my phone download records.. I am technologically retarded

One eyed Jack

melissak wrote: »

What are the swedes doing?

The Swedes (and other Nordic countries) are basically criminalising the buyers, the people who visit sex workers. It's a model that's being promoted at EU level, so this nonsense that was posted earlier about Ruhama or any particular Irish organisation being behind the introduction of new laws here criminalising the people who visit sex workers - they're basically trying to associate these new laws as being motivated by religion, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Amnesty International, which were once solely a human rights organisation, have become a political lobby group who are advocating for "sex workers human rights", which is basically a crock. They're well aware of the exploitation of human beings within the sex industry, people who's human rights they should be fighting for, but they're doing nothing but further damaging their own credibility as a human rights organisation by getting behind this nonsense.

Eramen

melissak wrote: »

Why did that download a document to my phone? I'm not sure I want a document about prostitution on my phone download records.. I am technologically retarded

You are part of a consultation firm tasked on behalf of the Irish government to figure out whether to follow the Saarland or Swedish model.. As such, these categories of documents will not arouse unwanted suspicion or carousing from enforcement.

Everything appears to be in order sir, carry on.

melissak

Eramen wrote: »

You are part of a consultation firm tasked on behalf of the Irish government to figure out whether to follow the Saarland or Swedish model.. As such, these categories of documents will not arouse unwanted suspicion or carousing from enforcement.

Everything appears to be in order sir, carry on.

Are you a Nigerian prince because I haven't got my check yet.. Where is Saarland?

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Shouldn't we be doing everything we can then to make sure that there is no market to legitimise criminal behaviour? It's the buyers of sexual services should rightly be criminalised as they are supporting the criminal enterprises and continued exploitation of human beings. Society shouldn't and doesn't stand for that, and rightly so, because facilitating such exploitation by legislating for it would be tacit approval of said exploitation. Is that really a society that anyone wants to live in? I certainly don't.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's why we go after the criminals, those people in society who figure they are above the law, or that the law shouldn't apply to them in exactly the same way it applies to everyone else within that society.

Not really, we ban things because they are damaging to society and as a whole, society wants it banned.

Banning something that is popular and society by and large has no issue with will not work. That was why prohibition didnt work, the majority of people wanted to drink and saw no harm in it. According to the attached poll, society is pretty OK with prostitution.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then we get those same women (and men remember? There are male sex workers too in that same boat), out of that boat. What we absolutely don't do, is facilitate the people who would want to keep people in that boat to have their own needs satisfied.

Jesus wept man! Have you not been reading my posts? They will always be in the boat, making something a crime pushes the boat further out to sea. It makes those being victimised even more isolated and hard to find.

Legal or illegal, trafficking for prostitution will still exist, unlicensed hookers will still exist. The difference is they will be easier to find and easier to deal with as they will not be mixed with the licensed ones.

and theres no evidence that men are being trafficked or kept against their will for the purpose of prostitution so no, in my opinion there are no men in that boat. theres gigaolos, they choose to be, I have no desire to force my morals on them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no voluntary agreement in someone only performing a service because you're paying them to provide a service. People who sweep the roads are being paid to sweep the roads. If they were doing it voluntarily they wouldn't expect to be paid.

Are you deliberately refusing to acknowledge that Voluntarily means of ones own free will? I am beginning to think that your pal Oirish really did think that Freely meant for no money and wasnt being witty at all when he made the statement earlier.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know plenty people who dreamed of being a road sweeper as a child, the same as I know plenty people who as children wanted to become porn stars. As they grew up, their expectations for themselves changed as they came to realise the chasm between their dreams and reality.

You knew a lot of strange kids.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As they grew up, their expectations for themselves changed as they came to realise the chasm between their dreams and reality.

what does that even mean? They dreamed of being road sweepers but realised such a lofty goal was beyond them so settled for a more realistic option? Or they knew no better but as they became adults realised that the stars were out there so fecked off to Nasa to be all that they could be? If someone dreams of being a porn star why the **** not? Its their choice, not yours. (people being paid to have sex with strangers)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks to society moving on, we no longer shove children up chimneys either.

theres so much wrong with that example, possible because you cant get your head around the difference between forcing someone against their will and someone making a career choice that you dont agree with

Not too mention not a single person here is advocating that we sell our children into a life of child abuse and its actually a pretty disgusting comparison.

Yamanoto

Eramen wrote: »

"The average age of a girl entering the sex trade is only 14 in the Netherlands"

Why does there seem to be a fantastic air of disbelief surrounding the facts on this thread?

Once again, can you provide a source for the claim highlighted above please.

You've linked to UK Home Office report, which does not contain such an assertion.

melissak

esforum wrote: »

Not really, we ban things because they are damaging to society and as a whole, society wants it banned.

Banning something that is popular and society by and large has no issue with will not work. That was why prohibition didnt work, the majority of people wanted to drink and saw no harm in it. According to the attached poll, society is pretty OK with prostitution.



Jesus wept man! Have you not been reading my posts? They will always be in the boat, making something a crime pushes the boat further out to sea. It makes those being victimised even more isolated and hard to find.

Legal or illegal, trafficking for prostitution will still exist, unlicensed hookers will still exist. The difference is they will be easier to find and easier to deal with as they will not be mixed with the licensed ones.

and theres no evidence that men are being trafficked or kept against their will for the purpose of prostitution so no, in my opinion there are no men in that boat. theres gigaolos, they choose to be, I have no desire to force my morals on them.



Are you deliberately refusing to acknowledge that Voluntarily means of ones own free will? I am beginning to think that your pal Oirish really did think that Freely meant for no money and wasnt being witty at all when he made the statement earlier.



You knew a lot of strange kids.


what does that even mean? They dreamed of being road sweepers but realised such a lofty goal was beyond them so settled for a more realistic option? Or they knew no better but as they became adults realised that the stars were out there so fecked off to Nasa to be all that they could be? If someone dreams of being a porn star why the **** not? Its their choice, not yours. (people being paid to have sex with strangers)



theres so much wrong with that example, possible because you cant get your head around the difference between forcing someone against their will and someone making a career choice that you dont agree with

Not too mention not a single person here is advocating that we sell our children into a life of child abuse and its actually a pretty disgusting comparison.

But society by and large had no issue with children cleaning chimneys in victorian England either,as long as it wasn't their children I suppose

Eramen

Eramen wrote: »

The average age of a girl entering the sex trade is only 14 in the Netherlands

Up until 2002, the age of consent was 12 in the Netherlands, so it's probably just a knock on effect from that.
It's 16 now.