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 the purchase of sex be legal or illegal in Ireland?
Options
Comments
-
Who cares about your moral issues?
Well I care about my moral issues?
I detected more than a whiff of "I won't let anyone dirty touch me or my family" in the poster's objection. People like that are usually more disgusted by the "sex" aspect of sex work than the "work" aspect.
Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?
The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.
Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.
Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.0 -
-
Well I care about my moral issues?
Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?
The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.
Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.
Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.
Sounds more useful than my actual BA.0 -
Well I care about my moral issues?
Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?
The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.
Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.
Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.
in fairness though there are plenty of things that of your daughter did them you would consider yourself a failed parent. its still a big leap to outlaw this particular activity.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Well I care about my moral issues?
Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?
The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.
Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.
Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.
Ye I just can't believe that people are going to tell parents that they are wrong in trying to ensure that their children do not think of it as an attractive career choice later in life or even promote it in the slightest.
And yet that is what society is telling people as we heard here, it's a career.
God forbid, you say that you disagree and have valid concerns or else you will be accused of being sexually repressed or a virgin or like someone else said in a post, sitting with your arms folded and legs crossed but then again, what would you expect if people are equating sex work as sexual liberation.0 -
This post had been deleted.
well your life fair enough and when you say family, I presume you mean children? Cant argue with that, as a parent thats your right.This post has been deleted.
Jesus the teachers get an awful doing in AH!
One eyed Jack wrote: »Of course the fact that it's illegal is going to change the scenario for many women, because they don't want to break the law. In order to avail of legal protection she would have to become self-employed, registered, licensed, etc. The protection and security of society doesn't come for free either!
So therefore its better they dont become criminals if they have fallen this low surely?
and no, society has a duty to all in need regardless of payment or I assume you mean, tax.
But even so, being licensed and tax paying means they are paying into society!!!!!
You are defeating your own arguement but then as your arguement is without foundation, hardly surprising.silverharp wrote: »why facilitating? society doesn't "facilitate" other personal services like massage or hairdressing or tattoos. they are just commercial transactions between 2 people. Why a different attitude to prostitution?
I keep asking that Silver but he doesnt seem to have an answer, instead just keeps going in a loop.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Bit of decorum there nozz
As you are the only one displaying a lack of it, keep your advice and use it yourself.One eyed Jack wrote: »Rather than expect me to deduce the obvious, could you elaborate on what these reasons are beyond sex?
I did not say there were reasons beyond sex. I said there are reasons people go for sex workers despite what you portray as "freely available sex" in the real world.
Convenience would be one of many examples. While you might hand wave sex in the real world away as "freely" or even "easily" available, for many it is not. There is time and effort involved. And some people like to bypass that. If I wanted to go and have sex with a stranger right now I would have to find some venue, so and scout them out, talk to people, until I find one. Or I could go to a sex worker and be having sex literally 10 minutes after the end of this post.
But the examples abound and that is only one. Confidence issues. Physical issues. Comfort issues. Convenience issues. There are any number of reasons people go to sex workers despite the availability of sex by non financial means.One eyed Jack wrote: »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?
Nothing that I have said requires that there be anything "unique" about it. All an industry of any kind has to do to have a "point" is to provide a product or service that people wish to buy, rather than produce or obtain for themselves.
Just because there are ways to obtain something yourself, does not mean there is no "point" to an industry that provides it. I could go and get fish myself from the river or the sea. In fact I often do. So what is so "unique" about the local butcher or fishmonger that justifies their existence for me to go and get it there when fish are "readily and freely available" in the real world?
Same thing essentially.One eyed Jack wrote: »Any time you feel like explaining the reasons why you imagine sex workers provide such a unique service
Anytime you want to stop putting words in my mouth in EVERY thread you reply to me on, I'm all ears. I never claimed anything about them being unique. So the only one "imagining" anything here is you. Not me. And how.One eyed Jack wrote: »Quite frankly, I can't be bothered my bollocks entertaining you.
Your usual cop out. And as I usually ponder, I wonder who you think is actually fooled by it. If you want to make assertions then no one is stopping you. But similarly no one is stopping me pointing out how you are not backing up those assertions, you ignore and dodge people who ask you to back them up, and there is nothing on offer anywhere it seems to support them. And I will point that out whatever way I want, whenever I want to do it, and I'm under no obligation to do otherwise.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm not sure what gives you the impression I'm dodging when the explanation is so much more obvious
Yes I think the explanation IS very obvious. The explanation is that the assertions you have made are baseless and do not match reality and you can not back them up.
The thread (on a DISCUSSION forum I hasten to remind you) is on the topic of whether the purchase of sex SHOULD be legal or illegal. The points you are making are founded on the assertion and assumption that is should be illegal. So you are assuming the very thing the thread is about.
And all I am doing is asking on what basis you feel it should be illegal. And in response to this you appear to have diddly squat to offer. Diddly. Squat.One eyed Jack wrote: »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.
My point exactly. And that is why I argue for a legal and regulated industry where we are able to assist such people who are facing such things.
What you "propose" is nothing of the sort. Just wave a hand at it all, make it illegal, and care nothing for the people working in the industry. Do nothing to help them with their issues, linguistic or otherwise, and just brush them all under the carpet without a care.One eyed Jack wrote: »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.
Citations needed.One eyed Jack wrote: »It's not presumptuous at all though. The fact is that nobody needs to visit sex workers
So what? No one NEEDS to go to cinemas. No one NEEDS television. No one NEEDS sport. No one NEEDS Fast Food like McDonalds. No one NEEDS alcohol.
What has "need" got to do with anything?
We do not mediate any other industry or product on whether we "need" it or not. So why is it magically and suddenly a requirement for THIS one? Answer: Because you have no actual arguments against the industry.... so you are forced by your biases against it to merely manufacture some.One eyed Jack wrote: »there has never been any convincing argument made to necessitate it's continued existence.
Nor is one required. Because no other industry has to justify itself to continue to exist, so this one does not need to either. The requirement for convincing arguments lies with the people who want to prevent someone from selling something of theirs, to someone who wishes to purchase it.... especially when the product or service being sold is not one that in and of itself is not illegal or immoral.
So not only do you fail in producing arguments against it, you fail at producing arguments for why it needs to justify itself to anyone either.One eyed Jack wrote: »alternative means to repay their debts, like legitimate employment, the same as every other college going student.
In an ideal world where everyone was the same and what works for one works for everyone.... you might ALMOST have a point here. But in the real world you do not and the means by which any individual seeks to finance their life, career, or education can differ massively from one person to the next.
Each student studies differing numbers of hours, lives differing distances from the college, studies differently outside hours, has different projects and placements to fulfill, and has differing abilities, time, resources and skills to seek employments outside ALL of that. And they themselves come from differing financial backgrounds, with differing access to grants and support, and differing costs of studying in the first place.
The nonsense you espouse simply ignores all of that MASSIVE AMOUNT of variance and acts like there is some one size fits all solution to life that they should all be admonished or encouraged to access.One eyed Jack wrote: »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
Yet another issue raised that would be addressed by a legal and regulated industry because in such an industry they would be taxed on their income and hence would be contributing revenue.
But as with most arguments against sex work.... the argument itself is only an issue that is produced by being against the sex work in the first place.One eyed Jack wrote: »while the Irish tax payer picks up the cost of regulation and policing involved.
And as before you do not actually show a SHRED of knowledge about what the actual and relative costs of each option would actually be, with what benefits or effects. You simply assert and assume that one option is more beneficial financially and socially than the other and hide behind the "I cant be bothered" cop out when asked to substantiate it.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm certainly not willing to pay any more tax to set up a system that's encouraging exploitation of anyone at my expense.
We can add "exploitation" to words like "indignity" that you simply throw out there and do not validate in any way then shall we?One eyed Jack wrote: »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!".
These things are not mutually exclusive. We should be doing both. Encouraging initiatives to help people reach their potential. AND allowing people to live their life and their choices.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?
Once again, as I pointed out above, you are assuming a position on the thread topic rather than engaging with the topic on which position is warranted. IF sex work is illegal then of course we should be doing everything we can to avoid criminal behavior.
But the topic of the thread is not what we should or should not do if it is illegal.... it is WHETHER it should be illegal or not in the first place.One eyed Jack wrote: »It's the buyers of sexual services should rightly be criminalised as they are supporting the criminal enterprises and continued exploitation of human beings.
Circular argument nonsense from you here. They should be criminalized because what they are doing is criminal so they should be criminalized. Again assuming the answer to the thread rather than answering the thread.
WHY should sexual services be illegal and criminalized? Do you even know why? Or is it "Just because" for you?
And what do you mean by "exploitation". If someone chooses to sell sex, and someone else chooses to buy it.... why is that exploitation??? Again "just because"? Or because you have no arguments against it, so you rely on emotive buzz words instead to carry the force of an otherwise non-argument?One eyed Jack wrote: »Is that really a society that anyone wants to live in? I certainly don't.
The society I want to live in is one where if someone has something that is not illegal or immoral, and wishes to sell it, they should be perfectly entitled to do so.
The society YOU appear to want to live in is one where you get to dictate your personal morality on others through law, and remove peoples free choice and autonomy under the guise of pretending to want to protect them.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.
No one here is saying the law should not apply. They are saying it should not be illegal in the first place. Do keep up.One eyed Jack wrote: »If they were doing it voluntarily they wouldn't expect to be paid.
You are conflating (willfully I suspect) two different meanings of the word voluntary. Sure they expect to be paid for the work they do, but it was their voluntary choice to take that job too. No one is forcing them to do the job. THAT is what people mean by voluntary in this context, and in that context being paid for it does not mean it was not voluntary. You are mixing doing something voluntarily up with doing volunteer work. Not the same thing.One eyed Jack wrote: »Thanks to society moving on, we no longer shove children up chimneys either.
Yes because thanks to society moving on we learned to value the concept of informed consent, and as part of that an age before which it could not be valid. So we do not exploit children for labor any more.
But the other side of the coin of informed consent is allowing people to make their own choices of things like career, and not erect a totalitarian nanny state to overly dictate those choices to them, such as you are attempting to promote in your desperation to drag society backwards.One eyed Jack wrote: »Society has moved past the point where the sex industry is necessary
And as pointed out it's being "necessary" is as irrelevant as irrelevant gets.One eyed Jack wrote: »Sex work isn't popular by any stretch, and it is damaging to society as a whole
Is it? How exactly? Or is this another one of your assertions that we can expect you not to support in any way at all?One eyed Jack wrote: »and has never been demonstrated to be of any benefit to society as a whole.
Nor should it be required to. Because having a benefit is not the basis we mediate the legitimacy or legality of a business or industry on. What "benefit" does the fast food industry have for example? Very little, and unlike your empty assertions of nonsense.... there are very real harms that industry causes.
So really it is blatantly obvious your only approach to this subject is to move the goal posts on industries YOU personally do not like, and hold them to a different standard than society holds the rest. Biased much? Hell yea you are.One eyed Jack wrote: »Prohibition didn't work because it was implemented badly.
Both sides can say that. You keep trying to point to places where legality and regulation failed. It is JUST as valid for me to say THAT didn't work because it was implemented badly.
The difference being that at least what I argue for is done on the basis of regulation and goals that could work to alleviate and address the concerns people have raised on this thread.
Whereas criminalizing the buyer, seller, or both does not appear to do either.One eyed Jack wrote: »but what we can do is criminalise the buyers, give people better support structures, and pass legislation that doesn't allow people to put other people in the boat in the first place.
Or do not criminalize anyone given they are generally not actually doing anything wrong or harmful..... give people better support structures ANYWAY given it is a good goal in and of itself.... and pass legislation that prevents people exploiting others ANYWAY.... given that is also a good goal.One eyed Jack wrote: »But we don't really have a problem with trafficking in this country anyway?
And yet people keep bringing it up as if they have a point on the thread.One eyed Jack wrote: »And again - you're aware that trafficking goes on, and you want to make it easier for criminals by legislating for prostitution?
Woah boy hold up there. Why would legislation automatically make that easier??? Depending on the legislation and regulation involved, it could very well do the exact opposite. Often for the very reasons you think making the sex trade illegal would, but actually wouldn't.One eyed Jack wrote: »society doesn't want to facilitate prostitution!
YOU do not want to. You do not speak for society. As you should well know given how easily you go off on anyone you imagine is talking for others or using the word "we" not to your personal liking.One eyed Jack wrote: »'m not paying tax so that they don't have to pay any!
Is anyone here actually advocating a system where they would not have to pay any? The EXACT opposite appears to be what people are advocating. Are you floundering so much to rebut what people are saying that you have to attack things in this magical opposite land in your head instead?One eyed Jack wrote: »they don't want the industry regulated
I do not think we should care if they want it to be or not. Any more than you would care that they do not want it to be criminalized either. We should be concerned with doing what is best, based on arguments for what is best (as opposed to your fantasy and assertion of what is best). Regardless of what they "want" or not.One eyed Jack wrote: »the costs to them to get regulated would be prohibitive!
Would they? Care to show your workings and what you think the costs would be? Or is this another area where you are simply imagining the numbers will be whatever you need them to be to make you right and everyone else wrong?One eyed Jack wrote: »If you have to pay someone to do something, then by virtue of the fact they're only doing it because they're being paid to do it - it's not voluntary!
You do not know they are ONLY doing it because they are paid for it. PLENTY of people are paid for doing things they would do anyway even if they were not paid for it. Because they WANT to do it.
But this "voluntary" nonsense is just a red herring because it applies to ANY job ANYONE does.One eyed Jack wrote: »it's not a viable career option for anyone IMO
Except for those for whom it is, and your opinion on the matter, baseless and unsubstantiated as it is, likely means every but as much to them as the content of that opinion warrants. Nothing.
But by all means tells us in your lofty "opinion" what the characteristics of a "viable career option" actually are. What are the attributes that must fit to qualify? Because, like every other assertion you make, you do not appear to be offering anything that can be unpacked or parsed if people stop to think about it, rather than simply flash read over it. Your entire approach appears to be the hope that people will read what you write, and process it without stopping to think too hard about it.One eyed Jack wrote: »The different attitude to prostitution is because society does not want to facilitate the provision of that service. It's really that simple.
And how have you established what it is society does or does not want? Have you polls? A vote? An election? Data? Or are you just, as per usual, simply making up facts to suit your own position?One eyed Jack wrote: »I won't bother asking you for research and evidence to support your opinion, I think we both know you wouldn't be able to come up with any concrete figures or evidence to support your assertion
Irony. Metre. Exploding. Again. You have been the very MERCHANT of baseless and unsubstantiated assertion on this thread. The very template of it. Where do you get off making a comment like this one?One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm absolutely listening to your reasoning, they're arguments I've heard dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times before.
And not once rebutted.One eyed Jack wrote: »People are not born prostitutes or sex workers.
Nor are they required to to gain the rights people advocate for them.One eyed Jack wrote: »And you want my taxes to cover more illegal workers, being forced to work involuntarily in an industry I don't believe is necessary in a modern, progressive society?
Not once person is advocating for that at all. More of your attacks on the straw men living in opposite land.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm not trying to tell anyone what careers they can and cannot have.
Yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement