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

smash

esforum wrote: »

Thats sad, really it is. the fact that you would disown a child for something so trivial.

Did it work well over the years in regards homosexuality?

Because a career choice equates to your sexuality, which you don't get to choose...

Kev_2012

esforum wrote: »

Thats sad, really it is. the fact that you would disown a child for something so trivial.

Did it work well over the years in regards homosexuality?

ah p!ss off, 2 totally different things! Secondly, it's not trivial, at all, in any way, shape or form.


Have a chat there with Linda Lovelace or Montana Fishbourne and their parents and see how they felt about it. (I know it's porn but the economics/mechanics are effectively the same.)

You know what is even sadder? The fact that I said I don't know exactly how I would react because I don't have a kid yet, yet other posters ignore that and wait for me to spout something else.
*EDIT* - I said my family and their lifestyle choices wouldn't be compatible, didn't even say I'd disown them. (Ever hear of things called arguments? There would be a lot of those I'd imagine)

I'd love to put it to the test with all you extreme left wing maniacs with your children and see how you'd actually react. It's all talk.

smash

esforum wrote: »

I must be missing something here but are you saying that making something legal makes it a bigger avenue for criminals but making it illegal will reduce criminal involvement? Because if it is I dont think you know what the word criminal means.

Traficking is a crime, licensing prostitution will not change that fact, it shall still be a crime.

The only difference will be if its fully legal:

A, Licensed brothel with 50 staff, I know where it is, walk in, demand licenses and ID from all persons present and can quickly identify issues such as an unlicensed hooker who may therefore prove to be traficked or underage or a breach of any number of current health, safety, criminal and employment law.

B, secret brothel empoying 50= automatically dodgy and will be raided.

if its all ilegal:

A, I dont know jack **** because the whole shagging lot or hidden and secret with the voluntary and trafficked girls mixed with each other and theres no legal safety for the staff.

This is a really stupid comment. Have you read reports or any information from abroad regarding the industry? They all say that it opens avenues for illegal activity to hide under the guise of a legitimate business. Producing an ID or a license does not mean that they have not been trafficked or coerced.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

In as much as I stepped in it was not for it not to be made illegal , any of the coercion/trafficking stuff is probably covered by normal law. so are you happy with that?

people can be exploited for various reasons , a general exploitation law covering coercion , people trafficking , kidnapping etc. is grand surely?

The problem is though, that the coercion in the prostitution industry isn't covered by current laws, and there is no practical way to legislate or regulate coercion in the prostitution industry. It was tried in other countries and they are now realising that the idea was an utter failure, socially and economically. It's been a disaster. What makes you so sure it could be any better implemented in Irish society?

Eramen

StudentDad wrote: »

Ah yes the floodgates argument. If we do this x will happen. It doesn't necessarily follow. I sure as hell won't be engaging in this industry any time soon but I don't think criminalising those who choose to do so is the way forward either.

If something is illegal then less people are going to do that specified activity. Most people don't set out to break the law, and for the most part, the laws (in general) do make sense as regards to practical morality / equitable treatment.

On the other hand if something is legal, more people by virtue of this fact will consider it and factor it into their plans - people who would have otherwise not. To be plain; prostitution is not a good thing to be a part of, let's not encourage it, legal or illegal there is too much scope for coercion and criminality.

StudentDad wrote: »

There are wider issues at play yes and that is a much thornier issue to grapple with. Again though, punishing someone for engaging in an industry that isn't going to vanish in the morning will not solve the problem.
SD

You could apply this statement to any criminal activity so it's a null point. We should be punishing criminals who express no duty of care towards others or who endanger others with their actions. A slippery slope indeed.

esforum

Kev_2012 wrote: »

ah p!ss off, 2 totally different things! Secondly, it's not trivial, at all, in any way, shape or form.


Have a chat there with Linda Lovelace or Montana Fishbourne and their parents and see how they felt about it. (I know it's porn but the economics/mechanics are effectively the same.)

You know what is even sadder? The fact that I said I don't know exactly how I would react because I don't have a kid yet, yet other posters ignore that and wait for me to spout something else.
*EDIT* - I said my family and their lifestyle choices wouldn't be compatible, didn't even say I'd disown them. (Ever hear of things called arguments? There would be a lot of those I'd imagine)

I'd love to put it to the test with all you extreme left wing maniacs with your children and see how you'd actually react. It's all talk.

they arent different completely, they were behaviours deemed unsavoury by society and in regards homosexuality, many men ( and women) felt trapped in fake marraiges, killed themselves or were disowned by their families.

Your second point is bull****, you would argue her career every time you saw your kid? Bull****! Thats forcing a child away. I stand by my comment.

My eldest daughter is 16, I am rarely described as left wing. Certainly not by her. It seems strange its the cop arguing against making people criminals but there ya go.

and no, I would not like her to be a hooker but as I already said, I wouldnt like her to follow my career choice or join a convent either.

esforum

smash wrote: »

This is a really stupid comment. Have you read reports or any information from abroad regarding the industry? They all say that it opens avenues for illegal activity to hide under the guise of a legitimate business. Producing an ID or a license does not mean that they have not been trafficked or coerced.

well **** me if people refuse to see the point.

Have you ever applied for a PPS number or a license before? It requires a degree of freedom of movement not too mention a passport, the first thing a gang will confiscate. It could very easily also involve an interview without 3rd parties being present.

even assuming they bypass all of that, producing a license to a cop is still a damn sight closer to the police that an illegal worker is likely to get unforced.

and yes I have read reports but I tend to take a pinch of salt when reading the ones submitted by parties with an agenda or particular angle.Its also ok for Ireland to actually, ya know, produce its own evidence and research.

thattequilagirl

There's really no point in arguing about the morality of prostitution. It's a reality whether you like it or not. The question is how we deal with this reality.

Kev_2012

esforum wrote: »

they arent different completely, they were behaviours deemed unsavoury by society and in regards homosexuality, many men ( and women) felt trapped in fake marraiges, killed themselves or were disowned by their families.

They are completely different! No one is gonna kill themselves because they can't go around riding for money!

Your second point is bull****, you would argue her career every time you saw your kid? Bull****! Thats forcing a child away. I stand by my comment.

How is it bull****? Both of them have done a complete 360 on what they did in the past.

My eldest daughter is 16, I am rarely described as left wing. Certainly not by her. It seems strange its the cop arguing against making people criminals but there ya go.

Well when people start arguing the point that prostitution is a viable career as it is 2 (or more) consenting adults exchanging money for sex, then that to me is an extreme left wing view. At the end of the day, we need *some* boundaries in our society.

and no, I would not like her to be a hooker but as I already said, I wouldnt like her to follow my career choice or join a convent either.

Well yes of course you wouldn't want her to do that. Of course not! You're gonna look out for your child's best interests every time, and having said that, if this is offered as a career choice, then there's another (in my opinion outrageous) career choice that you have to try your best to stop her from pursuing.

Actually I'm delighted to hear that you said you wouldn't want her to follow that path because the earlier poster said he wouldn't mind that at all which is somewhat disconcerting. :eek:

Kev_2012

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's really no point in arguing about the morality of prostitution. It's a reality whether you like it or not. The question is how we deal with this reality.

Regulate it, remove the criminal aspect of it and don't promote it in anyway shape or form. It should be frowned upon in society.

Same with drugs, decriminalise them, treat addicts, don't convict them, but at the end of the day it should be frowned upon.

One eyed Jack

esforum wrote: »

I already have, multiple times. You wont even look up or accept the correct meaning of words for gods sake!

I was prefectly aware. I asked you what legislation you were talking about that would legalise or criminalise prostitution, the 2015 bill does neither nor if we want to go down this road, is a bill legislation. It may not even make it into law but I think it will. Prior to that you were talking about the Swedish model. Asking for clarification of where and what you are refering to is not ignorance, its an attempt to debate but I have learnt better. Its also interesting that the bill mainly focuses on those things you claim legal prostitution will make worse.

Well if you have to ask, it's not unreasonable for me to assume you don't know.

esforum wrote: »

You realise that if the bill passes it shall be illegal to purchase sex and obtain a child for prostitution but yet prostitution of an adult shall remain legal? Good thing the dail understands the difference between voluntary and coerced.

Yes, because it's intended to criminalise the buyers, not the sex workers themselves.

esforum wrote: »

You allow it to become a recognised industry with licensing requirements and limitations. In return tax returns are processed. Its already legal as I already pointed out multiple times, all that is now required is the removal of the 'immoral earnings' concept and voila, legality. You need not even change the rules on brothels if you did not want to however I would suggest doing so.

Some aspects of prostitution are legal in Ireland, some aren't. It has already been evidenced that legalising the industry causes more social problems than it solves, and on top of that, any revenue it could bring in (which isn't a lot), would be spent on regulating and policing the industry to the idealistic standards you might be hoping for. It would actually cost more to facilitate the industry, than it would to eliminate the industry.

esforum wrote: »

How do you regulate the alcohol industry? Or tobacco industry? Or pharamaceutical industry? or for a more recent one, security industry? What about the strip clubs and their licenses? How do you regulate smoking? Taxis?

Has licensing and regulating security made it better of worse do you think? Should we stop licensing pubs and taxis? NO, because licensing makes sense and makes controlling the industry while protecting the people that use and work within it easier and more effective.

They are not the same industries as prostitution, you keep ignoring that element. Stick to making an argument for the regulation of the prostitution industry rather than trying to compare industries and services that bear no comparable relation to prostitution.

esforum wrote: »

when all is said and done;
If I go out tonight and go to a stripper I agree to pay that woman to take her clothes of for me

If I go to a hooker and pay her to have sex with me I am agreeing to give her money in exchange for sex.

A stripper wakes up, showers, gets dressed like any other worker, goes to work. puts in a shift and during so strips for me in return for financial reward.

A hooker, wakes up, showers, gets dressed like any other worker, goes to work. puts in a shift and during so sleeps with me in return for financial reward.

How does any of that effect you? How does any of that effect society?

It doesn't, not one iota. So what's your point?

If you are calling for legislation to legalise and regulate the prostitution industry, then that does affect me, and it affects every member of society, as the same laws will apply to every member of that society, so it is in their best interests to know the law and not to break the law. Some people are working under the impression that the law as it currently stands doesn't, or shouldn't apply to them.

esforum wrote: »

It doesnt and making it illegal for both or either wont make any of it even one ounce better for the customer, the staff or society.

It does make for a better society though. I don't particularly give a shít about the buyers, but I can work with the sellers to ensure they have the skills to gain employment in other areas. The ideal would be that they have the skills to make a life for themselves before they ever get into prostitution in the first place. That's what makes for a better society, not this nonsense of legalising exploitation and then realising 10 years later that we made a terrible mistake, as has been evidenced in other countries.

esforum wrote: »

If you cannot grasp that something you are morally against could become a part of society in a legal manner, theres little I can do or say but its pretty simple, homosexuals did it not so long ago and the fabric of society was not torn apart.

Who said I am morally opposed to prostitution? I'm not. I'm opposed to facilitating prostitution in Irish society. Prostitution could never become part of society in a legal manner simply because the nature of the industry promotes the idea that they offer something that isn't ordinarily obtainable. They don't offer anything that isn't ordinarily obtainable - sex is easily obtainable, by anyone, and it's the sex industry need to maintain the myth that it isn't.

I don't even know what your point is regarding homosexuals, or why you would try and relate that to prostitution? That's not being obtuse, the two simply aren't in any way relatable or comparable (I'm guessing you're trying to relate prostitution to marriage equality?).

Yamanoto

Eramen wrote: »

Only 5% of prostitutes in the Netherlands are registered to pay tax.

Suppose you'll be keeping your source for this one under wraps too?

Some 5000 sex workers registered with the Dutch tax authorities between 2008-2010 alone, according to a 2013 study co-authored by by Hendrik Wagenaar - former associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Leiden.

https://www.bmbf.gv.at/frauen/prostitution/prostitution_policy.pdf?50gu9h

There's no definitive figure on current numbers in NL, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimated it at 25,000 after the ban on brothels was lifted sixteen years ago. There would want to have been an absolute explosion in the numbers of people engaged in sex work in NL for your numbers to be in any way plausible.

http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/content/assets/minbuza/en/import/en/you_and_the_netherlands/about_the_netherlands/ethical_issues/faq-prostitutie-pdf--engels.pdf-2012.pdf

esforum

Kev_2012 wrote: »

They are completely different! No one is gonna kill themselves because they can't go around riding for money!

are you deliberating doing that? The comparison is being disowned over something deemed unacceptable.

Look, I have no idea why your child would decide she simple must be a hooker, it strikes me as odd but as an adult she will be leaving you two choices: Love and support her anyway or lose her. (and by support I dont mean becomming her pimp before someone jumps to that exteme)

Kev_2012 wrote: »

How is it bull****? Both of them have done a complete 360 on what they did in the past.

I dont speak for others, I am refering to your statement that refusing to accept your childs choice would not result in being disowned, of course it would.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well when people start arguing the point that prostitution is a viable career as it is 2 (or more) consenting adults exchanging money for sex, then that to me is an extreme left wing view. At the end of the day, we need *some* boundaries in our society.

Its really not. I am at best a central left socialist and theres many that would claim thats far more left than I really am.

I simple fail to see how its any different to a stripper or porn star and they are both legal. In the end, it wont effect you or I nor do I hear anyone thats actually effected crying foul. NO victim, no crime.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well yes of course you wouldn't want her to do that. Of course not! You're gonna look out for your child's best interests every time, and having said that, if this is offered as a career choice, then there's another (in my opinion outrageous) career choice that you have to try your best to stop her from pursuing.

Actually I'm delighted to hear that you said you wouldn't want her to follow that path because the earlier poster said he wouldn't mind that at all which is somewhat disconcerting. :eek:

he wasnt saying he liked the idea, just that he would continue to love, support and respect his child

One eyed Jack

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's really no point in arguing about the morality of prostitution. It's a reality whether you like it or not. The question is how we deal with this reality.

There's every point in including morality in a discussion about prostitution, whether it be personal or social morality, or the ethics of prostitution, as those concepts will form the basis of how we argue the case for, or against prostitution. Prostitution as a social issue may be a reality now, but by eliminating prostitution, it becomes consigned to the history books of civilization where quite frankly IMO - it belongs.

We've heard talk of human rights and so on, but I'm not aware of any human right that encourages the exploitation of people in society for other people's gain. That's when Amnesty International finally disappeared up it's own arse as a human rights organisation and showed it's true colours as a political lobby group -

Prostitution Decriminalisation

A summary of an Amnesty International UK meeting held in 2013 revealed the intention to support the decriminalisation of prostitution before any consultation with Amnesty members or stakeholders. When a draft copy of the policy was leaked in early 2014, many feminists and prostitution survivors condemned the proposal, and Amnesty were met with considerable resistance. Members were consequently offered three weeks — from April 2 to 21, 2014 — to provide feedback on the document, although most members did not even receive notification that this process was available to them. On July 7, 2015, an updated draft was released to Amnesty International members, which was again criticised by feminist organisations, including The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women (CATW), who published an open letter signed by over 400 advocates and organisations, condemning “Amnesty’s proposal to adopt a policy that calls for the decriminalization of pimps, brothel owners and buyers of sex — the pillars of a $99 billion global sex industry.” Contrary to claims that decriminalisation would make prostituted people safer, critics pointed to research from numerous countries in which deregulation of the sex industry had produced catastrophic results: "the German government, for example, which deregulated the industry of prostitution in 2002, has found that the sex industry was not made safer for women after the enactment of its law. Instead, the explosive growth of legal brothels in Germany has triggered an increase in sex trafficking." These campaigners instead asked Amnesty to support the so-called Nordic model, in which sex buyers and pimps are criminalised, while prostituted people are decriminalised. In early August, a large number of NGOs published an open letter in support of the criminalisation proposal. The organizations supporting Amnesty International's position included the Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe (ICRSE), Sex Workers’ Rights Advocacy Network in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (SWAN), Human Rights Watch, and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women.

On 11 August 2015, the International Council Meeting (ICM) adopted a resolution which authorized the International Board to develop and adopt the decriminalisation policy.

Source: Criticism of Amnesty International, Wikipedia

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some aspects of prostitution are legal in Ireland, some aren't. It has already been evidenced that legalising the industry causes more social problems than it solves, and on top of that, any revenue it could bring in (which isn't a lot), would be spent on regulating and policing the industry to the idealistic standards you might be hoping for. It would actually cost more to facilitate the industry, than it would to eliminate the industry.

you have zero proof to back that up, the worst countries in the world for exploitation, its actually illegal. A country with little exploitation, Ireland, its actually legal. Its not some aspects, prostitution is legal, end of.

Do you live under some illusion that the cost of chasing, prosecuting and imprisoning pimps, etc now is magically paid by the moral fairy? Its paid by you, the tax payer with zero, I repeat zero of it coming from the actual industry. licensing and taxing will have possible no effect on the costs (I dont know too be honest, depends on how much is put into it) but it will have a plus effect on the tax income used.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They are not the same industries as prostitution, you keep ignoring that element. Stick to making an argument for the regulation of the prostitution industry rather than trying to compare industries and services that bear no comparable relation to prostitution.

How is porn not similar? How are pubs not similar in working arrangements? License to operate, license to sell, rules on who you can employ and who you can serve, they pay, you serve, you pay taxes. You morally see a difference, in actually operating the system, there would be little difference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't, not one iota. So what's your point?

My point is why you feel justified in deciding other peoples lives for them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you are calling for legislation to legalise and regulate the prostitution industry, then that does affect me, and it affects every member of society, as the same laws will apply to every member of that society, so it is in their best interests to know the law and not to break the law. Some people are working under the impression that the law as it currently stands doesn't, or shouldn't apply to them.

that is some serious horse**** right there. Its already legal, people arent 'accidently' becoming or using hookers. seriously, did you have a straight face typing that? How does it effect society in a negative manner?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does make for a better society though. I don't particularly give a shít about the buyers, but I can work with the sellers to ensure they have the skills to gain employment in other areas. The ideal would be that they have the skills to make a life for themselves before they ever get into prostitution in the first place. That's what makes for a better society, not this nonsense of legalising exploitation and then realising 10 years later that we made a terrible mistake, as has been evidenced in other countries.

How does changing the legal status change any of that? Why can you only work with someone in an illegal business to better themselves? Why cant or wont you help someone in a legal business to educate and change careers?

I wont dignify the 'exploitation' remark anymore, its only an attempt to deflect.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who said I am morally opposed to prostitution? I'm not. I'm opposed to facilitating prostitution in Irish society. Prostitution could never become part of society in a legal manner simply because the nature of the industry promotes the idea that they offer something that isn't ordinarily obtainable. They don't offer anything that isn't ordinarily obtainable - sex is easily obtainable, by anyone, and it's the sex industry need to maintain the myth that it isn't.

again, displays a fundemental lack of understanding and just confirms your opposition is a moral one. consent is consent is consent. adults are adults are adults. Your opinion should not dicate to that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't even know what your point is regarding homosexuals, or why you would try and relate that to prostitution? That's not being obtuse, the two simply aren't in any way relatable or comparable (I'm guessing you're trying to relate prostitution to marriage equality?).

nope, im equating that societies views change and what was once considered abhorant becomes natural thus the change from illegal to legal. homosexuality was illegal until 1993 based on a view that homosexuality was wrong and harmful to those involved and society. Sound familiar? Its your arguement againsy prostitution.

One eyed Jack

esforum wrote: »

you have zero proof to back that up, the worst countries in the world for exploitation, its actually illegal. A country with little exploitation, Ireland, its actually legal. Its not some aspects, prostitution is legal, end of.

If, according to you then, all aspects of prostitution are legal, then what's your problem?

esforum wrote: »

Do you live under some illusion that the cost of chasing, prosecuting and imprisoning pimps, etc now is magically paid by the moral fairy? Its paid by you, the tax payer with zero, I repeat zero of it coming from the actual industry. licensing and taxing will have possible no effect on the costs (I dont know too be honest, depends on how much is put into it) but it will have a plus effect on the tax income used.

I don't mind contributing to the States efforts to eliminate prostitution. It has already been demonstrated that the overall effect on society of attempting to regulate prostitution has been an overwhelmingly negative one.

esforum wrote: »

How is porn not similar? How are pubs not similar in working arrangements? License to operate, license to sell, rules on who you can employ and who you can serve, they pay, you serve, you pay taxes. You morally see a difference, in actually operating the system, there would be little difference.

Because it has been demonstrated in other countries that attempts to regulate the prostitution industry simply do not work.

esforum wrote: »

My point is why you feel justified in deciding other peoples lives for them.

I'm not deciding anyone else's life for them. I don't know where you got the idea that I have no interest in facilitating the prostitution industry in Irish society means I am deciding anyone's life for them. I'm deciding that I do not want to facilitate the social issue that is prostitution - very different thing.

esforum wrote: »

that is some serious horse**** right there. Its already legal, people arent 'accidently' becoming or using hookers. seriously, did you have a straight face typing that? How does it effect society in a negative manner?

Well like I asked already - if all aspects of prostitution are already legal, then what's your problem?

It affects society in a negative manner because it encourages exploitation of other people in society. Before you go pointing out that the same could be said about any industry - well, that's even more of a reason not to facilitate yet another form of exploitation.

esforum wrote: »

Why can you only work with someone in an illegal business to better themselves? Why cant or wont you help someone in a legal business to educate and change careers?

That question is based upon the presumption that it's not something I do already.

esforum wrote: »

again, displays a fundemental lack of understanding and just confirms your opposition is a moral one. consent is consent is consent. adults are adults are adults. Your opinion should not dicate to that.

Well if you want to look at it like that, then yes, my opposition is based on the fact that I am morally opposed to the exploitation of human beings in any form, and prostitution happens to come under that umbrella. You're right in saying that my opinion doesn't dictate what consenting adults do, but I can use my opinion to inform legislation regarding the issue of prostitution.

esforum wrote: »

nope, im equating that societies views change and what was once considered abhorant becomes natural thus the change from illegal to legal. homosexuality was illegal until 1993 based on a view that homosexuality was wrong and harmful to those involved and society. Sound familiar? Its your arguement againsy prostitution.

And what was once considered acceptable becomes abhorrent - works both ways y'know, so what was once legal, becomes illegal, like shoving children up chimneys, like prostitution.

sbsquarepants

Speedwell wrote: »

Without the proper license, any number of things. In some places, Tarot readings and other "psychic" services. Justice in a courtroom, or other social services. Human rights in general. Freedom from bullying (give me your lunch money and maybe I won't beat you up after school). Lots of things.

Sorry but none of those things are remotely the same. There are adds for psychic services on the telly every day - now that probably should be illegal but that's a different argument. Fools and their money and all that.
You can't sell human rights, you can't sell justice, extortion is never legal - I've no idea what you're actually trying to say.
As for a the licences, then licence it, no problem there. I did say with all the necessary safeguards.

I've been thinking about it and the closest analogy I can come up with is a taxi driver - you can give away as many lifts as you want to, but when you want to start charging people for the service it becomes a bit more formal and regulated. But that's it, it becomes regulated for public safety reasons and to make sure the tax man gets his cut. It doesn't get outlawed and stigmatised!

nozzferrahhtoo

smash wrote: »

The laws are what they say on the tin.

But no one is showing the tin So I have no idea what the laws and regulations are, how they are enforced or regulated, and how breaches of them are prosecuted. And I would expect "the laws" is not a catch all term and that each country has different ones, implemented differently, regulated differently and prosecuted differently.

As I say where regulation fails to work then one option is to give up and make the regulated thing illegal. The other option is to actually unpack the details and study the issue.

Some people, I guess, prefer the lazy approach. Alas.

smash wrote: »

And they are implemented and enforced.

Are they? I am not seeing any citations of what the laws and regulations are, let alone how or if they are implemented and enforced.

smash wrote: »

the punters generally don't care if a girl has been trafficked or coerced because as far as they're concerned they've picked a girl and they're getting to ride her.

I am not so sure we can simply assume that. There is no data to base the assumption on. To my knowledge however there is no clear and effective way a punter can source the service conscientiously. And until there is we have no grounds to assume that the average punter would not do so, if given the means.

smash wrote: »

How would you suggest that any of these issues are overcome? Honestly...

I have suggested several ways in the thread already. But a licensing structure based on a periodical renewal procedure involving things like regular visits to medical professionals would certainly given the tools we need to start.

And such a system would also give the tools I just mentioned above, for a punter to source their service conscientiously. It would give them a visible and simple methodology upon which to base their decision. And in such a system THEN you would have data to comment on whether punters actually do care or not about the well being of the service provider.

And my expectation is that we will find they do care. Because the average punter is just the average human being. And the average human being is generally concerned with the well being of others, especially people they are intimate with and form bonds with through things ilke oxytocin.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kev_2012 wrote: »

You role as parent, as the provider and carer for your child is make sure first and foremost to look after the best interests of the child, not to let the child run wild doing whatever they feel.

Exactly. And what I described IS a description of how and why I look after the best interests of my child. And nothing I wrote is about "letting them do whatever they feel".

Kev_2012 wrote: »

You need to point them in the right direction to be on a good path in life.

That's exactly what I said too.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

If your kid says "Daddy, I'm thinking of being a hooker, what do you think?", I somehow doubt you will tell them to go for it.

Of course you doubt it because I just TOLD you that is not what I would say. I told you what I would say/do. And why I would say/do it.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I agree that the children should find their own path in life but not as liberally as you put it. Yours is a very 1960s hippy view of raising a child.

If you say so. But merely putting a label on what I say does not do very much other than fail to address what I say.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the problem isn't solved.

If you have a problem purchasing or selling something then of course your problem is solved merely by not purchasing or selling it. If your problem is with OTHER people purchasing or selling it then sure, the problem is not solved by your merely abstaining for it.

All I was doing was pointing out that the LATTER position generally results in people asking you the basis for your position. If you are unwilling or unable to provide one that is ok too! But there is nothing wrong, especially on a discussion forum, from my asking

Kev_2012 wrote: »

By society portraying it as a viable career choice, it places a greater burden on me as a parent.

The same is true of any career you personally do not want your child to enter into. So this is a general point and not really relevant to the sex trade per se. I would think to argue for something being wrong or illegal, we would need something more than you personally imagining a burden from it.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I don't want my kids saying that this is their chosen career path because a bunch of liberals just NEED to get the message out that being a hooker is a-ok in human civilization 2016+

Then control your own kids and leave the rest of us out of it. The simple fact is that no one on this thread, least of all you, has put forward an argument as to there being anything wrong with selling sex. And I tend to subscribe to the notion of "Innocent until proven guilty".

You can try and frame that as a "liberal" agenda if you wish to merely add more labels but say nothing. But I myself do not subscribe to the liberal/conservative dichotomy myself and I hold my positions and opinions based on their own merits, not because they are championed by some generalized agenda grouping.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well when people start arguing the point that prostitution is a viable career as it is 2 (or more) consenting adults exchanging money for sex, then that to me is an extreme left wing view.

With a definition of "extreme left wing" THAT dilute then it would appear even calling a spade a spade falls under its purview.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

At the end of the day, we need *some* boundaries in our society.

Agreed. I just do not see you being willing or able to argue the merits of THIS one. You appear to be against it..... just because.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Actually I'm delighted to hear that you said you wouldn't want her to follow that path because the earlier poster said he wouldn't mind that at all which is somewhat disconcerting. :eek:

Must not be me you are referring to here I guess since I never suggested I would not mind. What I did suggest was that I can divide what choices I might hope or dream my child will or will not make.... from what I see as my role as a parent to guide them into the faculties and abilities to make their own INFORMED decisions for themselves.

I trust you will see that is no small distinction between my position and that of this "earlier poster" whoever he is.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

It should be frowned upon in society.

So you and others keep saying. I remain agog to hear WHY though.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem is though, that the coercion in the prostitution industry isn't covered by current laws, and there is no practical way to legislate or regulate coercion in the prostitution industry. It was tried in other countries and they are now realising that the idea was an utter failure, socially and economically. It's been a disaster. What makes you so sure it could be any better implemented in Irish society?

You do realize that failing at an attempt to do something, does not automatically mean that doing that something is not possible right? You can not logically support the assertion "There is no way to do it" with the comment "It was tried over here and they failed".

If you are the kind of person who gives up at the first failed hurdle, that is fine. But it does not mean everyone has to be that way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would actually cost more to facilitate the industry, than it would to eliminate the industry.

So you keep saying, but you appear to be dodging and ignoring EVERY attempt to get you to show and cite the figures. Or, having shown which option costs "more", whether the cost can be justified. You appear to want to do none of this in favor of simply making your assertions and clinging to them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stick to making an argument for the regulation of the prostitution industry

And yet when people DO make such arguments, you simply ignore them. Stack the deck much? Nor am I seeing any arguments from you to make it illegal, you just assert it should be so. So you are not in any position to admonish others to stick to the arguments. Especially given you can not even..........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people are working under the impression that the law as it currently stands doesn't, or shouldn't apply to them.

..... stay on topic yourself as this thread is about whether it should be illegal. Not about whether when it is illegal people choose to flout that law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can work with the sellers to ensure they have the skills to gain employment in other areas.

Which, as I keep pointing out in the posts you ignore, we should do anyway regardless of whether the sale or purchase of sex is legal or not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

legalising exploitation

You have failed to show anyone advocating for any such thing. You have also failed to justify calling the sale or purchase of sex "exploitation". You merely cling on to the word in the hope that emotive words will settled an argument you are unable to actually make.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the nature of the industry promotes the idea that they offer something that isn't ordinarily obtainable.

No. It does not. You have simply made that up out of nowhere.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

hey don't offer anything that isn't ordinarily obtainable

Nor are they required to. This is not a standard we whole any other industry to. You just modify the standards to fit your biases where it suits you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

sex is easily obtainable, by anyone

So are fish and vegetables and eggs. Yet we still have industries providing them to us. This "sex is easy to obtain" nonsense is just a red herring you use to bulk up your non-points.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the sex industry need to maintain the myth that it isn't.

No. They do not. You have simply made that up out of nowhere.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It has already been demonstrated that the overall effect on society of attempting to regulate prostitution has been an overwhelmingly negative one.

No. It has not. It has been shown it is possible to fail at the attempt. It has NOT been shown that making the attempt is therefore a negative. Anywhere. Ever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it has been demonstrated in other countries that attempts to regulate the prostitution industry simply do not work.

No. It has not. It has been shown the attempts THEY made did not work. It has NOT been shown any and all attempts will not work. Anywhere. Ever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It affects society in a negative manner because it encourages exploitation of other people in society.

Which is why we need to legalize and regulate it, because exploitation exists in most industries somewhere, and through regulation we work towards preventing it. Pushing something there is demand for underground with laws..... does not make the motivation to exploit go away, and it fosters the kind of environment in which exploitation is easier to achieve.

You PRETEND your concern is with people being exploited, but you have not offered a SINGLE argument to suggest making the buyer, seller, or both criminals will address it. Rather your issue is just a bias against prostitution, and exploitation is just convenient for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am morally opposed to the exploitation of human beings in any form, and prostitution happens to come under that umbrella.

You have not shown that it does. You just keep SAYING it does in the hope it might stick.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's really no point in arguing about the morality of prostitution.

A lot of people on the thread seem to share your opinion actually given not one of the anti-prositution posters appears to have made the attempt to do so!

I however believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and since everyone has failed to show it to be immoral, I simply do not treat it as immoral.

the running joke

If a grown man and woman wish to engage in consensual sexual activity for money, then neither should be prosecuted or stigmatized.

smash

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But no one is showing the tin So I have no idea what the laws and regulations are, how they are enforced or regulated, and how breaches of them are prosecuted. And I would expect "the laws" is not a catch all term and that each country has different ones, implemented differently, regulated differently and prosecuted differently.

As I say where regulation fails to work then one option is to give up and make the regulated thing illegal. The other option is to actually unpack the details and study the issue.

Some people, I guess, prefer the lazy approach. Alas.

Are they? I am not seeing any citations of what the laws and regulations are, let alone how or if they are implemented and enforced.

Germany has come under fire for it's laws regarding human trafficking. The information here is good, but it's not a complete picture as it doesn't state the enormous cost to the state or go in to much detail about the difficulties with enforcement. It does however give great statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Germany

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not so sure we can simply assume that. There is no data to base the assumption on. To my knowledge however there is no clear and effective way a punter can source the service conscientiously. And until there is we have no grounds to assume that the average punter would not do so, if given the means.

By virtue of the fact that a punter is after sex and nothing more, I think it's safe to suggest that they don't really care about the girls circumstances.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have suggested several ways in the thread already. But a licensing structure based on a periodical renewal procedure involving things like regular visits to medical professionals would certainly given the tools we need to start.

And would cost an absolute fortune.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And such a system would also give the tools I just mentioned above, for a punter to source their service conscientiously. It would give them a visible and simple methodology upon which to base their decision. And in such a system THEN you would have data to comment on whether punters actually do care or not about the well being of the service provider.

It wouldn't though. Holding a license and visiting a medical professional doesn't mean that a girl hasn't been coerced or forced to become a sex worker.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And my expectation is that we will find they do care. Because the average punter is just the average human being. And the average human being is generally concerned with the well being of others, especially people they are intimate with and form bonds with through things ilke oxytocin.

Average human being? Average human beings don't curb crawl or pay for sex. A huge percentage of punters are married. These guys are looking for what they don't get at home. They don't care about the person, they just want the act.

smash

the running joke wrote: »

If a grown man and woman wish to engage in consensual sexual activity for money, then neither should be prosecuted or stigmatized.

You'll find that with prostitution the consent is often under duress.

Olishi4

The morality of it is that it is an extreme invasion of personal space. Anyone who has had someone stand just slightly too close to them will know the importance of personal space.

If sex workers are not attracted to their clients then their body's will naturally have emotional and physical negative reactions.

Sex workers who are experiencing this are essentially being bribed with money.

The law stating that this is ok promotes this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

The morality of it is that it is an extreme invasion of personal space.

Personal space is not a moral issue if there is consent.

That said, what is therefore a non-point would not be limited to sex workers. Masseurs and nurses are two immediate examples of people who share their personal space quite intently with others.

But it is not for us to legislate who others let into their personal space. It is for people to make that decision for themselves. They do not require their choice removed from them under the guise of protecting them from it.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Personal space is not a moral issue if there is consent.

That said, what is therefore a non-point would not be limited to sex workers. Masseurs and nurses are two immediate examples of people who share their personal space quite intently with others.

But it is not for us to legislate who others let into their personal space. It is for people to make that decision for themselves. They do not require their choice removed from them under the guise of protecting them from it.

Im not sure of your experience with massuers or nurses but as far as I know masseurs and nurses do not let their clients or patients invade their personal space.

The actual job of sex worker itself is to allow people to invade their personal space by bribery.

nozzferrahhtoo

smash wrote: »

Germany has come under fire for it's laws regarding human trafficking.

Great. If laws regarding human trafficking are not sufficient then they should be targeted for improvement. But this is not a thread about the utility or efficacy of trafficking laws. It is a thread about the legality or not of prostitution.

What your link, and no one on this thread, appears to be showing is that making the buyers or sellers of sex criminals will have an effect on such trafficking. What we DO know is that it fosters an environment conducive to trafficking and few tools to help combat it.

smash wrote: »

By virtue of the fact that a punter is after sex and nothing more, I think it's safe to suggest that they don't really care about the girls circumstances.

And it is not safe to suggest that at all. If they can not source the service conscientiously then sure, you have a point. But what I am saying is that in a regulated legal industry where the punter DOES have that ability, I think you will be quite likely to find MANY people will source things conscientiously where they can.

Take eggs for example. If they all came in grey boxes with no marking then people who want eggs will just buy eggs. And this will give off the IMPRESSION they care little for how they were farmed. But when you distinguish between Free Range and Battery farmed.... even with the higher price you find MANY people purchase conscientiously where they can.

smash wrote: »

And would cost an absolute fortune.

So yourself and OEJ and one or two others keep saying. But I am not seeing and figures being offered by anyone to show they have ANY idea what it would cost or why. They just assume it will be expensive because it fits their bias or agenda.

smash wrote: »

It wouldn't though. Holding a license and visiting a medical professional doesn't mean that a girl hasn't been coerced or forced to become a sex worker.

I never said it does. What I say is that such sturctures and procedures at least offer us the tools and methods by which to do our best to prevent such things. That it would not be perfect and protect every sex worker is clear, but I never suggest it has to. I just suggest at least it gives us the tools.

Whereas what does criminalizing the buyer, seller or both bring us in terms of methodologies and tools with which to combat coercion and trafficking? Nothing at all that I can see, or anyone on this thread has shown.

smash wrote: »

Average human being? Average human beings don't curb crawl or pay for sex. A huge percentage of punters are married.

I have not seen genuine figures on who the punters actually are. Let alone figures enough to engage in fantasy about what they care about or not. But the majority of human beings in our society DO appear to care about the well being of others when and where they can.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Im not sure of your experience with massuers or nurses but as far as I know masseurs and nurses do not let their clients or patients invade their personal space.

Im not sure of your experience with massuers or nurses is because it is not clear what you even mean by "personal space" now.... given those professions are very much hands on, contact, professions and people get right up in your personal space doing those jobs.

Are you merely defining "personal space" as "underwear" or something?

But as I said in the part of my post you did NOT reply to, consent is a big thing here and the use of words like "invasion" are just emotive words designed to ignore things like consent.

Olishi4 wrote: »

The actual job of sex worker itself is to allow people to invade their personal space by bribery.

So paying someone for a service is "bribery" now? Or is it only "bribery" when it suits you to be derogatory but it is "payment" everywhere else?

smash

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Great. If laws regarding human trafficking are not sufficient then they should be targeted for improvement. But this is not a thread about the utility or efficacy of trafficking laws. It is a thread about the legality or not of prostitution.

You asked about the trafficking laws...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What your link, and no one on this thread, appears to be showing is that making the buyers or sellers of sex criminals will have an effect on such trafficking. What we DO know is that it fosters an environment conducive to trafficking and few tools to help combat it.

Which I have stated on numerous occasions and people have fobbed it off as nonsense.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And it is not safe to suggest that at all. If they can not source the service conscientiously then sure, you have a point. But what I am saying is that in a regulated legal industry where the punter DOES have that ability, I think you will be quite likely to find MANY people will source things conscientiously where they can.

As evident by the industries in Amsterdam and Germany this isn't the case. When a punter has more choice, they will choose who they want. They will choose the girl who they could not attain under regular circumstances.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Take eggs for example. If they all came in grey boxes with no marking then people who want eggs will just buy eggs. And this will give off the IMPRESSION they care little for how they were farmed. But when you distinguish between Free Range and Battery farmed.... even with the higher price you find MANY people purchase conscientiously where they can.

You'll also find that if I put a load of farmed eggs in a box and label it 'free range' people will not notice.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So yourself and OEJ and one or two others keep saying. But I am not seeing and figures being offered by anyone to show they have ANY idea what it would cost or why. They just assume it will be expensive because it fits their bias or agenda.

I'm not going to go searching it in work, but for this, and the other information you're looking for, you know how to use google.

nozzferrahhtoo

smash wrote: »

You asked about the trafficking laws...

Context matters. I did not just ask about traffic laws. I am asking about the laws in relation to what the topic of the thread is. Which is whether the sale of sex should be legal or not. That is what is not forthcoming, and does not exist in the link you offered.

smash wrote: »

Which I have stated on numerous occasions and people have fobbed it off as nonsense.

It is not clear you understood my point, but I am not sure. I was not saying the sale of sex fosters that, I said making the sale of sex illegal fosters that.

smash wrote: »

As evident by the industries in Amsterdam and Germany this isn't the case.

Is what I described in operation in those places? If not then there is no evidence from those countries that what I say is not the case. What tools or methods are made available in those places that allows a punter some semblance of the kind of knowledge I describe?

I am IN Germany and there are 3 brothels within walking distance of me right now with websites. And I can tell you NOTHING even REMOTELY like what I describe is in evidence.

smash wrote: »

You'll also find that if I put a load of farmed eggs in a box and label it 'free range' people will not notice.

Exactly, which is why we work with regulations and the like to ensure correct and accurate labeling. You're making my point for me now

smash wrote: »

I'm not going to go searching it in work, but for this, and the other information you're looking for, you know how to use google.

Ah the old "I do not have the evidence so go find it yourself" routine. I thought only theists used that one