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

BOHtox

It should only be legal if they're recording it for distribution for profit.

smash

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I previously stated that there were human trafficking laws that did what they said on the tin. You asked what the tin was so I linked an article. The article also links to prostitution laws.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Both instances foster it. But making it legal opens the gates to the criminal world to expand under the guise of a legitimate business.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

Possibly.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

How do you know? Go and visit one and ask :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

I fail to see how I'm making your point. I'm showing how easy it is to manipulate that law.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

No, it's the old 'I don't want to get fired and have my internet actions monitored' route.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.



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?

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to know what I mean by extreme invasion of personal space. I thought we were keeping a bit of decorum.

Like I said the sex worker is not attracted to the client, therefore their natural response is to reject (not consent) the client. The client pays the sex worker to ignore the rejection.

Bribery is money or other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting (faking attraction) the behavior of a person.

nozzferrahhtoo

smash wrote: »

I previously stated that there were human trafficking laws that did what they said on the tin. You asked what the tin was so I linked an article. The article also links to prostitution laws.

But nothing in those links is answering what I am actually asking, which is to describe not just what laws were implemented, but how they were enforced and maintained, and what effects they have on trafficking in either direction. I am not seeing anything in the link or on this thread answering this with any rigor.

Because if we genuinely are worried about human trafficiking, and it seems people on this thread on BOTH sides of the legal/illegal debate are.... I know I certainly am....... then it behooves us to understand exactly what effects different laws, or no laws, actually have. Hard figures and data, none of which I am finding or being shown alas.

smash wrote: »

Both instances foster it. But making it legal opens the gates to the criminal world to expand under the guise of a legitimate business.

Does it though? How? And not just how, but how in comparison to ANY legal industry that has criminal elements exploiting it?

smash wrote: »

Possibly. How do you know? Go and visit one and ask :pac:

You joke but actually I just took you up on it. Vicariously at least. Yesterday evening I requested a computer gaming contact of mine to go. He went to two of the three. I do not want to link to their websites incase it is in a breach of some rule but (NSFW) simply google Aschaffenburg and the words "dolce vita" or "Haus freuden".

He basically went in and had a short meet up with the "available girls". The girls you see on the websites. He met them briefly to "choose" but then told the owner "No thanks, maybe another time" and left.

And nothing in the website or in his experience gave him ANY impression of how willingly or unwillingly the girls were there, what their medical checks might have been, or anything even REMOTELY similar to what I describe.

So I am afraid, the point of all this is, that there is nothing out there that I am aware of which can be pointed to to say "No what you propose has been tried and it fails". Because nothing I am aware of has been implemented that is even remotely what I describe.

smash wrote: »

I fail to see how I'm making your point. I'm showing how easy it is to manipulate that law.

But it is not easy to do so. It CAN be done so but if the laws and regulations are policed correctly it is not EASY to do so. The rights to put certain words and labels on your packaging is often (but alas not always) well policed.

But the point is not whether the laws CAN be manipulated or broken. The point I am making is that at least implementing such laws and regulations GIVES US THE TOOLS to police and regulate them and combat those that would break them or manipulate others. So if our concern is trafficking, such laws and regulations give us tools to combat trafficking.

Contrast that to simply making the sale, purchase, or both of sex illegal. What tools is this giving us? Clearly not much given trafficking happens anyway regardless of how legal or illegal the sex trade actually is. And no one on the thread is saying "Well if we implement this law or that law.... then this is how I see it affecting trafficking and why........."

But I have SOME faith in the good will of mankind and I genuinely do expect, just like we see in people paying more for free range eggs over battery.... or legal government taxed cigs and alcohol over the lower priced black market versions.... that when the consumer HAS the choice to purchase conscientiously.... many do so. And the kind of things I propose give them that ability.

And ALL of this I say without ALSO making the point that there are not many other examples in the world of where we indict an industry with the crimes of people with in. Rather we indict the people committing those crimes. When top high street clothing brands, for example, were found to be using child slave labor in their production we as a society went after THEM. Not after the clothing industry itself. And the same is true of meat, cosmetics, drugs and much more.

And I am not seeing anyone on the thread giving good (or indeed ANY) arguments as to why that narrative magically changes on the subject of the sex trade. Why do we indict the entire sex trade industry with the crimes of SOME people within it, when this is not what we do in many... if any..... other industries?

I am genuinely uncomfortable with indicting people in any industry with the crimes of criminals exploiting that industry. And I am not aware of where else we do this with any rigor, so it calls into question the motivations of those wishing to do so here. Especially when they themselves are unable to explain why.

smash wrote: »

No, it's the old 'I don't want to get fired and have my internet actions monitored' route.

If you say so but as I say it is not up to me to substantiate your arguments for you. If you have the data to back up things you say I am agog to read it openly and honestly.... but I have never really bought into the "This is my point, now go off and substantiate it yourself" narrative.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to know what I mean by extreme invasion of personal space. I thought we were keeping a bit of decorum.

And I am genuinely saying I am not sure what you mean by it because I have listed some other professions where personal space is in many ways made forfeit, and you are telling me they are not analogous. So I do not see what your definition is or how it differs. And you now appear unwilling to explain it.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Like I said the sex worker is not attracted to the client, therefore their natural response is to reject (not consent) the client. The client pays the sex worker to ignore the rejection.

You are assuming a lot here, such as what their attraction actually is or is not. You simply do not know that. You do not know who is attracted to who, or not. You do not also appear to know how often a sex worker turns down a client or contract due to not being into proceeding. You are assuming all of this.

Further the analogy I made to a masseur still stands. Because they too could show up to find a client who's appearance, personal hygiene, or something else raises a natural revulsion in them, but they proceed regardless because it is their job. Or they reject the client (their choice) and leave.

And moving out of the physical into the moral or intellectual.... what of the lawyer who's job it is to defend the clearly guilty murderer, rapist or pedophile? Their client, their crime, disgusts them. Yet some proceed regardless because it is the career they chose, and they are paid.... not bribed.... to do their chosen work. Or they too can reject the client.

Apparently you think there is some difference so your argument applies to one and not the others, but what that difference is I do not know.... and having asked you, you do not appear to want to answer.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Bribery is money or other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting (faking attraction) the behavior of a person.

And yet you are not distinguishing between bribery and payment in any meaningful way. I am in work right now. My children are at home today due to a closed day in their Kindergarten. The weather is beautiful outside right now.

Every fiber of my being is saying "Go home and take the kids to the park or the pool". But I know what my job is, I get paid for it, I need the money to live, and so I over ride my choices and desires to do the work *I CHOOSE* to do when I accepted this employment.

So am I being bribed or paid? What's the difference? Is the masseuse being bribed or paid? What's the difference? Is the lawyer being bribed or paid? What's the difference? Do you even know yourself?

smash

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But nothing in those links is answering what I am actually asking, which is to describe not just what laws were implemented, but how they were enforced and maintained, and what effects they have on trafficking in either direction. I am not seeing anything in the link or on this thread answering this with any rigor.

You're seriously asking people to breakdown in detail how certain laws are implemented and enforced?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because if we genuinely are worried about human trafficiking, and it seems people on this thread on BOTH sides of the legal/illegal debate are.... I know I certainly am....... then it behooves us to understand exactly what effects different laws, or no laws, actually have. Hard figures and data, none of which I am finding or being shown alas.

The laws appear to have little affect in regards to illegal or legal prostitution, but what has been noted and is clear and evident is that by legalising prostitution, human trafficking becomes a larger issue.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Does it though? How? And not just how, but how in comparison to ANY legal industry that has criminal elements exploiting it?

Yes. And we're not talking about any industry, we're talking about sex work. There's a difference between forced sex work and say forced labour in a factory. There's a huge focus in Germany on human trafficking for sexual exploitation but the issue is still widespread. In 2007 Germany was listed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime as a top destination for victims of human Trafficking. In 2006 357 investigations were completed resulting in 775 victims. In 2007 police identified 689 victims of which 12% were under 18 and 1% were in 14. in 2008 the number was 676 and in 2009 the number was 710. From the 2006 report, 35% of the women had agreed to work in prostitution but didn't understand the extent of the debt they would incur by agreeing to participate. In the majority of cases the victims would not testify against their oppressors.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You joke but actually I just took you up on it. Vicariously at least. Yesterday evening I requested a computer gaming contact of mine to go. He went to two of the three. I do not want to link to their websites incase it is in a breach of some rule but (NSFW) simply google Aschaffenburg and the words "dolce vita" or "Haus freuden".

He basically went in and had a short meet up with the "available girls". The girls you see on the websites. He met them briefly to "choose" but then told the owner "No thanks, maybe another time" and left.

And nothing in the website or in his experience gave him ANY impression of how willingly or unwillingly the girls were there, what their medical checks might have been, or anything even REMOTELY similar to what I describe.

So I am afraid, the point of all this is, that there is nothing out there that I am aware of which can be pointed to to say "No what you propose has been tried and it fails". Because nothing I am aware of has been implemented that is even remotely what I describe.

All prostitutes must be registered and there is no legal obligation to undergo regular health checks although many brothers will require it of their girls. It is illegal for a prostitute to offer oral or penetrative sex without a condom.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it is not easy to do so. It CAN be done so but if the laws and regulations are policed correctly it is not EASY to do so. The rights to put certain words and labels on your packaging is often (but alas not always) well policed.

It is hugely difficult to police! This has been proven abroad.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But the point is not whether the laws CAN be manipulated or broken. The point I am making is that at least implementing such laws and regulations GIVES US THE TOOLS to police and regulate them and combat those that would break them or manipulate others. So if our concern is trafficking, such laws and regulations give us tools to combat trafficking.

We don't have the resources to enforce it. It's that simple. And we can't just hire and train in new resources because it's not cost effective.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And ALL of this I say without ALSO making the point that there are not many other examples in the world of where we indict an industry with the crimes of people with in. Rather we indict the people committing those crimes. When top high street clothing brands, for example, were found to be using child slave labor in their production we as a society went after THEM. Not after the clothing industry itself. And the same is true of meat, cosmetics, drugs and much more.

And I am not seeing anyone on the thread giving good (or indeed ANY) arguments as to why that narrative magically changes on the subject of the sex trade. Why do we indict the entire sex trade industry with the crimes of SOME people within it, when this is not what we do in many... if any..... other industries?

There is no other industry where people ARE the product. You can not compare.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so but as I say it is not up to me to substantiate your arguments for you. If you have the data to back up things you say I am agog to read it openly and honestly.... but I have never really bought into the "This is my point, now go off and substantiate it yourself" narrative.

It is however up to you to prove your points, of which you have many, but you're asking other people to debunk them rather than solidly backing them up yourself.

esforum

Olishi4 wrote: »

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to know what I mean by extreme invasion of personal space. I thought we were keeping a bit of decorum.

Like I said the sex worker is not attracted to the client, therefore their natural response is to reject (not consent) the client. The client pays the sex worker to ignore the rejection.

Bribery is money or other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting (faking attraction) the behavior of a person.

My natural reaction to you would be to ignore you however I am paid to help you if I can

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I am genuinely saying I am not sure what you mean by it because I have listed some other professions where personal space is in many ways made forfeit, and you are telling me they are not analogous. So I do not see what your definition is or how it differs. And you now appear unwilling to explain it.

For Nursing, if the personal space is invaded, it will not be for the sole pleasure of the patient. It is for the health of the patient and all procedures and precautions are put in place to try to eliminate the invasion of the personal space of health professionals. Sex work, the product is the invasion of personal space for the clients personal pleasure.

Legitimate massage therapists are people that like to help people, non sexually. They are trained in massage techniques, skin conditions etc. and they are trained to respect client boundaries. Their own personal space is not invaded. It is not an invitation to proposition or fondle the therapist.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are assuming a lot here, such as what their attraction actually is or is not. You simply do not know that. You do not know who is attracted to who, or not. You do not also appear to know how often a sex worker turns down a client or contract due to not being into proceeding. You are assuming all of this.

How likely do you think it is that sex workers are attracted to the majority of their clients? Sex workers can only turn down so many clients before it becomes an issue with their income not to mention being bribed to perform acts that they would normally turn down for more money.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further the analogy I made to a masseur still stands. Because they too could show up to find a client who's appearance, personal hygiene, or something else raises a natural revulsion in them, but they proceed regardless because it is their job. Or they reject the client (their choice) and leave..

Above explanation on masseur analogy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And moving out of the physical into the moral or intellectual.... what of the lawyer who's job it is to defend the clearly guilty murderer, rapist or pedophile? Their client, their crime, disgusts them. Yet some proceed regardless because it is the career they chose, and they are paid.... not bribed.... to do their chosen work. Or they too can reject the client.

Apparently you think there is some difference so your argument applies to one and not the others, but what that difference is I do not know.... and having asked you, you do not appear to want to answer. .

Lawyers also spend a number of years in training. They are trained to understand the system of justice. They work to prevent innocent people from being convicted of a crime. The lawyers function is to ensure that the government itself follows the law to ensure that no innocent people are convicted. It is not the lawyers position to convict their clients, it is that of the law and the rules of the law set by society. The lawyer can also not provide false evidence on behalf of the client.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet you are not distinguishing between bribery and payment in any meaningful way. I am in work right now. My children are at home today due to a closed day in their Kindergarten. The weather is beautiful outside right now.

Every fiber of my being is saying "Go home and take the kids to the park or the pool". But I know what my job is, I get paid for it, I need the money to live, and so I over ride my choices and desires to do the work *I CHOOSE* to do when I accepted this employment.

So am I being bribed or paid? What's the difference? Is the masseuse being bribed or paid? What's the difference? Is the lawyer being bribed or paid? What's the difference? Do you even know yourself?

Jobs allow for personal growth be that from moving up the ladder, further training, achievements or relationships with coworkers. You are to be respected by your colleagues and your personal space is not invaded in your job? There are many laws and rules to ensure this is occurs in your job and is continuously and constantly reviewed and implemented.

nozzferrahhtoo

smash wrote: »

You're seriously asking people to breakdown in detail how certain laws are implemented and enforced?

The laws appear to have little affect in regards to illegal or legal prostitution, but what has been noted and is clear and evident is that by legalising prostitution, human trafficking becomes a larger issue.

If someones argument is based on those details then yes I would seriously ask them to show some of the details or workings to establish what they are saying is actually true. Why would I not?

As I said I am genuinely concerned for slavery and trafficking and coercion too. Equally to anyone else on this thread. But I do not seek lazy sound bite answers to that such as saying "Make X illegal and it will get better" or "Making X legal will make it worse" or "regulation was tried and it failed, so it cant be done".

Such assertions say nothing and have equal value to their content: Nothing. Anyone genuinely interested in allaying the issue of coercion and trafficking needs to sit back and actually unpack and/or offer the details. They need to know or say WHY approach X failed or works, or WHY approach Y could potentially help or not.

And I am not seeing many people doing so and offering real actual examples or arguments for their position such as I have. Examples or arguments based on things we actually know to be true.

For example...... we know to be true that one of the things that fosters an environment in which abuse and coercion can occur is making victims feel in any way unwilling or unable to report such abuses. So we therefore know an environment which promotes the reporting of abuse and crimes is going to be superior to the opposite in terms of reducing abuse and crime. So sex workers who are engaged in a criminal or stigmatized act are going to be less likely to report abuses themselves, than sex workers in an environment where their trade is legal and normalized and, hopefully, there are procedures and methods in place for them to do such reporting.

So THAT is an example of an argument that is not just "Make it legal because that will reduce trafficking". It explains a causal chain actual argument as to WHY it can do so. And I have offered several such arguments so far in this thread. Not just one.

And in return I am not getting the same from anyone. I am just seeing things like "The sex trade promotes abuse so lets ban it" with no substance as to how or why it promotes it or how or why banning it will help. It is just knee jerk bias and assertion.

Similarly when someone says "Regulation was tried and it failed" or "then trafficking became a larger issue" there is no substance or detail there. WHAT was tried? HOW was it implemented and enforced? WHAT metrics are being used to declare "failure" exactly? And so on and so forth. Again it is just knee-jerk assertion. Essentially say nothing more than "Oh we tried SOMETHING and it did not work, so yea best to just give up and ban it all, yeah thatll do it".

So am I serious? Yes. Quite. There is every reason why I should be and so should ANYONE who is genuinely concerned about trafficking rather than, say, having simply got a bias against sex work and trafficking is just a convenient go to argument to justify it.

smash wrote: »

Yes. And we're not talking about any industry, we're talking about sex work.

Which does not preclude using analogy or examples or knowledge from or about other industries to explore the issue. I am aware of where the differences lie and I am aware of where the overlaps are. And when we treat one industry not just differently, but sometimes exactly the opposite, from how we treat the majority or even the totality of other ones..... it is useful to explore why that is. Especially if the risk is that the reason for it is little more than bias and agenda on behalf of those doing it.

smash wrote: »

All prostitutes must be registered and there is no legal obligation to undergo regular health checks although many brothers will require it of their girls. It is illegal for a prostitute to offer oral or penetrative sex without a condom. It is hugely difficult to police! This has been proven abroad. We don't have the resources to enforce it. It's that simple. And we can't just hire and train in new resources because it's not cost effective.

But again I am not seeing any hard facts of figures on how difficult it might be, what the costs might be, or what resources are actually required. And once again the systems and attempts you look at in other countries are in many ways different to what I propose (such as you said yourself there is no obligation for regular health checks, which my proposal requires) so there is no direct comparison for easy dismissal of what I have said.

That said however I have no doubt it is difficult. I just do not think difficulty is a useful argument for not doing what is right. Lots of laws are difficult to implement and enforce. We do it anyway because we have decided it is the right thing to do. And if it will be costly then we need to know how much.... and then we need to decide what costs have to be to make doing what is the right thing to do, the wrong choice to make. What value do we put on doing right by both consensual sex workers and those being coerced and trafficked?

smash wrote: »

There is no other industry where people ARE the product. You can not compare.

There isn't? I can think of several. The entire entertainment industry jumps to mind from music to holywood to television (especially reality television). And I often use massage as an analogy. People are the product there pretty much in every way the same way as the sex industry.... in that you are paying another human being to use parts of their body to (usually) pleasurably influence and affect parts of yours. How is the masseuse therefore any more OR less of a product than a sex worker?

smash wrote: »

It is however up to you to prove your points, of which you have many, but you're asking other people to debunk them rather than solidly backing them up yourself.

Not true I have been backing mine up with argument. But generally I find the way to proceed in an argument or discussion is to ASK people questions about what they have said and ask them to back it up further. So if there is a specific point you wish me to back up further, the correct approach is to ask me. Not just generally hand wave and claim I have not done so without any substance or example. Vague accusations of that nature are just designed to be impossible to rebut because there is no substance or example in it to rebut. Hardly fair or honest.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

For Nursing, if the personal space is invaded, it will not be for the sole pleasure of the patient.

See you are rolling in caveats to make the distinction now. It started first with you suggesting there was a difference in personal space invasion between the two professions. But now you have back pedaled into a caveat of distinguishing the motivation for entering that personal space instead. Let's keep the goal posts were they where thank you.

So you have moved now from having an issue about personal space to having an issue about WHY people are in that personal space. Fine, but so what? That is not for you to mediate or decide, it is for people to exercise their own consent to decide.

Further while your new caveat might partially address the distinction between sex work and nursing, it does not do so between sex work and massage. Because there too it is about the pleasure of the client. Remember both sex work and massage are in many ways essentially the same thing...... paying someone to use parts of their body to pleasure parts of yours. The main distinction is that in one it is sexual pleasure, in the other not. But so what? Why does it being sexual change anything? There seems to be an assumption in there therefore that sex is a bad thing. An assumption that, if present, I do not share.

Olishi4 wrote: »

How likely do you think it is that sex workers are attracted to the majority of their clients? Sex workers can only turn down so many clients before it becomes an issue with their income not to mention being bribed to perform acts that they would normally turn down for more money.

I simply have no figures on how many people are attracted to their clients and, I suspect, nor do you. So I would not use it as an assumption in an argument either way at all.

I am also not entirely sure how many clients the average sex worker needs to have a workable income. But I suspect it is a LOT less than many people think. Especially those people who are making comments about ridiculously large numbers assuming each sex worker has 100s of clients a month or whatever.

I just opened Escort Ireland and 100% randomly clicked an Escort. She charges 130euro an hour. An. Hour. How many hours work do you need a week to have a sustainable income? If I was getting 130euro an hour for the work I do, I likely wouldn't bother working more than 3 or 4 hours a week.

Not very many it would seem! Which likely gives a lot more lee-way in being selective about clients than you might imagine. Even if you assume 1 visit per client. Which I do not assume as it is quite likely for an escort to have one or more regular clients that return to them periodically.

So while I would be wary to OVER estimate the selective power of the average escort when turning down clients.... I would at least recommend being equally wary of UNDER estimating it either.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Lawyers also spend a number of years in training. They are trained to understand the system of justice. They work to prevent innocent people from being convicted of a crime.

You are not answering the point I actually made. Training and innocent people do not even remotely address my point. My point is about lawyers defending clients they know to be guilty, or who's crimes disgust them. Yet despite that disgust many will do it anyway because it is their job, and they are paid to do it.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Jobs allow for personal growth be that from moving up the ladder, further training, achievements or relationships with coworkers.

Some do. Many don't.

Olishi4 wrote: »

You are to be respected by your colleagues and your personal space is not invaded in your job? There are many laws and rules to ensure this is occurs in your job and is continuously and constantly reviewed and implemented.

Which is a good argument for having a legal and regulated sex industry! Thanks. Because there we have at least some potential to erect and constantly review and implement, laws and rules and procedures to protect sex workers.

But there is that emotive word "invaded" again. Selected merely because it sounds bad. But "invaded" is a word that glosses over and ignores things like the concept of "consent". Where consent is requested and obtained I do not think the word "invaded" is being used validly. I think it is being used to make an emotive point, where no ACTUAL point exists.

smash

Nozz, how did you manage such a long post but completely miss responding to the figures I laid out?

nozzferrahhtoo

I didn't. I did not quote them in my reply, but the points I make respond to them all the same. For example where I said that the statistics you offer are about a system implemented that is very different from the one I propose, so the statistics do not show that my system would not be effective. And I made points related to how a failed system in one single example does not mean it can not be done right. I have commented a few times on this "We tried, it failed, therefore it can not be done" mentality. And I also made points related to your last sentence in that paragraph about refusal to testify against those that wronged them.

So no, I do not feel I missed anything. In fact the figures laid out support a lot of what I have been saying.

It is clear to me trafficking happens, whether sex work is legal or illegal. So the question for me is how best to combat it. And I think a knee jerk reaction of "Trafficking is bad so lets make the sex trade illegal" is lazy. No one has shown that doing so will have an effect, or what that effect might be if anything.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

See you are rolling in caveats to make the distinction now. It started first with you suggesting there was a difference in personal space invasion between the two professions. But now you have back pedaled into a caveat of distinguishing the motivation for entering that personal space instead. Let's keep the goal posts were they where thank you.

So you have moved now from having an issue about personal space to having an issue about WHY people are in that personal space. Fine, but so what? That is not for you to mediate or decide, it is for people to exercise their own consent to decide.

Further while your new caveat might partially address the distinction between sex work and nursing, it does not do so between sex work and massage. Because there too it is about the pleasure of the client. Remember both sex work and massage are in many ways essentially the same thing...... paying someone to use parts of their body to pleasure parts of yours. The main distinction is that in one it is sexual pleasure, in the other not. But so what? Why does it being sexual change anything? There seems to be an assumption in there therefore that sex is a bad thing. An assumption that, if present, I do not share.

I simply have no figures on how many people are attracted to their clients and, I suspect, nor do you. So I would not use it as an assumption in an argument either way at all.

I am also not entirely sure how many clients the average sex worker needs to have a workable income. But I suspect it is a LOT less than many people think. Especially those people who are making comments about ridiculously large numbers assuming each sex worker has 100s of clients a month or whatever.

I just opened Escort Ireland and 100% randomly clicked an Escort. She charges 130euro an hour. An. Hour. How many hours work do you need a week to have a sustainable income? If I was getting 130euro an hour for the work I do, I likely wouldn't bother working more than 3 or 4 hours a week.

Not very many it would seem! Which likely gives a lot more lee-way in being selective about clients than you might imagine. Even if you assume 1 visit per client. Which I do not assume as it is quite likely for an escort to have one or more regular clients that return to them periodically.

So while I would be wary to OVER estimate the selective power of the average escort when turning down clients.... I would at least recommend being equally wary of UNDER estimating it either.

You are not answering the point I actually made. Training and innocent people do not even remotely address my point. My point is about lawyers defending clients they know to be guilty, or who's crimes disgust them. Yet despite that disgust many will do it anyway because it is their job, and they are paid to do it.

Some do. Many don't.

Which is a good argument for having a legal and regulated sex industry! Thanks. Because there we have at least some potential to erect and constantly review and implement, laws and rules and procedures to protect sex workers.

But there is that emotive word "invaded" again. Selected merely because it sounds bad. But "invaded" is a word that glosses over and ignores things like the concept of "consent". Where consent is requested and obtained I do not think the word "invaded" is being used validly. I think it is being used to make an emotive point, where no ACTUAL point exists.

Motivation for someone entering your personal space is extremely important. There is a big difference between someone accidently bumping into you and someone pushing you for their own gratification. And I have explained the issue with consent. If you cannot grasp that, then that is fine but it seems more of an attempt to dismiss, ignore and dilute the point by going on and on.

Massuers use their hands. We shake hands, we wave to people, pat them on the back as a gesture of good will, serve food with them, exchange money with them. Sex work is not the same as massuer and their personal space is not invaded. The person receiving the massage is not allowed to touch them.

There is no assumption that sex is bad. That seems more like a bad debating method to convert and conclude the topic to anyone against it, is sexually repressed as we have already seen posters accused of being a "virgin" and "sitting with arms folder and legs crossed". I would expect more from a discussion.

No we don't have figures of how many sex workers are attracted to their clients and we probably never will as I previously explained, sex workers are not likley to put down their own business. We do have common sense and we know that people tend to have sex with those they are attracted too. We also know that bribery can be used to alter a person's behaviour and morals.

Even if the number of clients is small, then sex workers will very often be requested to perform sex acts that they are not comfortable with. If they are relying on regulars for their income, then the client could threaten to take their "business" elsewhere if they do not perform.

I did answer the point you made with regard to lawyers. You just don't understand it. The lawyers are part of a bigger system of justice and they are aware that if everyone does not have a right to a proper defense then the justice system is flawed for everyone. They do not carry the burden of conviction.

Having laws and regulations and precautions to protect people from other people invading their personal space in work is not an argument for legalising sex work. It is an argument against it. It shows just how important personal space is to an employee. Sex work legalised promotes invasion of personal space.

As for the word "invade" being emotive, the term "invade personal space" is used often even in cases where someone just stands too close. Perhaps you found it emotive. Perhaps that word is associated with personal space to portray the importance of it. I don't know but I have always heard those words together when people talk about personal space. I repeat again that i have already explained the issue with consent and if you dont understand it, thats fine.

Anyway it is getting absurd to the point where you are nit picking, disecting and going on repetitively about single words or phrases to the point where we are discussing them in lenghty paragraphs where the meaning is already obvious. Seems like an attempt to take away the point the words were originally used to make. A bit like Chinese Whispers.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Motivation for someone entering your personal space is extremely important.

To YOU sure it is! Of course it is. But this thread is about the law, and whether aspects of the sex trade should be legal or illegal. And someone ELSES motivation for offering or seeking a service is not our concern, not our business, and not something we mediate for in other industries.

Take McDonalds fast food for example. It is legal, despite the fact we might have some actual good arguments for banning it. So the motivation people might have for seeking it and eating it is not relevant to us legally. You might have it because you are hungry. The next person might have it to purposely get fat over time, so he can claim disability and not have to work.

Clearly there is nothing wrong with your moral reasons for eating it, but there is with the second persons. Yet so what? The fact is the service is legal, and we do not mediate for WHY people might offer it or seek it.

So yes the motivations are relevant to the person offering or seeking the service. But why are they relevant to US in discussing whether the trade itself should be legal or illegal? You have not made this at all clear.

Olishi4 wrote: »

And I have explained the issue with consent. If you cannot grasp that, then that is fine but it seems more of an attempt to dismiss, ignore and dilute the point by going on and on.

Except you have explained no such thing. You have no explained why we should be legislating for the consent of others. You have not explained why we need a nanny state making peoples decisions and consent for them. You have not shown that we worry about consent in other industries in a similar fashion. None of this. Rather you are attempting to manufacture a point where no point exists. If you cannot grasp that, then that is fine but it seems more of an attempt to dismiss, ignore and dilute the point by going on and on.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Massuers use their hands. We shake hands, we wave to people, pat them on the back as a gesture of good will, serve food with them, exchange money with them. Sex work is not the same as massuer and their personal space is not invaded. The person receiving the massage is not allowed to touch them.

None of which answers the point I am making. The body part used is not relevant to the point I am making. The point still remains. In BOTH trades you are paying someone to use parts of their body to pleasure parts of yours. Yet, seemingly for no other reason than it is sex, you think this is an issue in one case and not in the other. So while you say there is no assumption that sex is bad, there seems to be nothing OTHER than that assumption with which to carry your point.

Olishi4 wrote: »

No we don't have figures of how many sex workers are attracted to their clients

Great, so stop using data you simply do not have to support points you are making. I do not do it, so perhaps you can return the favor.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Even if the number of clients is small, then sex workers will very often be requested to perform sex acts that they are not comfortable with.

Yes. REQUESTED to do so. And they can say no. And in a legal regulated industry we are better positioned than we otherwise would be to attempt to ensure their choice is respected and protected. You are, as others have done, making my point for me here.

Olishi4 wrote: »

If they are relying on regulars for their income, then the client could threaten to take their "business" elsewhere if they do not perform.

But no one here said they WERE relying on regulars for their income. All that was said, by me at least, is that we should not make assumptions about how often they do, or can, turn away clients. Especially given the number of clients they need is smaller than many people on threads like this thing...... and double especially given many of them DO have regular clients, which puts them in a better position to be selective.

The point, in short, was just to rebut any assumptions about their ability to turn away clients, or how often they can or do do so.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I did answer the point you made with regard to lawyers. You just don't understand it.

Your not understanding the point I made, does not equate to me not understanding your non-rebutal to it. Quite the opposite and a mirror would function well for you here. The point is that there are many trades, including but not limited to the ones I exampled, were people go against what they might otherwise want to do, because it is what they are paid to do.

So singling out one trade, in this case the sex industry, for special and unprecedented consideration of that fact, while ignoring the others.... does nothing for the discussion other than to reveal your biases.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Having laws and regulations and precautions to protect people from other people invading their personal space in work is not an argument for legalising sex work.

But once again your reliance on the word "invasion" highlights that you do not actually have an argument or a point to make. Because the word is selected for no other reason than to make an emotive point, where actual arguments have consistently failed you.

The word "invasion" is specifically selected to bring up images of unwelcome entry, violence, force, coercion and more. None of which exists in a consensual transaction where one side offers a service and the other side purchases it. A point you actually make for me when you use an analogy to people standing too close. That you do not understand the difference does not make the difference go away.... the difference being that in one case consent to entering the personal space has been obtained.... in the other case it has not. Thank you, once again, for making my point for me.

Cherry picking emotive language is not going to substitute for your lack of arguments. It just, as I said above, highlights your biases. Biases which are the totality of what you have to offer on the subject.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To YOU sure it is! Of course it is. But this thread is about the law, and whether aspects of the sex trade should be legal or illegal. And someone ELSES motivation for offering or seeking a service is not our concern, not our business, and not something we mediate for in other industries.

Take McDonalds fast food for example. It is legal, despite the fact we might have some actual good arguments for banning it. So the motivation people might have for seeking it and eating it is not relevant to us legally. You might have it because you are hungry. The next person might have it to purposely get fat over time, so he can claim disability and not have to work.

Clearly there is nothing wrong with your moral reasons for eating it, but there is with the second persons. Yet so what? The fact is the service is legal, and we do not mediate for WHY people might offer it or seek it.

So yes the motivations are relevant to the person offering or seeking the service. But why are they relevant to US in discussing whether the trade itself should be legal or illegal? You have not made this at all clear.



Except you have explained no such thing. You have no explained why we should be legislating for the consent of others. You have not explained why we need a nanny state making peoples decisions and consent for them. You have not shown that we worry about consent in other industries in a similar fashion. None of this. Rather you are attempting to manufacture a point where no point exists. If you cannot grasp that, then that is fine but it seems more of an attempt to dismiss, ignore and dilute the point by going on and on.



None of which answers the point I am making. The body part used is not relevant to the point I am making. The point still remains. In BOTH trades you are paying someone to use parts of their body to pleasure parts of yours. Yet, seemingly for no other reason than it is sex, you think this is an issue in one case and not in the other. So while you say there is no assumption that sex is bad, there seems to be nothing OTHER than that assumption with which to carry your point.



Great, so stop using data you simply do not have to support points you are making. I do not do it, so perhaps you can return the favor.



Yes. REQUESTED to do so. And they can say no. And in a legal regulated industry we are better positioned than we otherwise would be to attempt to ensure their choice is respected and protected. You are, as others have done, making my point for me here.



But no one here said they WERE relying on regulars for their income. All that was said, by me at least, is that we should not make assumptions about how often they do, or can, turn away clients. Especially given the number of clients they need is smaller than many people on threads like this thing...... and double especially given many of them DO have regular clients, which puts them in a better position to be selective.

The point, in short, was just to rebut any assumptions about their ability to turn away clients, or how often they can or do do so.



Your not understanding the point I made, does not equate to me not understanding your non-rebutal to it. Quite the opposite and a mirror would function well for you here. The point is that there are many trades, including but not limited to the ones I exampled, were people go against what they might otherwise want to do, because it is what they are paid to do.

So singling out one trade, in this case the sex industry, for special and unprecedented consideration of that fact, while ignoring the others.... does nothing for the discussion other than to reveal your biases.



But once again your reliance on the word "invasion" highlights that you do not actually have an argument or a point to make. Because the word is selected for no other reason than to make an emotive point, where actual arguments have consistently failed you.

The word "invasion" is specifically selected to bring up images of unwelcome entry, violence, force, coercion and more. None of which exists in a consensual transaction where one side offers a service and the other side purchases it. A point you actually make for me when you use an analogy to people standing too close. That you do not understand the difference does not make the difference go away.... the difference being that in one case consent to entering the personal space has been obtained.... in the other case it has not. Thank you, once again, for making my point for me.

Cherry picking emotive language is not going to substitute for your lack of arguments. It just, as I said above, highlights your biases. Biases which are the totality of what you have to offer on the subject.

Ye I don't think we would ever agree nozz. We obviously dont speak the same language. I've given you answers to every question and made valid points which you continue to ignore or just plainly dismiss and respond to with padded out paragraphs which look to the naked eye that you are saying alot but really not at all. I told you already that i am not into that kind of debating. It serves no function. Rather than go constantly around in circles, I would just say, best of luck to you.

Kev_2012

Just a question, if legalized, and a gay person goes to a sex worker and the sex worker declines because they are straight, does that count as discrimination?

I thought this thread could do with lightening up and a different direction :P

One eyed Jack

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Just a question, if legalized, and a gay person goes to a sex worker and the sex worker declines because they are straight, does that count as discrimination?

I thought this thread could do with lightening up and a different direction :P

Refusal to provide a service to a customer based upon their gender or sexual orientation...

I wonder would the customer have any comeback in the event that they weren't satisfied with the service? I'd like to see that one in the Small Claims Court

melissak

No. A sex worker could decline based on whatever reason they wanted. As an aside I don't believe it is discrimination to decline to perform any service for anyone based on any reason. We are not obliged to sell our services, we are not slaves.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Just a question, if legalized, and a gay person goes to a sex worker and the sex worker declines because they are straight, does that count as discrimination?

I thought this thread could do with lightening up and a different direction :P

Add your reply here.

Kev_2012

melissak wrote: »

No. A sex worker could decline based on whatever reason they wanted. As an aside I don't believe it is discrimination to decline to perform any service for anyone based on any reason. We are not obliged to sell our services, we are not slaves.

Add your reply here.

Who is we?

So could a sex worker turn down somebody because of their race, sexual orientation member of the travelling community?

melissak

Kev_2012 wrote: »

melissak wrote: »

No. A sex worker could decline based on whatever reason they wanted. As an aside I don't believe it is discrimination to decline to perform any service for anyone based on any reason. We are not obliged to sell our services, we are not slaves.

Add your reply here.

Who is we?

So could a sex worker turn down somebody because of their race, sexual orientation member of the travelling community?

Add your reply here.
Anyone. In my opinion. You should have to proform your job or be fired but beyond emergency/state services or in public ace you couldn't be insulting but I think in most scenarios to should be free to say I don't like you so I will not preform a service for you and you can not see me.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Refusal to provide a service to a customer based upon their gender or sexual orientation...

I wonder would the customer have any comeback in the event that they weren't satisfied with the service? I'd like to see that one in the Small Claims Court

I don't think anyone would want their come back!

Eramen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjtAT6xm7hk

I'll post the full documentary when it comes out. Should be interesting.

Yamanoto

Eramen wrote: »

I'll post the full documentary when it comes out.

Hopefully it won't dodge the issue & offer little more than ill-founded emotive twaddle.

Still waiting BTW.

222233

It should be regulated and taxed makes perfect sense, if your from an international country have a Visa to work here - maybe this would make trafficking more difficult

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ye I don't think we would ever agree nozz.

Actually I think there is more agreement on the thread than it might at first seem. I think we all agree what the issues are to be tackled. Such as the issue of trafficking. We just disagree mainly about how to achieve that goal. I think a legal regulated industry gives us the tools and potentials to tackle the issue. And I have explained why. Some people think making the sale, purchase, or both, of sex will do it. But I have not yet really seen them say why.

So it seems the agreement on the thread runs quite deep. We all have the same concerns that we wish to tackle.

The number of people who are against the sex trade purely in and of itself.... that is the purchase or sale of sex between entirely consenting adults..... is quite low. And they appear to have no actual moral or other arguments to offer other than reliance on emotive words (like invasion) that they hope will do the job for them somehow magically.

But I prefer to focus on points of agreement rather than disagreement where possible and the fact that the majority of people on this thread, regardless of whether they are coming down on the "legal" or "illegal" side of the thread question....... seem to be in total agreement of what our main concerns should be.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I've given you answers to every question and made valid points which you continue to ignore or just plainly dismiss

Except out here in the reality outside your own narrative and imagination, no such thing has occurred. I have not ignored a single thing on this thread, and I have roundly rebutted everything I disagree with which is the opposite of mere dismissal.

If it helps you sleep at night to erect a narrative that I am ignoring and dodging and skipping over everything then by all means hold on to it. But the reality is quite the opposite of what you are imagining.

But it does sound a bit like stacking the deck when you complain in one breath that I am ignoring or dismissing, but in the next breath that my replies to your points are two long. That is cake AND eat it stuff you are fabricating there. It seems I can not win either way. If I dismiss your point with a one liner I would be dismissing it. If I explain in 20 or 30 lines what the issue with your point is I am STILL dismissing it.

Perhaps you would do well to learn the difference between a dismissal and a rebuttal.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I think there is more agreement on the thread than it might at first seem. I think we all agree what the issues are to be tackled. Such as the issue of trafficking. We just disagree mainly about how to achieve that goal. I think a legal regulated industry gives us the tools and potentials to tackle the issue. And I have explained why. Some people think making the sale, purchase, or both, of sex will do it. But I have not yet really seen them say why.

So it seems the agreement on the thread runs quite deep. We all have the same concerns that we wish to tackle.

The number of people who are against the sex trade purely in and of itself.... that is the purchase or sale of sex between entirely consenting adults..... is quite low. And they appear to have no actual moral or other arguments to offer other than reliance on emotive words (like invasion) that they hope will do the job for them somehow magically.

But I prefer to focus on points of agreement rather than disagreement where possible and the fact that the majority of people on this thread, regardless of whether they are coming down on the "legal" or "illegal" side of the thread question....... seem to be in total agreement of what our main concerns should be.



Except out here in the reality outside your own narrative and imagination, no such thing has occurred. I have not ignored a single thing on this thread, and I have roundly rebutted everything I disagree with which is the opposite of mere dismissal.

If it helps you sleep at night to erect a narrative that I am ignoring and dodging and skipping over everything then by all means hold on to it. But the reality is quite the opposite of what you are imagining.

But it does sound a bit like stacking the deck when you complain in one breath that I am ignoring or dismissing, but in the next breath that my replies to your points are two long. That is cake AND eat it stuff you are fabricating there. It seems I can not win either way. If I dismiss your point with a one liner I would be dismissing it. If I explain in 20 or 30 lines what the issue with your point is I am STILL dismissing it.

Perhaps you would do well to learn the difference between a dismissal and a rebuttal.

If by roundly rebutted everything, you mean that you narrowed down sex and people's sexuality to just "body parts", sure.

You know you are right, I am going to approach the question more clinically. Think of it in terms like "body parts", it might help me sleep at night. Worked for Jeffrey Dahmer. Helped him sleep at night.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

If by roundly rebutted everything, you mean that you narrowed down sex and people's sexuality to just "body parts", sure.

Wow you are coming thick and fast with the distortions of what I have done and said now.

My points on this thread have been everything from economic at the higher level, down to personal consent and choice at the lower level, and everything in between.

If you want to ignore all that and produce some fatuous and distorted reduction of everything I have written into what you just wrote here, then fine, but I am not sure it is mine, rather than your, credibility that will suffer for it.

But it certainly makes a mockery of your nonsense accusation that I have dodged or dismissed anything out of hand here. The one engaged in that is you here, not me.

But if you wish to return at any time and actually discuss the topic, I am here.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But if you wish to return at any time and actually discuss the topic, I am here.

awh thanks for that nozz but don't sit around waiting on me for too long. Sure you can get on with other things while you're waiting.

nozzferrahhtoo

I never indicated otherwise. When you return though perhaps address the things I actually said instead of producing a distorted distillation of it, while accusing others of what only you are doing.... dodging and dismissing.

So far however it seems we have no argument on the thread against the trade of sex in and of itself. Except one users moaning that they feel like it is an invasion.

All the anti argument are focused instead on issues in and around the industry, like trafficking or the abuses some sex workers suffer.

So the discussion of the thread so far seems to be less about whether the sex trade should be legal or illegal..... but whether it being legal or illegal gives us the best approach and tools for dealing with those issues that exist around it. Issues that exist regardless of whether it is legal or illegal at all.