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

2pack

exiztone wrote: »

The criminalisation of sex workers has been heavily pushed by The Good Shepherd Sisters Ireland and the Order of Our Lady of Charity. This is no conspiracy, you can check the former's statement on the matter here.

It's interesting to note that these are two of the religious orders that ran the Magdalene Laundries--a "haven" for "fallen" or promiscuous women.

what a joke these are, live and let live I say,

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People will be more unlikely to become sex workers in the first place. It's an immediate deterrent, but it is part of a long term strategy. The unfortunate part about it is that these new laws being introduced will do fcuk all, without the proper support structures in place to offer viable education and employment opportunities to people who might still consider sex work a viable alternative to legitimate employment.





I didn't say you suggested force. I was asking is that what you were suggesting. I take from that then that you weren't suggesting that anyone was being forced to avail of the services of sex workers. Well I'm glad we cleared that much up at least!

fair enough

mailforkev

Eramen wrote: »

I loved the poster who believed that nuns control the government

That would have been me, except that's not what I said. I'm not one for conspiracies unfortunately.

I just flagged that the nuns, in the guise of Ruhama, were very heavily involved in lobbying towards recent legislation. As far as I remember, the sex workers themselves were barely paid attention to.

esforum

melissak wrote: »

That would have been my position too, but the issue is it coerced consent?

theres no such thing, someone either consents or they dont. Like your earlier comment about the gun, if theres a gun to your head and you are being forced to make a choice you dont want to make, its not a real choice.

junkies have little real alternatives for legitimate employment, fair enough but theres genuine people out there that have made an informed decision to become hookers and while we may not understand that decision, its theirs to make

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well like anyone else in society does, they have to learn to make opportunities for themselves, rather than exploit the lack of opportunities that forces other people into sex work.

I think the issue is to focus on harm reduction. There's two big ideologies at play, yay sex positive empowerment consenting adults and so on on one hand and boo rape exploitation seedy dirty on the other. As far as possible the physical safety and health, the mental well being and the dignity of sex workers should be protected, because those workers are always going to exist.

Part of the situation at the moment is that vulnerable demographics - asylum seekers, the homeless, teenagers - are at increased risk of being forced into sex work, and the unregulated, invisible nature of the industry feeds into this. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that the vast, vast majority of people who buy sex would, if they had the option, choose a legitimate business with guarantees for the welfare of its employees, and if full legalisation causes harm reduction I'm all for it.

I'd love to wake up tomorrow in a world where the forces that drive both the demand for and supply of sex for sale didn't exist, but that's just not going to happen. I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing to be honest.

timthumbni

Would legalising prostitution help stop sex trafficking and help protect those vulnerable girls (mostly) who can get involved in the trade at the moment??

I personally would rather go without sex than pay for it with a prostitute that may have had sex with a half dozen men before me that afternoon. That's my personal opinion but I know of many others who think differently.

It wouldn't bother me either way. I've been in a brothel before (not to partake) and it had a general atmosphere of dirt and helplessness about it. I didn't last long (and I don't mean sexually)

One eyed Jack

Finnley Colossal Backdrop wrote: »

Part of the situation at the moment is that vulnerable demographics - asylum seekers, the homeless, teenagers - are at increased risk of being forced into sex work, and the unregulated, invisible nature of the industry feeds into this. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that the vast, vast majority of people who buy sex would, if they had the option, choose a legitimate business with guarantees for the welfare of its employees, and if full legalisation causes harm reduction I'm all for it.

Ahh no, I wouldn't say you were naive, but part of the attraction of sex workers for people who use sex workers, is that they can leave their morals at the door on the way in. SoupMonster gave a good example of it earlier. Johns/Janes don't particularly have to worry about their reputation and their standing in society, because they're aware that a sex worker with loose lips doesn't stay in business very long, and they take advantage of the fact to do things to sex workers that they could only dream of doing with a nice, respectable woman or man (whichever the case may be).

If it were regulated (only a minority of the more affluent sex workers with lobbying clout actually want the industry regulated, as only they can afford to pay income tax, insurance, etc), then the stigma that drives the taboo and illicit nature of sex work wouldn't be the same for the Johns/Janes, the same thrill wouldn't exist, the same freedom to abandon their morals wouldn't exist, and they would avoid the regulated sex workers in favour of the sex workers where they know they will get the same thrills for cheaper, and still be able to leave with their reputation and status intact. Not so for the person whom they just paid to allow themselves to be violated.

Full legalisation (or decriminalisation even) would only be beneficial for commercial interests in the UK and Europe. Irish Government would actually get fcuk all revenue from it as none of the visiting sex workers would be registered to pay tax in Ireland. In short - it would actually do more harm to Irish society, than any harm reduction. Investing in education and employment however, would be of far greater benefit to society than legislating for people to get their rocks off.

SoupMonster

Olishi4 wrote: »

Sex work for the "client" is basically sexual rejection however the sex still goes ahead in the form of a "transaction". Rejection and constant rejection, I would think, would cause insecurity and resentment internally (towards yourself) and externally (towards the sex worker). It's all mixed up because sex and healthy sex is more about acceptance.

"Sexual rejection" is a new way to look at it for me, I'll have to think about that concept.

Maybe this Youtube video would interest you. Starting at 5:00 she talks about how sex offenders (who can't admit to themselves that they are sex offenders) convince themselves they did nothing wrong. I think what she says applies more generally in prostitution than most people are prepared to admit. And the entire discourse around prostitution helps punters to minimise their responsibility, normalise their behaviour and retain their self image as a good person.

I think your point is valid. Whatever attitude a man brings to the transaction will be reinforced again and again. Since the interaction is at best neutral and frequently negative, negative attitudes get reinforced more than positive ones. Reading the invisible men I find it hard to believe these guys started out as abusive as they sound, they progressively got worse as prostitution reinforced their attitudes.

Everybody says sex trafficking is a "heinous crime". I met a trafficked girl (20 or so), Nigerian in a Dubai bar, after I had decided to stop buying sex forever. She told me a little of her story, even pointed out her trafficker. I looked at her, looked at the other women selling, and realised it would make absolutely no difference to me. I could pay the trafficked woman or another woman, the sex would be exactly the same. I would feel no guilt just because she was being forced to prostitute. I would have been able to convince myself I was doing her a favour, since she probably needed the money more than the others.

It was quite a revelation. It was like I had no feelings, completely cold. I was surprised by my own lack of empathy. There was nothing I could do for her, her only option was to work her way to freedom. Whether she experienced that as "work" or as "rape" didn't matter, it was irrelevant. Prostitution has conditioned me to ignore those distinctions, it made me cold, callous and indifferent.

El_Duderino 09

MacauDragon wrote:

How about making both parties involved in breaking a law equally responsible.

Well we do this inconsistently with other crimes. We charge people for buying stolen goods and thr rationale is that 'if there wasn't DEMAND there wouldn't be supply'. But with prostitutes we charge the supplier and say 'if there wasn't SUPPLY there wouldn't be demamd' which clearly isn't true.

MacauDragon wrote:

You know for equality. We're all equal after all. Or is equality too inconvenient in this case.

I think you're right. It was too inconvenient to treat them both equally. The fella might have a family or public image to maintain and has more to lose, so the police give the fella a warning and tell him to put his pants on and go home. The woman gets charged.

Meanwhile the seller's get abuse by pimps and clients because the police aren't on their side. Very sad.

Cienciano

This shouldn't even be an argument. Ruhama and the Magdalene nuns have "helped" women enough, they should be told to fúck right off at this stage

Zen65

melissak wrote: »

I would much prefer to sell sex than do that.

I'm guessing no girl grows up hoping to be a successful escort, but when life seems to offer only unpalatable choices then prostitution may seem the better choice to make. Irish author Scarlett O'Kelly wrote a book on her experiences being an escort and the summary of it would be that she found the work was not so bad at all.

I'm not suggesting that her experiences are representative of the majority of women in the trade, it's simply an interesting perspective on a career which is subject to many presumptions.

melissak

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh no, I wouldn't say you were naive, but part of the attraction of sex workers for people who use sex workers, is that they can leave their morals at the door on the way in. SoupMonster gave a good example of it earlier. Johns/Janes don't particularly have to worry about their reputation and their standing in society, because they're aware that a sex worker with loose lips doesn't stay in business very long, and they take advantage of the fact to do things to sex workers that they could only dream of doing with a nice, respectable woman or man (whichever the case may be).

If it were regulated (only a minority of the more affluent sex workers with lobbying clout actually want the industry regulated, as only they can afford to pay income tax, insurance, etc), then the stigma that drives the taboo and illicit nature of sex work wouldn't be the same for the Johns/Janes, the same thrill wouldn't exist, the same freedom to abandon their morals wouldn't exist, and they would avoid the regulated sex workers in favour of the sex workers where they know they will get the same thrills for cheaper, and still be able to leave with their reputation and status intact. Not so for the person whom they just paid to allow themselves to be violated.

Full legalisation (or decriminalisation even) would only be beneficial for commercial interests in the UK and Europe. Irish Government would actually get fcuk all revenue from it as none of the visiting sex workers would be registered to pay tax in Ireland. In short - it would actually do more harm to Irish society, than any harm reduction. Investing in education and employment however, would be of far greater benefit to society than legislating for people to get their rocks off.

Yes true. I am absolutely against the possibility of sex tourism. Yes let's encourage the rest of the worlds perverts to come here because we don't have enough? Bangkok for example is destroyed with European stag parties doing things they wouldn't dream of doing at home with "real" people, which is awful because thai people are pretty reserved/modest in general. A real eye opener tbh.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Isn't most sex purchased?
He buys me shoes, I give him blowjobs
He doesn't treat me well, he can paddle his own canoe.


Anyways I digress, who cares what people do as long as neither party are forced into it.

melissak

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Isn't most sex purchased?
He buys me shoes, I give him blowjobs
He doesn't treat me well, he can paddle his own canoe.


Anyways I digress, who cares what people do as long as neither party are forced into it.

No. I don't really think so, we don't trade sex and niceness in relationships really. Do we not just enjoy making the person we love happy? not a dig at you LexieOnRale, I said the same yesterday but after thinking about it I don't care for making intimate relationships transactional

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Well yeah, sex makes him happy, material things make me happy.
He keeps me happy, I keep him happy. Though I'm a joy to be around so he's blessed anyway
Anyway - being in a relationship is not free

melissak

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Well yeah, sex makes him happy, material things make me happy.
He keeps me happy, I keep him happy. Though I'm a joy to be around so he's blessed anyway
Anyway - being in a relationship is not free

Of course in a give and take, whatever makes everyone happy way but not in a I'll have sex with you if you buy me something way

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Well let's put it like this. When he buys me designer shoes for my birthday, he's the one that thinks all his birthdays come together. The better the gesture, the better the reward.

eviltwin

melissak wrote: »

That would have been my position too, but the issue is it coerced consent?

We can't police every choice a person makes. Unfortunately people do things under duress all the time. It shouldn't be that way but that's life. Giving those men and women protection from a regulated industry, removing the stigma of sex work and giving them legitimacy is the way forward, it's gives those who are not there by choice a better chance than the situation we currently have.

melissak

eviltwin wrote: »

We can't police every choice a person makes. Unfortunately people do things under duress all the time. It shouldn't be that way but that's life. Denying those men and women protection from a regulated industry, removing the stigma of sex work and giving them legitimacy is the way forward, it's gives those who are not there by choice a better chance than the situation we currently have.

But do we need to make it easier for vulnerable people to get into it? Shouldn't we strive for a society where people aren't coerced in whatever manner, be it force or desperation, to sell sex? This is not a " that's life" scenario. This is a sign that our country as a system is a sick system and I think that is sad.

strandroad

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Well let's put it like this. When he buys me designer shoes for my birthday, he's the one that thinks all his birthdays come together. The better the gesture, the better the reward.

So you're trading sex for gifts and that's fine but please do not generalise that this is what relationships run on and most sex is purchased like that...

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mhge wrote: »

So you're trading sex for gifts and that's fine but please do not generalise that this is what relationships run on and most sex is purchased like that...

What, so most relationships don't involve doing something nice for the other person? Your oh doesn't buy presents, bring you away for weekends/holidays? Doesn't take you out to dinner? Doesn't bring home your favourite wine if he knows your having a bad day? My point is simply not all sex is free, and it doesn't mean sleeping with them because you owe them for whatever they've given you, but because you're happy you feel appreciated or cared about and you want to. If I was in a relationship with a tightwad, who penny pinched and was miserable, I can't imagine the sex part of the relationship being too exciting either

melissak

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What, so most relationships don't involve doing something nice for the other person? Your oh doesn't buy presents, bring you away for weekends/holidays? Doesn't take you out to dinner? Doesn't bring home your favourite wine if he knows your having a bad day? My point is simply not all sex is free, and it doesn't mean sleeping with them because you owe them for whatever they've given you, but because you're happy you feel appreciated or cared about and you want to. If I was in a relationship with a tightwad, who penny pinched and was miserable, I can't imagine the sex part of the relationship being too exciting either

True. That's what I think too. I just Think that paradoxically making something transactional cheapest it.

eviltwin

melissak wrote: »

But do we need to make it easier for vulnerable people to get into it? Shouldn't we strive for a society where people aren't coerced in whatever manner, be it force or desperation, to sell sex? This is not a " that's life" scenario. This is a sign that our country as a system is a sick system and I think that is sad.

What do you suggest then, keep it illegal and underground?

sabat

melissak wrote: »

Bangkok for example is destroyed with European stag parties doing things they wouldn't dream of doing at home with "real" people, which is awful because thai people are pretty reserved/modest in general. A real eye opener tbh.

Seriously? I've never seen a single stag party in Bangkok. I mean what fiancée would agree to that and what groom would have the balls to ask/tell her and enough friends with the money and permission from their partners to go on a debauched week in Thailand before their wedding? Enough to "destroy" a city of 10 million people?
The western sex tourist scene in Thailand, which sprung up during the Vietnam War-often with direct funding from the US government, is just the tip of the iceberg of prostitution in the country and by some margin the least exploitative aspect of the industry.

melissak

sabat wrote: »

Seriously? I've never seen a single stag party in Bangkok. I mean what fiancée would agree to that and what groom would have the balls to ask/tell her and enough friends with the money and permission from their partners to go on a debauched week in Thailand before their wedding? Enough to "destroy" a city of 10 million people?
The western sex tourist scene in Thailand, which sprung up during the Vietnam War-often with direct funding from the US government, is just the tip of the iceberg of prostitution in the country and by some margin the least exploitative aspect of the industry.

Have you been to Bangkok. Or koh samui or phuket ? Seriously, unless it has changed radically in the last ten years. I hope it is tbh. I know it is not the worst of it but it was this type of innocent enough stuff that set that ball of filth rolling and I wouldn't like to see sex tourism taking off here

melissak

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you suggest then, keep it illegal and underground?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm trying to weigh it up in my own minds as I can see draw backs to either stance

Discodog

esforum wrote: »

How ****ing big was the manor mlord????

100 yards, thats about 5 neighbours away from me!

English country village :pac:

The key as to whether the woman is doing it by choice is easy to determine.
Does she have a pimp ?
Does she have a drug addiction ?

If the answer is yes to either then she needs to be helped not criminalised.

If the answer is no then she should be licensed & allowed to work.

Those that are on drugs or being pimped are easy to find because they have to advertise. The legal girls could set up websites only for those with licenses.

sabat

melissak wrote: »

Have you been to Bangkok. Or koh samui or phuket ? Seriously, unless it has changed radically in the last ten years. I hope it is tbh

I'm in Bangkok right now. The point I'm making is that the very visible western sex tourist scene is actually quite small and far less exploitative compared to the various 'establishments' used by Thais.

melissak

sabat wrote: »

I'm in Bangkok right now. The point I'm making is that the very visible western sex tourist scene is actually quite small and far less exploitative compared to the various 'establishments' used by Thais.

Maybe so. I didn't feel the need to see the seedier underbelly. The seedy outerbelly was enough for me
Bangkok and Thailand in general is beautiful and I would go there tomorrow if I could but I was not impressed seing what seemed like relatively normal western men behave in a way they wouldn't with western women or a way they wouldn't at home.

melissak

Brevio wrote: »

It's quite sad that grown adults need "permission" to go away on stag parties.

I can't imagine my oh suggesting that he wanted to go to Bangkok for a stag party thankfully.. Or any of his friends for that matter