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

strandroad

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?

He doesn't do it to deserve good sex is the point, and I'm treating him not expecting sex in return either. Why would you like to train your partner that he'll be "rewarded" for gifts? If you treat him, are you expecting some kind of sex in return?
It might be your way but you're saying that most relationship sex is purchased. That's a fairly warped view.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's not. If I treat him it's because I love him and he makes me happy and if I see something that he'll love, I'll get it because he means a lot to me. Yeah, sometimes that leads to sex because it's a "close" moment.

Like anything that isn't morally wrong or detrimental to society.... It should be legal and regulated to take it out of the hands of the traffickers and pimps.

But common sense usually takes a back seat when it comes to this kind of thing.

strandroad

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not. If I treat him it's because I love him and he makes me happy and if I see something that he'll love, I'll get it because he means a lot to me. Yeah, sometimes that leads to sex because it's a "close" moment.

OK so I don't know what your previous posts on rewarding him with sex for gifts were about but I guess there's no point...

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mhge wrote: »

OK so I don't know what your previous posts on rewarding him with sex for gifts were about but I guess there's no point...

It's not rewarding him specifically for gifts, but the chances of having sex are higher when he's being really nice.

strandroad

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not rewarding him specifically for gifts, but the chances of having sex are higher when he's being really nice.

"The better the gesture the better the reward" you said about your designer shoes. It's either transactional or it's not, this sound pretty mercenary!
Anyway I'm not questioning what you do yourself only the "most sex is purchased" view.

One eyed Jack

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not rewarding him specifically for gifts, but the chances of having sex are higher when he's being really nice.

Ah I understand where you're coming from, but mutual giving in a loving relationship is not even close to being comparable to paying someone to have sex with you, and that person (or persons, if that's your thing), only having sex with you because you're paying them.

Speedwell

Women do like sex for its own sake, ffs. If my husband had to buy stuff for me every time he wanted sex, he'd be fed up with me by now and gone. There are times when men aren't in the mood, either. I don't have to buy stuff for him to make him feel valued. When we have sex, it's because we want mutual intimacy and mutual pleasure. I'd consider a "transactional" marriage as dysfunctional as a "transactional" friendship ("I'll be your friend if you give me stuff"). This one-sided "I let him touch me because he buys me things"... well, it's a good thing the purchase of sex is currently legal, that's all I have to say about it.

One eyed Jack

Speedwell wrote: »

Women do like sex for its own sake, ffs. If my husband had to buy stuff for me every time he wanted sex, he'd be fed up with me by now and gone. There are times when men aren't in the mood, either. I don't have to buy stuff for him to make him feel valued. When we have sex, it's because we want mutual intimacy and mutual pleasure. I'd consider a "transactional" marriage as dysfunctional as a "transactional" friendship ("I'll be your friend if you give me stuff"). This one-sided "I let him touch me because he buys me things"... well, it's a good thing the purchase of sex is currently legal, that's all I have to say about it.

It isn't though (should have clarified - it's only legal under certain provisions). Taken directly from the SWAI FAQ:


Is sex work or prostitution illegal in Ireland?

Exchanging money for sexual services is not illegal in Ireland however, soliciting, living off the earnings of prostitution and organising prostitution are illegal as set out in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993. Children are protected from prostitution under the Children Act 2001; in relation to child sexual abuse, for the purposes of the criminal law, the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 17 years. According to Ward (2010) The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 criminalised the prostitute, through the crime of being a common prostitute . The 1993 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act amended this act and removed the category of common prostitute from the statute books but introduced new crimes such as kerb crawling, managing prostitution, living off the earnings of prostitution. The relevant sections of the Act are sections 7 – 11 Section 7 extended soliciting, loitering and importuning in a public place to cover men as well as women. This section is gender neutral in that it applies to both male and female prostitutes and applies to all parties including clients. Section 8 gave police powers to direct a person to leave a public place or street where soliciting or importuning is believed to be taking place and to charge that person should he or she not move on. Sections 9 – 11 criminalised, respectively, of the organisation of prostitution, living on the earnings of prostitution and brothel keeping. In all cases fines for each crime were increased in the Act. The Criminal Law (Public Order) Act 1994 (Section 23) prohibits the advertising or distribution of advertising for brothels or of the service of prostitution to include material posted on the Internet (Ward, 2013).



But I don't think anyone in fairness was seriously suggesting that consensual sex without coercion, of the person's involved own volition and free will, in a relationship or otherwise, is actually equivalent to the sex work industry.

(In fairness, who hasn't heard the "marriage is legal prostitution" stuff before? I don't think anyone espousing that line of argument actually takes it seriously themselves)

pablomakaveli

I think it should be legal. Criminalizing it just leads to wasting Garda time and resources stopping prostitutes who are doing it willingly when they could be using that time to help the ones who are genuinely being coerced.

Theres also an element of sexism at play as people who want to have it criminalized seem to think (mostly unintentionally) that women need to be protected from themselves. That if they decide to be a prostitute that they are being coerced or forced to do it. They dont seem to grasp that some women might enjoy it. And yes some of them might be doing it just for money but at the end of the day they're adults. They can make their own choices. It may not always be the right one for them but thats life. The only time the law should be sticking its nose is when women are being forced.

melissak

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think it should be legal. Criminalizing it just leads to wasting Garda time and resources stopping prostitutes who are doing it willingly when they could be using that time to help the ones who are genuinely being coerced.

Theres also an element of sexism at play as people who want to have it criminalized seem to think (mostly unintentionally) that women need to be protected from themselves. That if they decide to be a prostitute that they are being coerced or forced to do it. They dont seem to grasp that some women might enjoy it. And yes some of them might be doing it just for money but at the end of the day they're adults. They can make their own choices. It may not always be the right one for them but thats life. The only time the law should be sticking its nose is when women are being forced.

There are many kinds of force though, forced by poverty addiction etc that are not as obvious as a big baddie pimp in the shadows.

One eyed Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think it should be legal. Criminalizing it just leads to wasting Garda time and resources stopping prostitutes who are doing it willingly when they could be using that time to help the ones who are genuinely being coerced.

Theres also an element of sexism at play as people who want to have it criminalized seem to think (mostly unintentionally) that women need to be protected from themselves. That if they decide to be a prostitute that they are being coerced or forced to do it. They dont seem to grasp that some women might enjoy it. And yes some of them might be doing it just for money but at the end of the day they're adults. They can make their own choices. It may not always be the right one for them but thats life. The only time the law should be sticking its nose is when women are being forced.

Where's the element of sexism in advocating that sex work should not be facilitated by the State? That applies to both men and women.

pablomakaveli

melissak wrote: »

There are many kinds of force though, forced by poverty addiction etc that are not as obvious as a big baddie pimp in the shadows.

But again thats their choice. If people are turning to prostitution because of poverty or addiction by all means set up support networks to help them if they want it. But at the end of the day it should be their choice to make as an adult. And what about the women who choose to do it because they enjoy it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where's the element of sexism in advocating that sex work should not be facilitated by the State? That applies to both men and women.

Why not have it facilitated by the state? Safe working environments for prostitutes, taxable revenue, protection for prostitutes and freeing up the gardai to focus solely on helping trafficked and coerced prostitutes.

And lets be honest male prostitutes are generally an afterthought if that in these debates. Most of the focus is on female prostitutes. I dont ever recall Ruhama or the government give any attention to male prostitutes.

HensVassal

Deleted User wrote: »

But...isn't it legal here?

Is prostitution legal in Ireland?

exiztone

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where's the element of sexism in advocating that sex work should not be facilitated by the State? That applies to both men and women.

I suggest you watch this interview with Maggie McNeill on the matter. She explains more eloquently than I could about the elements at play when removing agency from women under the guise of protecting them. A lot of this has to do with anachronistic social attitudes regarding sexuality and women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fCPvuoHx0

Discodog

HensVassal wrote: »

Is prostitution legal in Ireland?

Yes . It's been answered a few posts pack on this page

One eyed Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Why not have it facilitated by the state? Safe working environments for prostitutes, taxable revenue, protection for prostitutes and freeing up the gardai to focus solely on helping trafficked and coerced prostitutes.

Because the State should be investing it's resources in education and employment opportunities for people rather than wasting it's resources on facilitating exploitation and indignity.

And lets be honest male prostitutes are generally an afterthought if that in these debates.Most of the focus is on female prostitutes. I dont ever recall Ruhama or the government give any attention to male prostitutes.

And they shouldn't be. You may not recall attention being given to male sex workers, but that doesn't mean that they're forgotten about by everyone involved in the politics of sex work. It simply means that most of these political lobby groups give male sex workers a token nod, like a sentence or two at the end of a paragraph all about the "rights" of sex workers (usually assumed to be exclusively women, Amnesty International for example).

One eyed Jack

exiztone wrote: »

I suggest you watch this interview with Maggie McNeill on the matter. She explains more eloquently than I could about the elements at play when removing agency from women under the guise of protecting them. A lot of this has to do with anachronistic social attitudes regarding sexuality and women.

It's half an hour long! Any chance of an executive summary? I don't have time to be watching a half an hour long opinion piece unless you're paying me for my time!


EDIT: Well that's half an hour of my life I won't get back. Lucky I wasn't paying then to listen to Maggie's basic argument that she's right... and everyone else in society needs to grow up :rolleyes:

pablomakaveli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the State should be investing it's resources in education and employment opportunities for people rather than wasting it's resources on facilitating exploitation and indignity.

Well first of all if its banned you still have resources going into enforcing that ban so that irrelevant.

The second part of that line is your opinion only and says more about your attitude to sex and selling it. Thats not a good basis for basing a law on. We should be basing the law on whats best for the prostitutes rather than trying to avoid offending the morals of a subset of people.

And they shouldn't be. You may not recall attention being given to male sex workers, but that doesn't mean that they're forgotten about by everyone involved in the politics of sex work. It simply means that most of these political lobby groups give male sex workers a token nod, like a sentence or two at the end of a paragraph all about the "rights" of sex workers (usually assumed to be exclusively women, Amnesty International for example).

You're right but they are still forgotten a lot of the time. Lets face it the issue for a lot of people that the idea of a woman having sex for money is repugnant for some and thats why they want it banned. The idea of a man doing it isnt as bad so there's less focus on male prostitutes. Which ties in with the "women need protection from themselves" way of thinking.

chughes

It should be regulated and then the government would be able to generate a new tax income stream. The government wouldn't even have to create a new tax, they could use one that's already in place. They could get the prostitutes to charge VAT at point of entry....

melissak

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well first of all if its banned you still have resources going into enforcing that ban so that irrelevant.

The second part of that line is your opinion only and says more about your attitude to sex and selling it. Thats not a good basis for basing a law on. We should be basing the law on whats best for the prostitutes rather than trying to avoid offending the morals of a subset of people.






You're right but they are still forgotten a lot of the time. Lets face it the issue for a lot of people that the idea of a woman having sex for money is repugnant for some and thats why they want it banned. The idea of a man doing it isnt as bad so there's less focus on male prostitutes. Which ties in with the "women need protection from themselves" way of thinking.

No. Basing the laws on "what's best for prostitutes" is also selectively suiting "a subset of people's morals". We base laws here on the common good. That is what jack is advocating Imo regarding preventing exploitation. What's best for crack dealers also then? As I see it anything you do that harms no-one else is your own business. But that is not the case if we have factors that lead to exploitation within an industry being funded by the state to suit the people who make money from the industry,in any industry, ever this is unacceptable.

Prostitutes do not sell their body. They do very short term rentals.

esforum

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Like anything that isn't morally wrong or detrimental to society.... It should be legal and regulated to take it out of the hands of the traffickers and pimps.

But common sense usually takes a back seat when it comes to this kind of thing.

Common sense dictates that some degree of illegal activity will always be associated with prostitution. Se slaves arent being paid a working weeks wages, regulating wontn stop criminals from exploiting people.

Then there will be people who want to use a prostitute in a manner that most people would find vile and wrong, again they will pay criminals or junkines to facilitate their requests.

melissak

esforum wrote: »

Common sense dictates that some degree of illegal activity will always be associated with prostitution. Se slaves arent being paid a working weeks wages, regulating wontn stop criminals from exploiting people.

Then there will be people who want to use a prostitute in a manner that most people would find vile and wrong, again they will pay criminals or junkines to facilitate their requests.

But what will stop criminals exploiting people and being perverts so? This is what we need to think about a bit harder. I haven't got a clue. Making drugs cheaper would illeviate the junkie aspect maybe?

mynameis905

esforum wrote: »

Common sense dictates that some degree of illegal activity will always be associated with prostitution. Se slaves arent being paid a working weeks wages, regulating wontn stop criminals from exploiting people.

Then there will be people who want to use a prostitute in a manner that most people would find vile and wrong, again they will pay criminals or junkines to facilitate their requests.

No it doesn't.

Stupid, regressive laws based on outdated religious mores ensure that prostitution is associated with criminality. Allow for full legalisation and you take it out of the hands of criminals. The state has absolutely no business interfering in sexual activity between consenting adults. None.

melissak

mynameis905 wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Stupid, regressive laws based on outdated religious mores ensure that prostitution is associated with criminality. Allow for full legalisation and you take it out of the hands of criminals. The state has absolutely no business interfering in sexual activity between consenting adults. None.

But what about for example heroin addicts. Would you consider their consent valid? This is the aspect I am struggling with

One eyed Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well first of all if its banned you still have resources going into enforcing that ban so that irrelevant.

It's legal under certain provisions. That's the tricky part about stating that it's banned or it's legal - the statement needs to be qualified. The resources going into policing illegal activity are far less than would be needed to put proper supporting structures in place before sex work could ever be fully decriminalised and legislated for, and even then it wouldn't address issues such as sex tourism, exploitation and indignity, nor would it at all bring in enough revenue if all sex workers had to be registered as self-employed or working in legal brothels, to justify it's existence. The same money as I said would be far better spent on providing educational and employment opportunities to young people for the good of society as a whole, and not simply the minority involved in the sex industry.

The second part of that line is your opinion only and says more about your attitude to sex and selling it.

In case you hadn't noticed, your posts are only your opinion either. What, in your opinion, does it suggest to you about my attitude to sex, and obviously separate from that - what does it suggest to you about my attitude to sex workers?

Thats not a good basis for basing a law on. We should be basing the law on whats best for the prostitutes rather than trying to avoid offending the morals of a subset of people.

Laws based on whether an activity is beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole is not a good basis for law? We base laws on their effect on society as a whole, rather that what benefit they give solely to a subset of people who are offended by the fact that progressive societies generally frown on industries that perpetuate the exploitation of people within that society.

You're right but they are still forgotten a lot of the time. Lets face it the issue for a lot of people that the idea of a woman having sex for money is repugnant for some and thats why they want it banned. The idea of a man doing it isnt as bad so there's less focus on male prostitutes. Which ties in with the "women need protection from themselves" way of thinking.

Still trying to make the argument all about women, eh? Who's engaging in sexism now?


Let's actually face what's really going on here which is that feminism has caved in on itself - feminists are using the welfare of women argument to argue for criminalisation of the sex industry, and feminists are using the welfare of women argument to argue for the decriminalisation of the sex industry.

Both sides of the argument are arguing that the other side are wrong, because their real only concern is not for the betterment of society as a whole, but for the betterment of their own selfish interests. I have no interest in the politics of the argument tbh, can't stand some people on either side of it.

pablomakaveli

melissak wrote: »

No. Basing the laws on "what's best for prostitutes" is also selectively suiting "a subset of people's morals". We base laws here on the common good. That is what jack is advocating Imo regarding preventing exploitation. What's best for crack dealers also then? As I see it anything you do that harms no-one else is your own business. But that is not the case if we have factors that lead to exploitation within an industry being funded by the state to suit the people who make money from the industry,in any industry, ever this is unacceptable.

Banning it suits the morals of those who finds it distasteful even though it has no direct impact on them. What happens between two or more consenting adults is no one elses business.

The "common good" is having a safe regulated system for people to sell or buy sex because whether its illegal or not it will still be there regardless and it will have little bearing on those being exploited.

You mention the sale of drugs and while its not crack (which is highly addictive and can really damage somones health), marijuana has been legalized around the world which has taken control of that drug from criminals, brought in tax revenues from sales and made things safer. Its actually a good parallel to legalizing prostitution.

wakka12

melissak wrote: »

If you consider looking at playboy the same as actual sex it is the same.

I don't consider them the same but I don't see why it should be made illegal just because sex is involved.

One eyed Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Banning it suits the morals of those who finds it distasteful even though it has no direct impact on them. What happens between two or more consenting adults is no one elses business.

But you're arguing for the State to be involved when you're arguing for the sex industry to be recognised and regulated by the State!

The "common good" is having a safe regulated system for people to sell or buy sex because whether its illegal or not it will still be there regardless and it will have little bearing on those being exploited.

The common good is a term that refers to society as a whole. You're arguing as though people were destined to become sex workers from birth, and they will always be sex workers. It's the same bullshìt argument used by people who try to argue for "sex workers human rights", as if they were sex workers before they were ever human beings.

You mention the sale of drugs and while its not crack (which is highly addictive and can really damage somones health), marijuana has been legalized around the world which has taken control of that drug from criminals, brought in tax revenues from sales and made things safer. Its actually a good parallel to legalizing prostitution.

It's a terrible parallel for legalising prostitution as you're creating an immediate association with drugs => prostitution, or prostitution => drugs, as though one is the gateway to the other. If you want to make that argument, fire ahead. I'm not sure it'd help your cause though, and it's not the way I'd be trying to argue tbh.