Man, 65, convicted of purchasing sex in landmark prostitution case

You are not required to believe it - it remains true none the less.

I repeat however for the sake of it - my concern as a parent is that my children grow up to choose a career that makes them happy. What that career actually turns out to be - once it meets that criteria - I truly care not.

The whole "20 men a day" thing however I have never really bought into. I have no idea what the statistics are about average clientelle to be honest. But at the rates they charge they would not require more than 5 men in a week for one hour to have a take home pay equivalent to my own. A girl I went to college with and still keep in contact with subsidised her education quite well by having one sex client for 2 years whom she met twice a week. And it basically paid all her costs and expenses as a student.

sbsquarepants

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plumbers, mechanics and electricians aren’t in short supply, and while their industries are enormously profitable (I feel like I’m being shafted by the electrician and the plumber and the painters I have in to do work recently, not even so much as a courtesy reach around :pac:), they aren’t nearly as profitable as the sexual exploitation industry which is more akin to modern day slavery. It’s profitable because it operates in a black market economy, and would still operate in a black market economy if it were legalised and regulated. Any prostitutes I know don’t want it legalised and regulated because this hurts their bottom line - it’s not as profitable any more and they are now on the hook to pay tax..

A: A reach around is standard, you're being robbed!

B: I'm not sure about mechanics, but plumbers and electricians are very much in short supply. A lot of them also don't like paying tax (I'm not overly fond myself but as a PAYE slave I find it hard to avoid)
There is very much an "underground" plumbing scene, operating in the black (grey?) economy and hiding from the tax man, it just involves less nudity and more copper piping!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Women’s right to be a prostitute isn’t one I’m familiar with, and so the existence of a small number of women who voluntarily sell themselves is akin to the number of gay men who voted against marriage equality. There’s always a small handful who claim to represent the majority, when in reality the only people they represent are themselves..

Do you think a woman has the right to have sex with whoever she wants?

Let's leave aside the coercion end of it, lets assume this woman is happy to sell sex, do you think she should be allowed or not?

I personally can not understand how it can be legal to give something away, but illegal to sell it, unless you attribute some magical quality to sex - which I just don't. It's a physical act like any other.

You can charge someone to rub their shoulders, why can you not charge them to rub their dick?
People get paid to fight all the time and that's fine, but they can't get paid to fúck....cos that would be wrong. How's that make sense?

Make love not war and all that Jack!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Knee trembler with some 6 toothed brass monkey under a canal bridge does appear to be by far the more popular option as opposed to the local girls in your area who want to meet you advertised online, or the mega-brothels in other countries. Let’s be real - Wayne Rooney could have had his pick of the bunch, and he went for... well, she was no looker :pac:.

Rooney is bell end, that's all you can really take from that!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Twas Candie who mentioned the feminist nuns, I don’t think she was serious either. But you’re quite right in pointing out that there isn’t simply one particular movement opposed to prostitution, there are many, whereas the lobby groups publicly campaigning against prostitution laws, are very few, and scratch beneath the surface of any of those organisations too and you don’t be long uncovering corruption and the shady fcuks profiting from the exploitation of women.

But there is one particular movement - the one which feels it's wrong or dirty to sell your body and that the act of sex is somehow special, as if only a tramp would profit off her vagina but there's nobility in being paid to remove skid marks from a corporate jacks!
The vast majority of us get paid to do something we'd rather not, from mild inconvenience down to downright hatred of the job we're at. We do it for money - it's the human condition.
I don't "want" to be here now, I'm here cos they are paying me to be!

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well they travel here to work as nurses while irish people are describing it as horrifically low paid and akin to slave labour.?

That's different!

Don't ask me how though:D

Nobody grows up in the backstreets of Riga dreaming of getting their big break to come to Ireland and sit behind a till in Lidl. Very few people love their jobs, I certainly have never met anyone who genuinely did, they do it for the money and we all accept that that's just how it is.

Take the nurses for example - it's a vocation, a calling, we all love it - then shut the fúck up and do it, stop demanding more money for it. You're doing it for the money - and that's fine, best of luck to you. I'm doing the same!

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Are you implying that every prostitute in the world is forced to do it?

Look at the porn industry - same argument was offered there, these are broken women being exploited (some no doubt were) but then the tube sites came along and were inundated with millions of people, men and women, perfectly happy to produce it just for the craic!

They aren't being exploited, they can't ALL be broken. What gives?

It's almost as if some people just have different views to others!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Being a hooker does not require any special training, it does not require any set of particular skills, it certainly does not require a high level of education, in fact it requires no education whatsoever, nor is it a particularly respected way to earn money. The quality of professions which are actually professions, has nothing to do with prostitution.

Hookers aren't my thing at all - but every clown knows that some can charge far more than others. There must be something to differentiate them!

Sonic Youth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are not required to believe it - it remains true none the less.

I repeat however for the sake of it - my concern as a parent is that my children grow up to choose a career that makes them happy. What that career actually turns out to be - once it meets that criteria - I truly care not.

The whole "20 men a day" thing however I have never really bought into. I have no idea what the statistics are about average clientelle to be honest. But at the rates they charge they would not require more than 5 men in a week for one hour to have a take home pay equivalent to my own. A girl I went to college with and still keep in contact with subsidised her education quite well by having one sex client for 2 years whom she met twice a week. And it basically paid all her costs and expenses as a student.

The pimp decides how many men they have to fcuk.

If you'd be happy with daughter being a hooker then I'd consider you a pretty crap parent.

Sonic Youth

Sonic Youth wrote: »

The pimp decides how many men they have to fcuk.

Have you details on this? I am not sure if the Pimp dynamic is all that relevant or prevalent in Ireland at all. How many are free lance? How many have a "pimp" or other agent? I simply do not have the statistics. Do you? Certainly looking around the _hundreds_ of sex workers on Escort Ireland I see no evidence of that dynamic in play. So the evidence for it must be elsewhere.

Sonic Youth wrote: »

If you'd be happy with daughter being a hooker then I'd consider you a pretty crap parent.

Then it is lucky that your value judgements are not at all relevant to me. I personally think crap parenting is expecting my children to fit moulds of my design and expectation as if they are somehow not individuals in their own right.

However it is always curious that the majority of people who go on internet forums making value judgements of parents - are themselves not parents and likely have not the first flying f*k of a clue what they are on about.

Again my standard of measure of my parenting is that my child is happy and grows up to make decisions that make them happy.

_What_ those decisions are is not my concern nor do I see any reason why it should be.

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

And in theory I absolutely am. My daugther is currently 8. If she came to me at 18 and told me she planned to enter sex work then I would make sure she was fully informed of the issues that work has, had thought all her options through, and if she still was intent this was the chosen career path for her then I would absolutely support her and be ok with that. And guess what? I would do all the same things if she came to me saying she wanted to be a nurse a doctor or a police officer or just about everything else too.

:rolleyes:

People will say anything to 'win' an internet argument.

Sonic Youth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then it is lucky that your value judgements are not at all relevant to me. I personally think crap parenting is expecting my children to fit moulds of my design and expectation as if they are somehow not individuals in their own right.

However it is always curious that the majority of people who go on internet forums making value judgements of parents - are themselves not parents and likely have not the first flying f*k of a clue what they are on about.

Again my standard of measure of my parenting is that my child is happy and grows up to make decisions that make them happy.

_What_ those decisions are is not my concern nor do I see any reason why it should be.

You seem incrediably naive about the world. You think young eastern European girls who are hot enough to be models really want to come to Ireland to suck off losers who can't get the ride like the rest of us? Or gross old guys who have a thing for young girls?

Man, wake up.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Again my standard of measure of my parenting is that my child is happy and grows up to make decisions that make them happy.

_What_ those decisions are is not my concern nor do I see any reason why it should be.

I have 4 daughters. 1 adult and 3 young kids. I would absolutely hate for any of them to go into that line of work....but at the end of the day I would rather that they be happy themselves, than make themselves unhappy for my sake.
It's their lives after all!

Very little about life is black and white.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

People will say anything to 'win' an internet argument.

If you say so but I am genuine in that my goal as a parent personally is that my child be happy. Micromanaging what choices they make to get to that point is not my role. Giving them the tools to do it themselves however, is.

Sonic Youth wrote: »

You seem incrediably naive about the world. You think young eastern European girls who are hot enough to be models really want to come to Ireland to suck off losers who can't get the ride like the rest of us? Or gross old guys who have a thing for young girls?

Man, wake up.

Childish and unwarranted petty personal insults aside I am not sure what you are replying to as nothing you just wrote here appears relevant to anything in the post you are actually replying to. You have just run off on a complete tangent seemingly.

But no - I have made no comment at all about the thing you just told me I think. So perhaps putting your words in my mouth is not the correct move here?

What I do think however is that there is a lot of assumption in your post there too. For example "losers who cant get the ride" is your value judgement and assumption. There is no reason to think it true and in fact I would suspect a significant proportion of their client base is from men and women already in relationships "like the rest of us". So the naivety here appears to be yours and you are merely projecting it my way. And I doubt you have any more evidence for it than the statistics on pimps you just failed to produce when asked either.

Further I would not suspect _anyone_ came here for work really wanted to do so without asking them first. The many polish people working in the next town over from me for the last 15 years getting minimum wage doing mundane awful work in warehousing and food production for Leaf Candy - I doubt they really wanted it either. Certainly the ones I spoke to did not. Nor did the Syrian Lady I met in Germany who was cleaning toilets after fleeing her country where she was a doctor. So what is your point exactly? Economic migrants and refugees deserve our sympathy and compassion. Sex work is not unique in this.

Berserker

Deleted User wrote: »

A girl I went to college with and still keep in contact with subsidised her education quite well by having one sex client for 2 years whom she met twice a week. And it basically paid all her costs and expenses as a student.

I'd love to get an idea how many students do this kind of thing? A girl I roomed with in university was the guaranteed date for a dating agency. Was a tidy bit of cash for her every week or so.

Berserker

Berserker wrote: »

I'd love to get an idea how many students do this kind of thing?

As would I actually. And if it is a lot of people then it might serve to have such statistics public. As it would go a long way to de-stigmatizing sex work if it turned out a substantial proportion of people being judgemental about it were themselves at it.

I think my entirely subjective _feeling_ on it is that if anyone did do a study that gave us the figures - it would be a clear tiny minority but still high enough to be surprising.

Certainly the Escort who did an AMA on this site some time ago seemed to claim that pretty much all her friends, family and contact were entirely unaware of her work.

professore

Rezident wrote: »

The demand for heroin will always be there but that does not mean you should legalize it, as that will certainly increase the problem.

Totally wrong. Look at Portugal. Also look at prohibition.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

If you say so but I am genuine in that my goal as a parent personally is that my child be happy. Micromanaging what choices they make to get to that point is not my role. Giving them the tools to do it themselves however, is.

Personally I believe disagreeing with this would be the measure of a piss poor parent!

Happiness is the only measure of success worth a damn as far as I'm concerned.

For example would you say Kurt Cobain was "successful" - I certainly wouldn't!

professore

Sonic Youth wrote: »

You seem incrediably naive about the world. You think young eastern European girls who are hot enough to be models really want to come to Ireland to suck off losers who can't get the ride like the rest of us? Or gross old guys who have a thing for young girls?

Man, wake up.

It might be better than living there in dire poverty. Plus some women love sex! And the money is good.

The average man would jump at the chance to make a living like that.

But of course some or many could be doing it against their will.

professore

professore wrote: »

It might be better than living there in dire poverty. Plus some women love sex!

The average man would jump at the chance to make a living like that.

Yea it is interesting a point someone else already made in the thread. People talk about women in porn being cajoled into it, manipulated, exploited and so on.

Then some websites for "Do your own porn" opened up. Quite a few of them in fact. And many women happily put up porn there. For no money or profit - just for the fun of it.

A lot of people seem to assume that any woman in sex work could not possibly _want_ to be there. I do not share that assumption. Rather I assume in pretty much every job there is some % of people happy to be there and a % of people working how to get the hell out. There is a reason apple towers is said to have anti suicide nets installed. Though admit I never did check if that is actually true.

Reviews and Books Galore

Candie wrote: »

The reasoning behind not criminalizing the prostitute is because if a sex worker is assaulted or raped, beaten up or otherwise attacked, she will not report the crime if she fears prosecution herself/himself.

It's to protect society from dangerous and violent people, it's more important they're caught and dealt with than it is to prosecute prostitutes so the greater good is served by not putting barriers to reports being made about serious crimes.

Prostitutes may also be victims of trafficking or coercion, and again there are bigger fish to fry in that scenario than prosecuting the worker.

The fact that this is the first time someone has been convicted of the crime tells me that not a lot of resources are put into catching the customers. It's not quite persecution level just yet.

I don't believe prostitution should be illegal, but I do think there will always be an issue with the most vulnerable sex workers. The girls who'll work in legit brothels (should it become legal) will be safe and cared for, but the most vulnerable - the drug addicts working the back streets and canal ways, under the control of pimps or with no protection at all - will still be at enormous risk of harm. Not all prostitutes are comfortably off escorts who get to pick and choose their customers and conditions, but the people in the worst situations will benefit least.

But yeah, those feminist nuns.

Funnilly enough, Eastern European countries outlaw Brothels as they are seen as more open to exploitation. It's seen as better if a woman is her own boss and manages her own affairs privately.

Also, a lit of prostitutes make an IT man's salary with much fewer hours.

ArchXStanton

Sonic Youth wrote: »

You seem incrediably naive about the world. You think young eastern European girls who are hot enough to be models really want to come to Ireland to suck off losers who can't get the ride like the rest of us? Or gross old guys who have a thing for young girls?

Man, wake up.

Very few are hot enough to be models, if they were they probably wouldn't be in that business those photos you see are normally airbrushed to kingdom come.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Candie wrote: »

The reasoning behind not criminalizing the prostitute is because if a sex worker is assaulted or raped, beaten up or otherwise attacked, she will not report the crime if she fears prosecution herself/himself.

The same argument could be made to protect drug dealers. Low level drug dealers would be vulnerable to violence as well up to and including murder. After me saying that I bet some crazy leftie TD will suggest a law to protect dealers.

Prostitution is pretty unique in that the suppliers are protected.

One eyed Jack

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A: A reach around is standard, you're being robbed!

B: I'm not sure about mechanics, but plumbers and electricians are very much in short supply. A lot of them also don't like paying tax (I'm not overly fond myself but as a PAYE slave I find it hard to avoid)
There is very much an "underground" plumbing scene, operating in the black (grey?) economy and hiding from the tax man, it just involves less nudity and more copper piping!

True, true

If you want to look at what a previously unregulated industry looks like after it’s been regulated - look at the taxi industry. You’re old enough to remember when taxi drivers had plates worth between €60 - €120k depending upon where they were in the country. The industry was regulated overnight and suddenly anyone could get a plate for €5k. A couple of years of the bigger taxi companies creaming people later, and in comes an even bigger shark - Uber, cut the stones out of the taxi industry and completely unregulated - cheap as chips and far more convenient. That’s exactly how regulating prostitution would go - the bigger sharks would make even bigger gains than they are already, and there’d be no new services introduced to cater specifically for prostitution like some people are dreaming of. As it is now they simply attend the GUM clinic like anyone else. That’s as much as Government would do. Government wouldn’t make any extra revenue off them because all of these companies operate from abroad and therefore they pay as much tax as Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc - literally fcukall.

Do you think a woman has the right to have sex with whoever she wants?

Let's leave aside the coercion end of it, lets assume this woman is happy to sell sex, do you think she should be allowed or not?

Absolutely I do, and that’s why I supported this law - because it still allows for women to have sex with whoever they want. It criminalises the people who wish to exploit women and make them have sex with people they don’t want to have sex with though. I have plenty of friends who still work in the sex industry (I did at one time myself, I don’t any more), and I’m more than happy for them that they’re happy and all the rest of it. They know my position and they know they’re not the target of my opposition to facilitating prostitution. They are wealthy enough and educated enough that they would be able to operate even in the current environment with the laws as they are and with society as it is. They’re not stupid either, they’ll tell you themselves that the taboo against prostitution is good for business as it’s the whole “forbidden fruit” kinda thing going on. One of the more memorable women I met though was a woman with AIDS who regarded all men were bastards and wanted to infect as many as possible. She was a piece of work. This is why I couldn’t give Yanmato a “yes/no” straight answer earlier, because while she was happy to have sex with as many men as possible, I sure as hell wasn’t - she was the very definition of a public health risk, and what she was doing I wanted to see her charged with aggravated sexual assault. That’s what I meant earlier too when I said circumstances in reality are far more complex than hypothetical scenarios.

I personally can not understand how it can be legal to give something away, but illegal to sell it, unless you attribute some magical quality to sex - which I just don't. It's a physical act like any other.

You can charge someone to rub their shoulders, why can you not charge them to rub their dick?
People get paid to fight all the time and that's fine, but they can't get paid to fúck....cos that would be wrong. How's that make sense?

Make love not war and all that Jack!

Ok, you personally don’t attach any particular magical quality to sex. But it’s self-evident from the existence of people who can charge people to have sex with them, and people will pay it, that those people do attach something generally unattainable to prostitution? Whether it’s the sex, the attention, the not being seen as a freak if they asked a girl to peg them, y’know, whatever their particular kink (there’s an awful lot of prostitutes getting raped compared to the number of men who claim they only want company... always found that weird myself, but statistics, y’know?).

This is the thing with the law now - you can charge people money to have sex with you, and you won’t be criminalised for it. Revenue may come knocking alright if you’re the type to flash your wealth when all the neighbours think you’re on social welfare, Leo encourages people to rat people out like that. Wouldn’t bother me in the slightest tbh, Leo’s Government are taking a lot more off me in taxes than my next door neighbour is getting as a percentage of my taxes!

But there is one particular movement - the one which feels it's wrong or dirty to sell your body and that the act of sex is somehow special, as if only a tramp would profit off her vagina but there's nobility in being paid to remove skid marks from a corporate jacks!
The vast majority of us get paid to do something we'd rather not, from mild inconvenience down to downright hatred of the job we're at. We do it for money - it's the human condition.
I don't "want" to be here now, I'm here cos they are paying me

Come on now sb, that view isn’t at all limited to any particular group in society. It’s fairly standard in any population that prostitutes and the people who use prostitutes are desperate degenerates, because it’s not an industry like any other. This goes back to how you feel about sex - not a big deal to you, so I can understand why prostitution wouldn’t bother you, but to many more people, it bothers them greatly, and you can’t pretend the social stigma doesn’t exist, even if you personally don’t hold that view.

It’s like you pointed out- the vast majority of us are paid to do something we’d rather not, and even though I’m doing something I love and don’t care if I was never paid to do it because I’m wealthy enough that I could do it without getting paid - it would be stupid to imagine or even attempt to argue that I’m a very common example. Same with the happy hooker nonsense - they’re as rare in prostitution as transgender unicorns, and attempting to argue using those women or men as the basis for your argument would just be silly. You’d tell me to GTFO if I tried it, and rightly so! We have to be civil to each other on Boards though :rolleyes: :pac:

Hookers aren't my thing at all - but every clown knows that some can charge far more than others. There must be something to differentiate them!

Absolutely there is - the 16 year old who does anal can generally charge a lot more than the old granny who gives a master blow job when she takes out her false gnashers :pac:

mikhail

I thought a woman had a right to choose what to do with her own body? Does this apply selectively, or is it that the fella in question doesn't have the same rights?

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

I thought a woman had a right to choose what to do with her own body? Does this apply selectively, or is it that the fella in question doesn't have the same rights?

Nah the issue appears to be that one or two people think consent stops being consent and starts being "exploitation" if money is involved. But only magically with sex work and nothing else.

When I sit down and program for money - something I consent to do for money - somehow I am not being exploited. A free lance masseue being paid to pleasurably manipulate your body for money - not exploited either seemingly.

But if it is sex work - magically they are.

Work it out for yourself if you can. I can't see the difference myself. So explain it to me if you manage to get your head around it. The "one or two people" I mention have failed to when asked directly.

sbsquarepants

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One of the more memorable women I met though was a woman with AIDS who regarded all men were bastards and wanted to infect as many as possible. She was a piece of work. This is why I couldn’t give Yanmato a “yes/no” straight answer earlier, because while she was happy to have sex with as many men as possible, I sure as hell wasn’t - she was the very definition of a public health risk, and what she was doing I wanted to see her charged with aggravated sexual assault. That’s what I meant earlier too when I said circumstances in reality are far more complex than hypothetical scenarios.

Surely a shining example of where some form of regulation would improve things.

The taxi example is a good one though - practically everyone I know is happier with the current deregulated situation (except the taxi drivers, but they were screwing us far more than any hooker ever did!)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Come on now sb, that view isn’t at all limited to any particular group in society. It’s fairly standard in any population that prostitutes and the people who use prostitutes are desperate degenerates, because it’s not an industry like any other. This goes back to how you feel about sex - not a big deal to you, so I can understand why prostitution wouldn’t bother you, but to many more people, it bothers them greatly, and you can’t pretend the social stigma doesn’t exist, even if you personally don’t hold that view.

I think peoples views on sex are changing generally, casual sex is the norm these days, there's nowhere near as much stigma to a young girl "sleeping around" than there was even in my day (I'm 45)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s like you pointed out- the vast majority of us are paid to do something we’d rather not, and even though I’m doing something I love and don’t care if I was never paid to do it because I’m wealthy enough that I could do it without getting paid - it would be stupid to imagine or even attempt to argue that I’m a very common example. Same with the happy hooker nonsense - they’re as rare in prostitution as transgender unicorns, and attempting to argue using those women or men as the basis for your argument would just be silly. You’d tell me to GTFO if I tried it, and rightly so! We have to be civil to each other on Boards though :rolleyes: :pac:

I'm not saying all hookers are happy, just that they aren't all unhappy, and even if they were so what? No one gives a rats arse about happy bin men, sewer workers, shop assistants, fast food staff or so on. It's assumed a certain amount of unhappiness is built in - if you were delighted to do it (like you are, congratulations btw that's like striking oil, whatever it is you do!) they wouldn't have to pay you, or at least pay you so much. I don't love what I do, I don't hate it, but i'd rather be at home, I do it cos I need money and no-one campaigns on my behalf to have logistics outlawed!

To be honest I'd be rightly pissed off if they did, how would I pay my mortgage?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely there is - the 16 year old who does anal can generally charge a lot more than the old granny who gives a master blow job when she takes out her false gnashers :pac:

Do you have her number? The Granny that is, I'm asking for my mate Wayne:D

Mrsmum

professore wrote: »

Plus some women love sex!

Sex is a wonderful and highly enjoyable activity (although something about the way you say the above suggests you thing only men really enjoy it) but I suggest to you that were one to be particularly into it over and above the norm, being a prostitute is the last thing such a woman would do. Because prostitution is all about satisfying the client and absolutely nothing about being a pleasurable experience for the prostitute. It's not ever sold as such, quite the opposite in fact.

If one was massively into food, one wouldn't eat a diet of junk food.

There is one and only one reason for selling sex - money.

sbsquarepants

Mrsmum wrote: »

There is one and only one reason for selling sex - money.

That argument holds true for everything.

The very basis of all commerce is to make money!

The nice reputable lady in brown Thomas doesn't really give a toss if your makeup looks good or not, she just wants to pay her bills. Same thing with the waitress in your favourite restaurant, she doesn't care if you're hungry or not, bills to pay - that's it. Just like you don't care that they would rather be doing something else other than your makeup or bringing your nice meal to your table, getting you a drink or whatnot. It's a simple commercial arrangement.

The hooker doesn't really care about the clients sex life, she has bills to pay and this is how she pays them, that's all there is too it. The client doesn't care that she'd rather be watching Game of Thrones or walking her dog, he's paid for a service, he want's that service and that's all there is to that.

I've paid for something, now I want it, you've charged me for it so now provide it. My problems aren't yours, your problems aren't mine, end of story.

Nobody disputes this in any other line of work.

suicide_circus

it's a funny one alright.

sexual liberation and bodily autonomy are all the rage for the last 50 years yet only now are purchasers of sex criminalized. All part of the new conservatism which is all based around victimhood I suppose. A brave new world.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I say put it to a vote. Also put cannabis decriminalisation to a vote.

Instead we got whether we should change the eligibility age of the President which affects no one at all in the country in even the slightest.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I say put it to a vote. Also put cannabis decriminalisation to a vote.

Instead we got whether we should change the eligibility age of the President which affects no one at all in the country in even the slightest.

Well thats because the latter was a constitutional issue and hence _must_ be voted on. Whereas prostitution and drugs is not to my knowledge a constitution issue? So we would not be comparing like with like there.

I would like to see some kind of vote on it but the reasons above it is unlikely. I think myself the majority of the Irish public see no reason to make buying or selling illegal.

But I guess it is assumed that we _have_ voted on it by electing our representatives in a republic democracy. So if you want to vote on it - the best chance you will get is ask the canvassers on the next election what their position on this matter is.

Mrsmum

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That argument holds true for everything.

The very basis of all commerce is to make money!

The nice reputable lady in brown Thomas doesn't really give a toss if your makeup looks good or not, she just wants to pay her bills. Same thing with the waitress in your favourite restaurant, she doesn't care if you're hungry or not, bills to pay - that's it. Just like you don't care that they would rather be doing something else other than your makeup or bringing your nice meal to your table, getting you a drink or whatnot. It's a simple commercial arrangement.

The hooker doesn't really care about the clients sex life, she has bills to pay and this is how she pays them, that's all there is too it. The client doesn't care that she'd rather be watching Game of Thrones or walking her dog, he's paid for a service, he want's that service and that's all there is to that.

I've paid for something, now I want it, you've charged me for it so now provide it. My problems aren't yours, your problems aren't mine, end of story.

Nobody disputes this in any other line of work.

I'm not arguing the commerce point. I'm arguing against the point that any prostitute is working as a prostitute because she's mad for sex which is total codology. At least you are making the point that her happiness is irrelevant to the client which is of course exactly right.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Deleted User wrote: »

Well thats because the latter was a constitutional issue and hence _must_ be voted on. Whereas prostitution and drugs is not to my knowledge a constitution issue? So we would not be comparing like with like there.

I would like to see some kind of vote on it but the reasons above it is unlikely. I think myself the majority of the Irish public see no reason to make buying or selling illegal.

But I guess it is assumed that we _have_ voted on it by electing our representatives in a republic democracy. So if you want to vote on it - the best chance you will get is ask the canvassers on the next election what their position on this matter is.

I think many social issues like abortion, gay marriage, cannabis decriminalisation, prostitution ect are perfect for putting up to a public debate and vote.

When politicians have to look for votes from such a wide variety of people to get reelected in their constituency, they find it very hard to take a definitive stand on social issues like these. For example, what can a politician do if 30% of their core vote is religious conservative while another 30% would be very liberal. It is just very hard for them. Add into the fact that our current government is made up of such a very wide range of political positions, you often get to a standstill on things. While that can be a good thing for Irish politics in certain ways, I think it is bad for certain social issues that can divide opinion.

Leo Varadker (who is a gay man) came out in support of gay marriage very late into the debate.
Michael Martin came out in support of abortion very late into the debate.

*I only used the voting age as an example because it felt like a pointless waste of time that delivers no tangible change to anyone.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I think many social issues like abortion, gay marriage, cannabis decriminalisation, prostitution ect are perfect for putting up to a public debate and vote.

Yea the whole "citizens Assembly" thing is good as a general concept. Think it was already mentioned on this thread.

I certainly agree with you on the strengths and weaknesses of a representation system like our own. Hard to find something better to replace it with - but we have to work in the system I guess.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

*I only used the voting age as an example because it felt like a pointless waste of time that delivers no tangible change to anyone.

I think it is a good thing that we change our constitution in that way. But yes - the price we pay for that good thing is we sometimes get asked to vote on minutia. But at least we were not asked to vote on it in isolation. Minutia like that gets combined with other referendum issues and we get asked to vote on the small stuff as part of a package. That is something I guess!

paleoperson

I'm starting to think taxAHcruel is a bit of an elaborate troll, even if an apparently well-meaning one. He's just taking contrarian stances on various issues and handwaving all counterpoints away or saying something like "I make no apologies for not caring about your points" without giving any proper justifications.