Should prostitution be legal??

swiss

I know we had this sometime before, but this is motivated by a good musical click called The Best Little Whórehouse in Texas.

Anyway, given that prostitution is one of the oldest professions it has always been one of the most controversial. Should we, as a society take a stance against it? Is is grossly immoral and exploitative, or should we take steps to legalise it in the hope that we can 'clean' up the industry somewhat.

Thoughts?

dahamsta

Legalise and regulate it. Pretending that the oldest profession doesn't exist is just plain ignorant. It's not going to go away, and that should be accepted. All regulation will do is, eventually, take away the inherent risks.

EDIT: No, I haven't.

adam

Beruthiel

I would have to agree, legalise and regulate it - you can't deny it's there and it makes it safer for the women who choose to be involved. I believe it to be much more exploitative as it is right now and a pretty dangerous profession for a women to be in.

TwoShedsJackson

It should be legalised and regulated. Keeping it in it's current underground state increases the amount of violence employed by pimps and punters, and the amount of monies being diverted from it to fund considerably more serious illegal activities.

Typedef

Originally posted by dahamsta
Legalise and regulate it. Pretending that the oldest profession doesn't exist is just plain ignorant. It's not going to go away, and that should be accepted. All regulation will do is, eventually, take away the inherent risks.

EDIT: No, I haven't.

adam

Fallacy of logic.
Should we accept that because murder will never 'go away' that it should be legalised? How about paedophelia, should we accept that that will never simply go away and accept it? What about incest, maybe we should accept that that will never go away either and legalise that too.

Should men be able to do the same as women, how about young boys and girls? Where does the line get drawn with the argument that thing[x] will never simply go away, so it should be accepted and legalised?
I find flaws in this logic.
Perhaps we should accept that the 'age of consent' can never be adherd to and simply lower it to an age where youths begin to become sexually active , say 12 years old and maybe we should accept that you can't stop a 12 year old becoming a prostitue and allow young boys and girls to have sex for money with grown adults on the grounds that outlawing it will never prevent it totally.

Nope you will have to come up with a better argument then the pitfalls of prohibition to convince me.
[yes it is]

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Typedef

I find flaws in this logic.]

except that prostitution is a service offered.
murder, incest, rape, pheadophilia etc are not services offered.

i think youre going to have to come up with a better analogy typedef.......


i find flaws in your logic

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Fallacy of logic.
Should we accept that because murder will never 'go away' that it should be legalised? How about paedophelia, should we accept that that will never simply go away and accept it? What about incest, maybe we should accept that that will never go away either and legalise that too.

Fallacy of a false analogy. Prostitution is not the same as murder, incest or paedophilia.

dahamsta

Your own argument is pretty fallacious (heh) Typedef, if not even the type of totally OTT argument politicians throw up in debates on matters such as this (abortion being the most recent and blatant example). Lemme put it this way:

There's a big - huge, enormous - difference between taking someone's life and having [EDIT: CONSENTUAL] sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. The two cannot be compared, it's just a /silly/ parallel to draw.

But if you insist on making the analogy, how about this: In it's current form, prostitution is /far/ more dangerous to health and life than it would be were it regulated...

adam

Typedef

No the anology holds.
Adam's proposal is that if something is illegal and we can't stop it from happening then it should be legalised. There was no mention of service, consumer law, the price of cabbages is Switzerland or anything else so don't try and bring it in.
Murder is not the same as paedophilia and cannabis smoking is not the same as prostitution, but by the 'logic' (if one believes in such things) you guys are espousing, it's ok to legalise something once the current criminal law does not stop it, ergo by your logic, murder should be legalised, what do I have to draw a picture here?
Honestly if you are going to attempt to rebuff logic at least do it within the premis set out.

In principal I agree that of course if someone wants to sell sex then it shouldn't be a problem, however, reality and life experience teaches me that in reality such blanket theorising and consequent legislation would invariably lead to a state sanctioned sexual exploitation, of the under priviledged, of foreigners, of underaged people, perhaps the old or the retarded, essentially the vulnerable in society.

I think it would be a retrograde step for society, much like abolishing work safety laws and bringing 'us' back to the bad old days of the 1800s industrial revolution in terms of 'our' laws for protection of the vunerable in society.

Jpaulik

I don't think it should. I just think its wrong to sell your body and legalising it to regulate it more is the wrong way to control it. What we need is free love for all !

When I look at the red light districts in Amsterdam I don't think legalising it there was the best idea. Same goes for drugs, I don't think legalising it can work. Again I don't think Amsterdam is a sucess where they are now only arresting people if they are caught with a large amount of cocaine and where there are a lot of drug barons making lots of money.

I guess though that if theres a market there you're always going to have the services offered. If you can prevent desperate people who want to pay for sex with a stranger a lot of prostitution would stop.

Tougher sentences for pimps and rehabilitation for the prostitutes would also help. We all know these poor souls are only in it because they have no alternatives, making what they do legal will still have them in the same situation but the punters will feel less guilty.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Typedef
No the anology holds..

bollocks it does.

Originally posted by Typedef
Adam's proposal is that if something is illegal and we can't stop it from happening then it should be legalised. There was no mention of service, consumer law, the price of cabbages is Switzerland or anything else.

no, the proposal was from swiss, and he didnt mention anything about us stopping it from happening.
and obviously prostitution is a service. you pay for it, therefor it becomes a service industry. all the other things you listed are not.
dont try to confuse the issue.
you were wrong.

Originally posted by Typedef
In principal I agree that of course if someone wants to sell sex then it shouldn't be a problem, however, reality and life experience teaches me that invariably it would lead to state sanctioned sexual exploitation, of the under priviledged, of foreigners, of underaged people and so on.
.

so agree here that it is sex for sale. ok, so you therefore agree it is a service.
fine, im glad thats cleared up.
ok, regulated means by a governing body, which is in place to ensure these things dont happen.
its not talking about the exceptions to the rule, it is talking about general governing and regulation of a service.

Originally posted by Typedef
I think it would be a retrograde step for society, much like abolishing work safety laws and bringing 'us' back to the bad old days of the 1800s industrial revolution in terms of 'our' laws for protection of the vunerable in society.

thats right. in fact, since prostitution is the oldest service in the world, it should take us back before jesus eh?

i dont remember work safety laws being aboloshed. when did this happen?
or do you liken regulating prostitution to this. how do you manage to connect one with the other. please give us an example.

protection of who?
so you reckon we should keep as is and allow prostitutes to infect 'client' with disease, be beaten up by pimps, be treated like shít.
so if the industry was regulated all these things wouldnt apply.
how can you say that is bad.

oh, plus the government ets to slap a shag tax on you as well.

no typedef, you havent actually said anything at all.
youve mearly disagreed with no backup at all.

if you are going to start an argument, try to at least make a go of it and be able to debate your points.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Jpaulik
I guess though that if theres a market there you're always going to have the services offered. If you can prevent desperate people who want to pay for sex with a stranger a lot of prostitution would stop.

Tougher sentences for pimps and rehabilitation for the prostitutes would also help. We all know these poor souls are only in it because they have no alternatives, making what they do legal will still have them in the same situation but the punters will feel less guilty.

What a load of patronising cr/\p!
I have to ask do you know much about the sex industry?

"These poor souls have no alternatives?"

I can see that the drug addicted pimp run prostitues might fall under that catagory (and if the profession was legalised and licensed, this would be prevented) but what about the high class call girls who earn hundreds of € a trick? Do you think they have no choice?

I heard a prostitute on a late night call show, who was a university student with a very bright future. She was working as a call girl, (as opposed to McDonalds etc) because she liked working short hours, earning loads a money and having time for college too. She had plenty of friend who worked traditionally, but she chose not to.
You might have a problem morally with what she is doing. Bu then you dont have to do it. Why do you feel you need to impose your morals on her?

To Typedef, you are ignoring the valid points put to you. Your tired arguemt of comparing crimes is not applicable.
When you murder someone, you take away their life.
When you have consentual paid sex with someone, unless you have a very large weapon, they are still alive afterwards. Unless you bored them to death!

We change laws all the time in this country. We have a parlament, who can make, and repeal them. Remember your argument goes bothways.

Somethings are classed as illegal, when they are no harm. Remember Divorce was illegal a wile ago? Remember Homosexual relations were illegal? Remember public execution was legal?

Laws are rules of society, and are constantly evolving, as does society.

Some people would like to live in a society where morality is forced on you. This is right, this is wrong. No personal choice.

But I would lik to live in a multi cultural multi ethnic state where personal freedom is cherished. We fought hard enough for it in the past! Let people choose what is right for themselves, within a framework of laws that are nessacary to perserve order, and balance the rights of indivuals.

Paying for sex is a service industry. Of couse there are undesireable elements in the trade. But if the trade was legalised, regulated, and proper health checks were inplace (mandatory checkups etc.) you would find the industry need not be linked with drugs etc. In fact if a prostitute was regularly assesed by a medical professional to see if she was fit to hold a license, the heavy drug user would soon be spotted faster than in more conventional employment, due to the close medical supervision.

Pimps would become a thing of the past. At present a pimp offers the only protection a call girl can expect. But in a legalised situation the police can be brought in if crime is commited, and a reputable security firm could be hired, to provide additional quick reponse help.

There could be a contributary pension scheme for the sex workers, as their actual working career in an open market would be short enough. Other careers could be opened easily to them, easy access to training, night courses etc could be made available centrally.

X

dahamsta

Actually, I accept Typedef's argument, although I believe that it's Dail-style debating, it's missing the point entirely. In other words: "You know what I meant, stop trying to change the issue."

The issue being discussed here is the legalisation of prostitution. Again, there's a big difference between prostitution and murder, paedophilia and incest. Sex is acceptable by the vast majority of people; whereas murder, paedophilia and incest are not.

The issue being discussed here is a specific moral question about commercial sexual activity. You're trying to make it into a larger argument. You're entitled to do that, but I think further discussion will dilute the original question.

Therefore I rule your comments off-topic, and fine you €100. Don't do it again.

heh

adam

swiss

Well, my own thoughts on the issue are as follows:

I don't feel that the actual act of prostitution, in itself is particularly immoral or wrong. It does, IMO, take a certain type of person (both in terms of the offerer - or 'salesperson' -heh - and the client) to involve themselves in what are disputably seedy activities.

Should prostitution be made legal, I would feel that the regulation that would ensue should help to make it more acceptable and open. In this respect I would have my reservations about this course of action. I would not like to see Ireland descend into a culture of promiscuous sexual behaviour. Perhaps, however, this is overstating the issue.

I honestly don't see a problem with a woman (or man) selling their bodies for sexual favours. If they can earn a decent living doing so, then fair play to them. If anyone has seen any pornographic films or movies (I'm sure no-one on the internet ever has, but lets just suppose ) then the actors in said movies are engaging in another form of prostitution.

I do, however, draw a very firm line where the pros... *ahem* salesperson or the client are abused or mistreated in any way. This, should prostitution be legalised should be more rapidly addressed, and should afford those working in the industry greater protection

When you have consentual paid sex with someone, unless you have a very large weapon, they are still alive afterwards

he he he

Well, disregarding the size of one's "weapon" sex, and particularly promiscuous sex has it's inherent dangers, particularly in terms of STI's like AIDS, herpes, siphilus etc. Despite increased medical supervision, I do believe that problems could become endemic to a society should prostitution become too widely available.

We shouldn't bury our heads in relation to this issue. Either we should decide that prostitution is morally wrong and reprehensible, a portal to organised crime, a vice that should be eliminated, or else we accept that people should have the freedom to make an informed choice in a (relatively) safe and sanitary environment.

Edit: Heads, bury our heads in the sand (not what I had before ) *proceeds to bang same against wall

SheroN

don't do anything..ignore it...and it's sure to go away.

Typedef

Hey guys relax, take a stress pill, listen to calming music or something.

If you are attempting to justify legalisation on the grounds that you can't prevent the occurance of the crime then your agrument is defunct. If you are not capable of integrating that thought, try not appending mine. Re-read what I've said, as opposed to what you would like me to have said for the purposes of your 'holier than thou' argument and call again.
Typedef.

Mills

Legalise it and have it regulated. I don't have any problems with prostitution in theory, and if people want to offer/partake of it then that's fine by me. Legalisation should make it safer for both the prostitutes and the clients, so why not?

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Typedef
Hey guys relax, take a stress pill, listen to calming music or something.

If you are attempting to justify legalisation on the grounds that you can't prevent the occurance of the crime then your agrument is defunct. If you are not capable of integrating that thought, try not appending mine. Re-read what I've said, as opposed to what you would like me to have said for the purposes of your 'holier than thou' argument and call again.
Typedef.

one person said so stop basising your entire argument on it. it is irrelevant. you havent answered any questions or amde any points.
if i re-read what youve written i will probably have to relearn english afterwards.....

Stephen

I haven't read all the posts to this thread (can't be arsed right now), so forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been said.

Typedef, your analogy is a bunch of arsé. Prostitution (given that it is 100% consentiual) is a victimless crime. Sure there's a lot of other crimes and exploitation associated with it, but if it was legal and properly regulated I think that would not be the case. Murder, rape, paedophilia and the rest that you mentioned are not victimless. Its completely different.

bonkey

Hmmm. This is a tough call.

There is unquestionably a demand and a willingness to supply a service, which if regulated can be mutually beneficial to all involved. This is a pretty compelling business argument.

From the moral standpoint, I dont really see problems. Casual sex has become, for better or for worse, a common practice in much of the western world.

From an ethical standpoint, it would probably devolve into a predominantly male-demanded, female-supplied service, but it is not, in and of itself, sexist in any way.

So - where's the problem?

The problem I see is the health risk. I cant see that it would be possible to offer any guarantees, unless every client was given a full medical immediately before seeing their prostitute. This is where the issue is.

How can you regulate an industry where you realistically had to look after "employees" who contracted STDs of any variety, up to and including AIDS. The costs would be astronomical, and the health-hazard so unavoidable that insurance would be impossible to acquire or prohibitively expensive.

In short, modern social structures would prevent prostitution from working on a large-scale, legalised basis in any manner that I can see.

Yes, prostitution exists today and we are more or less powerless to prevent it. However, I agree with Typedef's argument (if not his reasoning) that this is, in and of itself, not a sufficient excuse to legalise it. If we look for further reasons, there are plenty. The problem that I see is that I cannot see how a workable structure could be implemented which would make its legalisation practical.

Ultimately, I feel any "workable" legislation would be so prohibitive, and/or result in such high costs, that it would still remain more profitable to engage in illegal prostitution and therefore the legalisation of it to cut this out is a bit pointless.

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by Xterminator

To Typedef, you are ignoring the valid points put to you. Your tired arguemt of comparing crimes is not applicable.
When you murder someone, you take away their life.
When you have consentual paid sex with someone, unless you have a very large weapon, they are still alive afterwards. Unless you bored them to death!

Hey X listen pal. I'm not drawing an analogy between any two specific crimes merley instanciating a permis. The argument does not hold. You might say 'oh we will never stop people breaking traffic lights' so we should make it legal, or you could say like WhiteWashMan 'There will always be a service industry for heroin so make it legal'. Now people try to understand I'm not saying prostitution is heroin, nor attempting to equate the two, make at least a small attempt to understand that before you go off on a rant about something totally off topic.

Personally I know that sex has been tabooed by society and that if it were not then people would have no problem with the issue of selling sex, so really it comes down to your willingness to break with cultural taboo.

Do I think a girl like the example given, who is in college and wants to make quick easy money should be allowed to do so? Why the hell not, what do I care it's not my life. Do I think that the entire premis of making prostitution legal because of your inability to stop it is right, nope, like I said, you could use that argument to legalise almost every single crime in society these days. I do think that in reality, where I like to think I live, that no matter how the 'theory' of such things sits the reality of the situation is totally different. The reality of places like Amsterdam is that it is a haven for criminal gangs, and vast amounts of fairly dangerous drugs 'by anyone's standards' are imported from that country, the same with firearms, what are you people saying the Dutch should legalise the uzi to reduce it's use?

[opportunity knocks]

I wonder though how do people feel about allowing males, say boys of 16 to do the same as their female counterparts, how many men here would think it was ok for their brothers to sell sex? Oh hadn't thought of that had you, but 'we' can't stop them, so 'we' should allow them.
We can't stop 12 year old boys living on the streets selling sex can we, so, really that means we should allow them doesn't it? Have a made my point sufficiently yet?

Obviously the world over, impovierished people are used in sweatshops and as low paid workers. So if prostitution were considered a saleable service would that not make a subclass of impoverished people of sexual tender?

Imagine it, Ireland could have entire districts of foreign 'workers' selling sexual favours legally and paying taxes, or districts of 'impovierished' people selling the same, sure why not it's their choice, and if those people were to choose to sell their kidneys or liver to rich people well that's fine too, because the individuals choice is what matters right, not the circumstance the choice is made in right? So drug addicts and 'supposed college 'girls' and boys' alike should all have the option to choose what to do with their own lives, masters of their own destiny's, forgers of the future.

But don't fret it would be ok as all the pimps would become 'business owners' all the drug pushers and dealers would become 'providers of a service' and as all of it would be legal there would be no crime.

Of course all that is required for this wonderful utopia of individuation to come to pass is for the crying of 'heretic' or 'Catholic' or 'Conservative' or 'Liberal' at your opponents and whoever screams loudest wins, whoever screams loudest gets their moral indemnification or in newspeak their pan spectrum moral ethic imposed wholesale, but that makes you politically correct don't you know. Whatever you do, you don't want to stand on the toes of the individual do you?

If the age of working were lowered to twelve and the same with the age of consent '12 in the Netherlands' would that mean that a fifty year old man having sex with a 12 year old boy for money was not a crime? What are you people arguing for, some imagined illucidated world of utopian individual freedom, where the choice transcends your 'obligation' to society and culture?

If choice is such an omnipotent force then why not allow female genital mutilation as goes on in some countries, surely that is the 'parents choice', perhaps if one accepts that it cannot be stopped then arguments to prevent it become void and untenable?

Gentlemen start yer bullhorns
yes it is

Typedef

abuse deleted.

fair enough

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
The reality of places like Amsterdam is that it is a haven for criminal gangs, and vast amounts of fairly dangerous drugs 'by anyone's standards' are imported from that country, the same with firearms, what are you people saying the Dutch should legalise the uzi to reduce it's use?

I'm not going to go through your post and refute every single one of the inaccuracies, but I will say this: Drugs are not legal in the Netherlands. No, not even cannabis. Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. With decriminalization, the Dutch have created a situation where their society has the worst of both worlds.

Victor

Originally posted by dahamsta
But if you insist on making the analogy, how about this: In it's current form, prostitution is /far/ more dangerous to health and life than it would be were it regulated...

I'm not 100% sure that is true. Baggot Street Hospital (http://www.erha.ie/news/640.php?nCatId=120&nNewsId=640) run a health and education service for prostitutes. Will that be improved when 'the market is opened up'? One wonders.

Oh, this is not to say that this and the STD clinic are the only services in Baggot Street Hospital - it offers a wide range of community services.

And specially for Logic here is my piece of spammy information overkill for the day. Health information: http://www.erha.ie/view_categories.php?nCatId=2 Remember safe sex only reduces risks, it doesn't get rid of them completely.

Victor

While you can try to play the 'consenting adults' card, all too often the consent isn't there.

Originally posted by Stephen
Prostitution (given that it is 100% consentiual)

This is not a 'given', most prostitutes are either under physical, mental or financial duress.

Originally posted by Stephen
Prostitution .... is a victimless crime.

So what happens when someone (prostitute or punter) gets an STD or AIDS. Or beaten up or worse. Or the punter doed something that makes the prostitute excessively uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Stephen
Sure there's a lot of other crimes and exploitation associated with it,

This remains the case in Amsterdam.

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey:
Ultimately, I feel any "workable" legislation would be so prohibitive, and/or result in such high costs, that it would still remain more profitable to engage in illegal prostitution and therefore the legalisation of it to cut this out is a bit pointless.

This is a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it bonkey? I would have thought the 'high costs' would be more evident in illicit prostitution (what, with overheads like abusive pimps, organised criminal elements that need paying off, 'protection' services that must be paid etc.) Anyway, I don't believe that the costs associated with prostitution (in monetary terms) would be the motivations behind any drive or lobby to legalise it. I feel that it would be about what we as a society have to say about the morality behind an age long aspect of human life, a sub-culture of sleaze if you will that has existed in the shadows for so long.

I think Victor raises the most valid points as to why I would have my reservations in regard to the legalisation of prostitution. I have *checks moral compass* nothing wrong in principal with prostitution, but it does assume consensual sex between adults, where there is no exploitation or abuse of any kind involved.

This raises an interesting question. People, doubtlessly will have the power to abuse any proposed legislation to legalise prostitution, in the ways that Victor and others mentioned. Should this be reason enough to veto any such legislation, given that it could well help those in the 'industry' already?

Typedef, I know what your argument has been

Do I think that the entire premis of making prostitution legal because of your inability to stop it is right, nope

Agreed, but that isn't the issue as far as I am concerned. It is about whether it should be legal because we think that consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sexual activities in lieu of money.

Obviously the world over, impovierished people are used in sweatshops and as low paid workers. So if prostitution were considered a saleable service would that not make a subclass of impoverished people of sexual tender?

I'm not so certain of this. Prostitution can indeed be the refuge of the impoverished and the dejected of society, but it can also be the preserve of the high-class sexy woman who likes to sell herself for good money. I feel that legalisation might help to expose the former instance by making the latter more acceptable. The point is that should prostitution be legalised, women shouldn't have to live in squalor, they have legal work rights just as any other worker.

JustHalf

I posted this on another board, thought it was relevant.

I've tried to do everyone a favour, and organise my thoughts a little
Ah, prostitution. The best type of sexual experience money can buy.

The arguments put forward so far for the legalisation of prostitution have been:
* Necessary sexual release (it's dangerous not to release)
* Sex is fun
* Prostitution will happen anyway
* It's safer for the prostitutes
* It will limit the spread of STD's by taking infected prostitutes out of circulation

I will address each point, in detail, individually. I will then give my own opinion on prostitution.

* Necessary sexual release (it's dangerous not to release)
Assuming sexual release is necessary, must prostitution be legalised?

The first clause does not lead to the second. If there is a chain of logic connecting these two, there are many links missing in the arguments presented.

Firstly, sexual energy (for want of a better description) can be controlled. There are many examples of that all around you. Are all these virgins in imminent danger? And of what, exactly? I ask JC in particular, who claimed suppression was dangerous.

If it can be controlled, and we can survive without it, it is not a 'need' but a desire. If it was a need, then me, Wreckless and countless others would be very, very dead.

And even if it could not be controlled, what then? There are many ways of releasing it, which do not involve paying for sex, and that are legal. Masturbation, one-night stands, or better yet sex in a loving relationship. Against this is set the argument "but its a basic need and if ya cant get enough on your own ... then ... why not pay for it!" (Bon)

If you can't get a sufficient amount of masturbation, I suggest you visit a doctor. Preferably a psychologist. You may also want to go if you think that masturbation is immoral but prostitution is all fine and dandy.

* Sex is fun
That and the whole "if you don't want to legalise prostitution you're being old-fashioned" must have asked of them the question "and?".

* Prostitution will happen anyway
So will murder. Shall we legalise that?

* It's safer for the prostitutes
Just legalising prostitution will not make it safer. Regulation would, to some extent, make it safer than it is *now* for prostitutes, from physical attacks from their pimps, and marginally safer from physical attacks from their clients.

However, these prostitutes would be much safer not being prostitutes at all. Eradicating prostitution would solve all of the problems it creates. It would solve the problems it creates in relationships. It would solve the problems it creates with regards to STD's. It would solve the problems it creates with regards to prostitutes being harmed - for there wouldn't be any.

This desire to have sex is endangering the lives of these people.

* It will limit the spread of STD's by taking infected prostitutes out of circulation
This goes entirely against the previous point. This is the most sickening argument I have seen for prostitution, for it shows the highest order of lack of respect for human life so far.

The prostitutes engage in an activity that puts them at risk of becoming infected with potentially lethal infections and diseases. When they get infected, what happens then? They are removed from the herd.

My own opinion:
Prostitution is degrading to all concerned. Both parties put themselves in danger of illness and/or death; for either a brief moment of minor physical pleasure, or money. The prostitute is not seen of a person, but a tool for relief for a desire. Prostitution is uneccesary and undesirable. It reinforces the idea that people are but things. Prostitute-goers use people in the purest form of using.

neuro-praxis

It's interesting that here people seem to think that because something is old then it has credibiltiy or validity.

The reason that most people have no respect for the Bible or the Qur’an (Koran) is because they are so old that they believe the documents can't have validity in this day and age.

And calling something a profession, by the way, implies to me at least that there is some sort of skill or high training involved. Professionals - doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, etc.

I don't think there's any need for me state my opinions on this issue.

Edited to say: PS - Typedef, I support your argument. By the laws of syllogistic logic (and that's mathematical so it cannot really be argued with) your point is utterly valid. It's fair enough to disagree with Typedef's opinion, but his logical argument did not have any flaws in it.

It was said that if X is going to happen anyway, then we might aswell legalise it.

That's seriously dumb.

Typedef challenged that. He was totally right. It's a flawed argument from any direction,r egardless of your take on this issue.

Xterminator

Originally posted by JustHalf
The arguments put forward so far for the legalisation of prostitution have been:
* Necessary sexual release (it's dangerous not to release)
* Sex is fun
* Prostitution will happen anyway
* It's safer for the prostitutes
* It will limit the spread of STD's by taking infected prostitutes out of circulation

I think you have missed the argument people feel it is a matter of conscience if they should want to use/be a prosititute, rather than a matter that needs to be arbitrarly decided by people who are twice there age, and earn 6 figure salaries.




* Sex is fun

Irrelavent

* Prostitution will happen anyway
So will murder. Shall we legalise that?

Are you ignoring this one cause its tough?
Being Catholic was illegal in the past in this country.
Blasphmeny was a serious crime.
Slavery was legal.
Under clan law, murder ws punishable with a fine. (old law)

Guess what ? We have changed the above laws, and the above crimes.
We shall continue to do so. Just because something is ilegal now, does not preclude its consideration to be made legal!
Society has changed. (I bet 40 years ago the results of this poll would have been different.) As society changes, so do our rules.


* It's safer for the prostitutes
Just legalising prostitution will not make it safer. Regulation would, to some extent, make it safer than it is *now* for prostitutes, from physical attacks from their pimps, and marginally safer from physical attacks from their clients.
However, these prostitutes would be much safer not being prostitutes at all. Eradicating prostitution would solve all of the problems it creates. It would solve the problems it creates in relationships. It would solve the problems it creates with regards to STD's. It would solve the problems it creates with regards to prostitutes being harmed - for there wouldn't be any.
This desire to have sex is endangering the lives of these people.

The desire to have sex in a nightclub endangers people too. But it is not a reason to prohibit it!
The prositiutes have a right to make an informed choice as to what they want to do. If that includes putting themselves at risk, so be it.
People put themselves at risk playing sports. People put themselves at risk mountaineering, bunjee jumping, parachuting
getting tatooes, body piercings etc.
Therefore is it wrong to put yourself in any unnessacry danger?
None of the above are unaviodable activities! But we let people choose.

* It will limit the spread of STD's by taking infected prostitutes out of circulation
This goes entirely against the previous point. This is the most sickening argument I have seen for prostitution, for it shows the highest order of lack of respect for human life so far.
The prostitutes engage in an activity that puts them at risk of becoming infected with potentially lethal infections and diseases. When they get infected, what happens then?
They are removed from the herd.

Well here again is danger and choice. If a prostitute follow safe practices, is checked regularly fo disease by her doctor, and pays into a medical fund to cover expenses etc, she can be said to be operating in good faith.
Not carelessly or deliberatley spreading disease.
When you engage in sex, that is not lifelong monogamous (either paid or 'free' ) you accept these risks.
It could be enforced that a punter might have to sign a disclaimer before gettiing it on with a prostitute.
But the point is there is little practical difference between a slapper who does it for a drink or two, and a prostitute who does it for the price of a pint or two.
When the prositiute contracts a disease, she should be suspended until she is healthy again. If it is incurable, she will have to find other employment, like a non paid victim of STD's etc.
If as a punter you get stung (excuse the pun), by a prostitute acting in good faith, tough. You took a risk, and you got hurt.

My own opinion:
Prostitution is degrading to all concerned. Both parties put themselves in danger of illness and/or death; for either a brief moment of minor physical pleasure, or money. The prostitute is not seen of a person, but a tool for relief for a desire. Prostitution is uneccesary and undesirable. It reinforces the idea that people are but things. Prostitute-goers use people in the purest form of using. [/QUOTE]

Entirely your opinion. Good stuff, thanks for sharing it.

X

Xterminator

My own opinion:
Prostitution is degrading to all concerned. Both parties put themselves in danger of illness and/or death; for either a brief moment of minor physical pleasure, or money. The prostitute is not seen of a person, but a tool for relief for a desire. Prostitution is uneccesary and undesirable. It reinforces the idea that people are but things. Prostitute-goers use people in the purest form of using.

PS. is the prosititute not also using the punter when she takes his money, and spends it?

so its a 2 way street!

Is a young man who takes a slapper somewhere for sex after a nightclub then dumps her using her? Is that any different?

Isn't casual sex using someone

Are you suggesting we ban using people, or are you suggesting we use it as an excuse to ban what we find morally reprehensible?

X

neuro-praxis

:rolleyes:

Typedef

Why are the majority of people referring to prostitues as 'her'? I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but there are areas in the Phoenix park that you can get male hooker or prostitutes in, for whatever kind of homo/hetro sexual relations you would desire 'I presume'.
It seems typical of the partiarchial world that the issue of male prostitution would be delibrately/conviently forgotten about.

I would bet that the idea of allowing 16 year old boys of a 'working' and of an age where consentual sex is permitted becoming male prostitutes does not sit too well with most of the guys who would read this thread.

Is the age of consent for homosexual relations 16 also? If not does that include female-female relations or just male-male relations?

Perhaps those fellas hooking do if for pleasure, perhaps they do it for money or a whole host of reasons, still I find it strange that people would 'assume' prostitution is the vestage of the female.
It is the case I believe that people who extoll the virtues of legalisation more than likely assume hetrosexual male-female relations as the pertinant instance, but there should be no distinction in a true society based on individual choice now should there?

/

Kalina

Prostitution is not a profession that one willing chooses for themselves. It's degrading and disgusting for everyone involved in it and, in my opinion, it should never be legalised. Why should anyone consider legalising it when the thing to do is stamp it out completely?
If guys aren't getting it at home, that's their own tough. Can't guys survive without it for any length of time? Would any of ye chaps out there actually avail of the services of a prostitute??? If your answer is no then why the need for prostitutes in the first place? Women deserve more than to be degraded in this way!!!

bonkey

I'd think this was a troll, only I'm falling for the low post=count.....

Originally posted by Kalina
Prostitution is not a profession that one willing chooses for themselves.

Not true. Historically, prostitution has been a highly prized profession in many cultures across many ages, while at the same time having a criminal element at a different level. It was both good and bad, and the two were distinctly different, except that in both cases, you were selling sex for money - prostitution.

Today is little different. You have both willing and unwilling participants, mostly seperated by the financial scale within which they operate.

If you wish to deny that there are willing prostitutes, then this is your right, but it doesnt change the reality. I suppose you will tell us that all page 3 girls are co-erced into selling the sexual allure of their bodies for cash as well. because they'd never choose it for themselves. If not, then what is the difference?

If guys aren't getting it at home, that's their own tough. Can't guys survive without it for any length of time?

Thank you for your blinkered sexist view on things. Prostitution is gender-neutral. You can and do have male prostitutes.

Mills

Why are the majority of people referring to prostitues as 'her'?

Would the vast majority of prostitutes not be female? I'd probably use "her" myself on occasion, out of laziness, but I don't think it makes much or any difference whether the prostitute is male or female.

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but there are areas in the Phoenix park that you can get male hooker or prostitutes in, for whatever kind of homo/hetro sexual relations you would desire 'I presume'.

I wasn't aware of that, it didn't really occur to me, but thinking about it now, it makes sense.

It seems typical of the partiarchial world that the issue of male prostitution would be delibrately/conviently forgotten about.

I'd say it's more a case of people just not thinking about it, I don't think there's any deliberate cover-up going on, but a small majority like that can be easily forgotten about.

I would bet that the idea of allowing 16 year old boys of a 'working' and of an age where consentual sex is permitted becoming male prostitutes does not sit too well with most of the guys who would read this thread.

It sits about as well with me as the thought of 16 year old girls becoming prostitutes, in fact it probably sits marginally better with me, not to be sexist but in most cases a male would have a better chance if things turned ugly.

Is the age of consent for homosexual relations 16 also? If not does that include female-female relations or just male-male relations?

I think it's 18 for homosexuals, I don't think female-female relations are included in that, I don't think they're accounted for at all in law but I might be wrong.

Perhaps those fellas hooking do if for pleasure, perhaps they do it for money or a whole host of reasons, still I find it strange that people would 'assume' prostitution is the vestage of the female.

I'd say the reasons behind male prostitution are similar to those behind female prostitution. I find it understandable that people would assume that prostitution is the vestage of the female, because for the most part it is, I'm making a guess here but I'd say that male prostitution is in the minority by a long way.

there should be no distinction in a true society based on individual choice now should there?

I wholeheartedly agree.

JustHalf

Before I start my reply, I would like to point out that you have either a reading or thinking deficit, because you have either failed to read the entirety of my post, or failed to think; before replying.

Originally posted by Xterminator
I think you have missed the argument people feel it is a matter of conscience if they should want to use/be a prosititute, rather than a matter that needs to be arbitrarly decided by people who are twice there age, and earn 6 figure salaries.

Please read the disclaimer:

I posted this on another board, thought it was relevant.

Originally posted by Xterminator
* Sex is fun

Irrelavent

Which was my point, right here (if not expressed in particularly well):

That and the whole "if you don't want to legalise prostitution you're being old-fashioned" must have asked of them the question "and?".

Originally posted by Xterminator
* Prostitution will happen anyway
So will murder. Shall we legalise that?

Are you ignoring this one cause its tough?
Being Catholic was illegal in the past in this country.
Blasphmeny was a serious crime.
Slavery was legal.
Under clan law, murder ws punishable with a fine. (old law)

Guess what ? We have changed the above laws, and the above crimes.
We shall continue to do so. Just because something is ilegal now, does not preclude its consideration to be made legal!

No, but the fact it is illegal, and will happen anyway, isn't a good reason to legalise it. What you've just said really has nothing to do with my point.

Originally posted by Xterminator
* It's safer for the prostitutes
Just legalising prostitution will not make it safer. Regulation would, to some extent, make it safer than it is *now* for prostitutes, from physical attacks from their pimps, and marginally safer from physical attacks from their clients.
However, these prostitutes would be much safer not being prostitutes at all. Eradicating prostitution would solve all of the problems it creates. It would solve the problems it creates in relationships. It would solve the problems it creates with regards to STD's. It would solve the problems it creates with regards to prostitutes being harmed - for there wouldn't be any.
This desire to have sex is endangering the lives of these people.The desire to have sex in a nightclub endangers people too. But it is not a reason to prohibit it!
The prositiutes have a right to make an informed choice as to what they want to do. If that includes putting themselves at risk, so be it.
People put themselves at risk playing sports. People put themselves at risk mountaineering, bunjee jumping, parachuting
getting tatooes, body piercings etc.
Therefore is it wrong to put yourself in any unnessacry danger?
None of the above are unaviodable activities! But we let people choose.

Which one of the activities you listed endanger other peoples lives aswell.

Originally posted by Xterminator
* It will limit the spread of STD's by taking infected prostitutes out of circulation
This goes entirely against the previous point. This is the most sickening argument I have seen for prostitution, for it shows the highest order of lack of respect for human life so far.
The prostitutes engage in an activity that puts them at risk of becoming infected with potentially lethal infections and diseases. When they get infected, what happens then?
They are removed from the herd.
Well here again is danger and choice. If a prostitute follow safe practices, is checked regularly fo disease by her doctor, and pays into a medical fund to cover expenses etc, she can be said to be operating in good faith.

Read bonkey's post as to how the cost would be unreasonable.

Also, HIV (as an example) is undetectable, but transmissable, for 3 months after infection.

Originally posted by Xterminator
Not carelessly or deliberatley spreading disease.
When you engage in sex, that is not lifelong monogamous (either paid or 'free' ) you accept these risks.
It could be enforced that a punter might have to sign a disclaimer before gettiing it on with a prostitute.

Which would lead to the following situation

Originally posted by Xterminator
When the prositiute contracts a disease, she should be suspended until she is healthy again. If it is incurable, she will have to find other employment, like a non paid victim of STD's etc.

Hi, you're infected with an incurable STD! Now f*** off!

Nice to see you so caring.

Originally posted by Xterminator
If as a punter you get stung (excuse the pun), by a prostitute acting in good faith, tough. You took a risk, and you got hurt.

Or, we could get rid of prostitution and this wouldn't be a problem. And what about infection of partners? Say if a guy catches an STD from a prostitute, then infects his wife. Should she accept the risk he took?

Originally posted by Xterminator
Entirely your opinion. Good stuff, thanks for sharing it.

No problem. I'd appreciate you reading and thinking about this post before replying to it.

chernobyl

I sell my body every day in a socially "acceptable" way, prostitution is illegal because the church deems it so and has alot to do with our stupid laws, its my husk and selling it for sex is not wrong, no one is hurt directly so its not a crime.
People place far too high a value on sex, its vital but not sacred.

amp

I think Typedef and JustHalf are right. Now that the catholic churchs influence is sadly on the decline in this country we are seeing Ireland become a haven for depravity and non-right thinking views.

If we don't fight this moral decline then soon we might end up like The Netherlands! A country that is going straight to hell! Surely it is only a matter of time before God sends a flood or a plague of locusts to destroy this modern day Sodom and Gommora.

C'mon people, fight this so-called liberalism and keep Ireland a safe, morally sound, right thinking place!

chernobyl

Originally posted by amp
it is only a matter of time before God sends a flood or a plague of locusts to destroy this modern day Sodom and Gommora.

Yeah.... you had to start with the GOD BS.

amp

Originally posted by chernobyl



Yeah.... you had to start with the GOD BS.

You have a problem with our Lord and Saviour? You see, this is the problem. More and more young people are rejecting the Lord and his teachings. That's what's wrong with this country.

If some people had their way, all drugs would be legal and then Godless fiends would sell heroin to kids in classrooms, prostitution would be legal and 8 year olds would be corrupted by Godless women. All foriegners would be let in with there Godless non right-thinking ways. People would have sex just for "pleasure" and not while married or to have children! And then abortion would become a hobby of the sick and depraved!

Let Jesus into your heart.

chernobyl

I dont reject GOD, i dont believe it even exists and i find it insulting to my intelligence to be asked to believe in something based entirely on no facts and a book full of exaggeration.

The last time i did so, he was called santa claus and i consider it a lesson learned.

amp

My child, you are confused. You see, faith can help you through the struggle. Santa is not God, but the capitalising and demoralising of a Christian saint.

God be with you.

Kalina

I realise that there are both male and female prostitute but there is probably a far greater number of female prostitutes than male. I just don't think that somebody (male or female) would want a career as a prostitute when there are so many other things they could do with their lives.

swiss

There are many good reasons against the legalisation of prostitution. JustHalf summed them up nicely here (though I'm certain there are more reasons)

Prostitution is degrading to all concerned. Both parties put themselves in danger of illness and/or death; for either a brief moment of minor physical pleasure, or money. The prostitute is not seen of a person, but a tool for relief for a desire. Prostitution is uneccesary and undesirable. It reinforces the idea that people are but things. Prostitute-goers use people in the purest form of using

I would agree with many of the sentiments echoed here, but I still do not believe that this is sufficient reason to make it illegal.

Prostitution is degrading to all concerned

This really depends, IMO, on whether the people involved feel degraded through acts of prostitution or not. You might say that a profession that involves menial work is degrading, yet if the people involved make a good living and are happy to do the work, I would not say that they are in any way degraded. The menial work allows them a living, a means to a more financially sound future.

Replace the words 'menial work' with 'prostitution' in the last paragraph.

Both parties put themselves in danger of illness and/or death

This is indisputably true. Prostitutes and clients alike are both in danger of contracting dangerous STD's by engaging in consensual sex. If this is reason enough to veto attempts to legalise prostitution, then assuming that the people involved are aware of the risks, this would be a precedent to ban all kinds of dangerous activities, such as the ones Xterminator mentioned. The reason you don't draw a parallel between the two is because..

Say if a guy catches an STD from a prostitute, then infects his wife. Should she accept the risk he took? [/i]

.. you argue that people who engage in consensual sex, aware of the risks place in danger others (who are hence victims). While I accept the validity of this argument, those same people are those who are put at risk if a partner chooses to engage in promiscuous sex (which is legal - albeit morally defunct) unbeknownst to them. People should not go to prostitutes if they want a stable relationship.

Prostitute-goers use people in the purest form of using

I would say that the "using" is a two way process. The client gets his/her sexual satisfaction, and for a brief service, the prostitute gets paid a sum of money. Both 'use' the other party to get something they want.

Let Jesus into your heart.

Amen, amp (oh wait I'm an atheist)

JustHalf

I'm surprised you took apart the section clearly titled "My opinion" as opposed to the other sections. It was intended as giving my opinion, not exposing flaws in other peoples' arguments -- this job was performed by the other sections. Therefore, the word "degrading" needs to be seen in that context.

That said, it was clearly stated that it was from another board, so I suppose you can't really pick apart the other parts of my post.

Personally, I don't think we should legalise a commercial activity that could have a dramatic effect on public health, and not just on those directly involved. Particularly in the light of the current syphilis epidemic.

I also believe we should be going round to schools and hitting kids over the head until they realise that:

* If you're a male, PUT A CONDOM ON
* The pill is not a protection against STD's
* If you're going to take the Morning After Pill, don't start taking it at a crazy pace (I've heard of people using 3 in ONE WEEK!)

amp

Yes keep prostitution illegal, that way we don't have to think about it. Cos if it's illegal, it doesn't happen and thus people won't get venereal diseases. Look at the devils playground, the Netherlands where it is legal. They're practically wiped out with all the diseases.

Sure if it was legal there'd be all the hassle of licensing brotherals and random health checks. Much safer to have kerb crawlers and houses in estates.

Praise Jebus.

Dustaz

Originally posted by Typedef
Why are the majority of people referring to prostitues as 'her'? I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but there are areas in the Phoenix park that you can get male hooker or prostitutes in, for whatever kind of homo/hetro sexual relations you would desire 'I presume'.
It seems typical of the partiarchial world that the issue of male prostitution would be delibrately/conviently forgotten about.

I think most people are not too bothered about being too politically correct and rightly recognise that the vast majority of prostitutes are women. I presume you know its not just the phoenix park?

I would bet that the idea of allowing 16 year old boys of a 'working' and of an age where consentual sex is permitted becoming male prostitutes does not sit too well with most of the guys who would read this thread.

What mills said. When reading this thread i assumed we were talking about at least 21 year olds. Seeing as it would be regulated i would guess that would be the age that would be set. There would still be illegal prostitutes of younger ages of course, but legal or illegal that isnt going change.

Perhaps those fellas hooking do if for pleasure, perhaps they do it for money or a whole host of reasons, still I find it strange that people would 'assume' prostitution is the vestage of the female.
It is the case I believe that people who extoll the virtues of legalisation more than likely assume hetrosexual male-female relations as the pertinant instance, but there should be no distinction in a true society based on individual choice now should there?

No, your just trolling now. Continue to score points with political correctness all you want, but just because most people use female examples does not mean they are ignoring male prostitutes.
Have you made any relevant points yet or are you content just to nitpick others points?

Dustaz

Originally posted by Xterminator and Justhalf
People put themselves at risk playing sports. People put themselves at risk mountaineering, bunjee jumping, parachuting
getting tatooes, body piercings etc.
Therefore is it wrong to put yourself in any unnessacry danger?
None of the above are unaviodable activities! But we let people choose.

---

Which one of the activities you listed endanger other peoples lives aswell.

Getting a Tattoo puts the lives of other people at risk. There is risk of contracting HIV which can then be passed on to others.
Of course this risk is infitismal, due in no small part to the fact that tattoo parlours are regulated.

Prostitution is degrading to all concerned. Both parties put themselves in danger of illness and/or death; for either a brief moment of minor physical pleasure, or money. The prostitute is not seen of a person, but a tool for relief for a desire. Prostitution is uneccesary and undesirable. It reinforces the idea that people are but things. Prostitute-goers use people in the purest form of using.

That might be your opionion but it is highly questionable. Prostitution is not intrinisically degrading to either party.

People put their lives at risk all the time, every second of the day, every day of the year since time began for money and/or pleasure. this is not unique to prostitution.

While I wont argue that prostitute goers may view women as objects, a quick look at what actually happens in real life will tell you that people dont have to visit a prostitute to have this attidude.

Typedef

Dustaz:
I think most people are not too bothered about being too politically correct and rightly recognise that the vast majority of prostitutes are women. I presume you know its not just the phoenix park?

Vast majority?
I think not, I think you will find that there are significant and proportionally significant numbers of male prostitues in Dublin city. No you are right the Phoneix Park is not the only place you can find them, but it is probably the most notorious one, especially with a former Attorney General having come into prominance because of his frequenting of that particular spot.

Hetro sexual men typicall assume that prostitution entails man & woman where the man pays the woman for sex, but the reality is that there are vast numbers of male prostitues, it's not a problem with me, I could care less to be honest, but the notion that all prostitues are 'her' is defunct.

Perhaps I will modify what may be construde as an anti-prostitution stance. If the person doing it is not being victimised because of a desperate lack of money into prostitution like for example (not the only example for the analy retentive) when people are forced to sell kidneys for money, then I believe that person should be prohibited from such an act. If someone makes a 'life choice' then I guess that is their choice and I don't care. If that 'life choice' affects adversly my enviroment and living conditions as arguably legalisation in the Netherlands has for the Dutch then I do believe such a choice should be limited.

Myself I don't believe prostitution should be legalised as I think it would in some way encroach on my life, by the kind of hedonistic environment such a legalisation would seem to proport, but if it could be shown to be reasoned, ie no children or people under the age of say 25 (for anal retentive example) would be prohibited from such a 'service industry', if it could more importantly be shown to not be a method for a similar kind of victimisation of human beings (like in the sale of human organs), then I would give a kind of tacit support of such a move, tacit in that I would not argue against it's implementation, but I would in no way, go out of my way to proport such a thing as I am 'unconvinced' in the merits of legalisation.
Typedef

Tiiimme is on my side... yes it is ... tiimme is on my side

Lucy_la_morte

Those results are worrying.

amp

Hey Lucy. a/s/l?