Discussion re decriminalization of prostitution following murder of woman in Limerick

Sex Workers Alliance of Ireland is a group of current and previous sex workers formed to campaign for complete decriminalisation. They argue that women should be their own free economic agents and can use their bodies however they choose. 

The Good Shepherd Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity previously ran the Magdalene Laundries and now run Ruhama. they have nuns sitting on the board. Ruhama’s board of directors have included Sr Sheila Murphy and Sr Bernadette McNally. According to the Irish Times, the Good Shepherd Sisters received more than €14.4 million from the Health Service Executive between 2006 and 2011. More recent funding data was difficult to obtain and nowhere in their website are there any links to their levels of funding.

just a few indisputable facts to preface my observation that catholic dogma states sex is dirty. of course a foundation founded by and run by nuns are not going to endorse decriminalization of sex work, and that they have an inherent bias.

With the Swedish model (a model supported by Ruhama) sex workers are still forced underground and are then vulnerable to criminal elements. But the organization i would give credence to is Sex Workers Alliance of Ireland believe the sex workers would be safer if sex work was decriminalised.  This view is supported by Amnesty International, who in 2015 voted to “adopt a policy that seeks attainment of the highest possible protection of the human rights of sex workers, through measures that include the decriminalisation of sex work”.

Yes OP. Its the pimps and traffickers and exploiters which should be targetted first and foremost.

No, I dont think a guy paying with cash should necessarily be ashamed, its all very dependent on individual contexts. Practically all men end up paying in one way or another eventually.

Those guys who think that theyre not paying after all the dinners and dates, all their time, all the gifts, paying her attention, all the various graft on the chance of some action, need to take stock. Nothings free.

Payment in kind. If I let you live in my mansion, take you out to 5 star dinners, help you get an easy "job", act as your guardian and advisor, drive you around in a fancy car, maybe get you items... am I not paying?

I mean gold is just another currency, if I give you gold earrings ... im basically just handing over currency. Here have a few grams of gold. May as well be a wad of cash.

Of all the types of men in the game the most pitiful are the ones who end up losing half. Thats a sucker. God bless.

And no I never have paid for it with cash.

Ok but some of us just are on an equal footing with the other sex without any of that nonsense

Relationships aren't transactional and if they are its not a relationship.

I bought tickets for a gig recently for myself, my girlfriend and my brother. It was a gift, a nice thing to do but somehow that act makes my partner akin to a prostitute in your book. Even though she is working and paying probably more into our household than I am. Tell me this, am I looking for something from my brother as well or does the view you have just apply to women?

Ok theres no transactional nature in relationships at all.

Thats why women and men are equally eager to get married. And also why both sexes are equally interested in the others salary.

Why is prostitution illegal?

This is a good movie.

Do you think women don't like sex? Does it bother you to have sex with a woman whom you are assuming is hating it.

Gript shilling is still live and well I see.

I do think it should be legalised. It's just never going to happen though is it,

Historically, yes they often were.

In certain wonderful cultures, which many feminists dont ever criticize, they still kind of are.

Here wear a big bag which hides you away. Or else.

Most of my sexual interaction has been at least partly transactional, even if it wasn't obvious up front. As it has been the case for the vast majority of men, to some extent or other, for the vast majority of human history.

I generally took on the traditional duties of a man. If something went bump in the night that would be my job. If it were Valentines it wasn't me receiving gifts and getting brought out. I paid for the meal and hotel. Bins and heavy lifting, small construction jobs. She stayed at my place (I didn't ask for any contribution). I found answers to her various small problems when I could, fixed it so the circumstances change to her benefit. Driver on call, gofor for panadols. Shoulder to cry on. Credit card. Advisor. All these small roles have a value. (they just dont get discussed in an open way).

Thats the tradition for humanity since forever. A man would build the nest and bring home the bacon and scare off whatever needed to be scared off and fix the roof. For which you could calculate the price if you wanted. Lodging+raw foods+protection+menial heavy tasks.

And that would total up to an equivalent of x dollars/pounds at the time.

And the men at the time would be considered to have certain rights to balance the books.

Because, smiles and wholesomeness aside, there was an informal transaction going on. And thats across cultures, classes, and eras to some extent or another.

Payment vs payment in kind. I hope you can grasp the concept.

I wouldn't say they do tbh, certainly not when married.

They use sex for its purpose, to have kids.

In an enormous percentage of marriages both parties are essentially celibate as the lady doesn't see sex as something necessary or pleasant

It was more a comment on your archaic view of women.

"Here I'll buy you that cause you're merely my property"