"New law could criminalise men for buying sex" (IT)

iptba · 03-01-2011 4:06am #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0103/1224286669821.html

New law could criminalise men for buying sex

CONOR LALLY, Crime Correspondent

THE GOVERNMENT is considering radical new criminal legislation that would shift the Garda’s approach to prostitution by making it illegal for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to sell it.

The legislation would put the Garda’s emphasis on prosecuting male clients rather than targeting women working as prostitutes.

I'm sure loads of men will welcome this law for one reason or another but I won't be one of them.

I have never used a prostitude nor have I plans to use one.

But I recall seeing cases of women in a region having a "sex ban" to force the men in the community to do something or other. It effectively can/could mean women have all the power. A question of supply and demand - if there is a monopoly on the supply, the price can be set very high. Prostitution may stop this monopoly to an extent. Or another way of putting it is that one could have a women-controlled state, where men are slaves because women institute sex bans until they get what they want. All dramatic sounding I know. And I'm sure lots of PC men will revel in disagreeing and feel all superior. But that's the beauty of the internet - one can express non-PC views.

Unfortunately politicians can't afford to not be PC so I imagine this will probably go through.

I'm not even sure if many people would write in to newspapers to complain?

Part of my reasoning is that I'm not convinced every woman is forced to do it. It might not have been her first career choice but lots of people including lots of men do jobs that wouldn't be their career choice. I certainly wouldn't want to work a mile underground in a mine in dangerous conditions for example. On a more mundane level, not many children (or their parents) would hope they would grow up to clean toilets for a living or whatever.

Josh_Calvert · 03-01-2011 5:36am

this so so stupid....can we not move into the real world in the 21st century instead of turning ireland even more into a feminazi playground...

amacachi · 03-01-2011 5:38am

Feck all to do with feminism, maybe a tiny branch of it that believes that sex is evil.

But yeah, great to know that there'll be a few thousand hours spent on drafting this ridiculous legislation.

FruitLover · 03-01-2011 5:44am

making it illegal for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to sell it

I'm curious as to how this makes any sense at all. Seems kind of like making it illegal to buy ganja, but not illegal to sell it

Dj Stiggie · 03-01-2011 5:49am

FruitLover wrote: »

I'm curious as to how this makes any sense at all. Seems kind of like making it illegal to buy ganja, but not illegal to sell it

That's basically it. If you knew it was illegal to buy weed but there was no risk for the dealer, you wouldn't be so quick to buy it.

The same applies for sex. If a man is risking prosecution for paying a woman to have sex with him, rather than the prostitute taking the risk, he would be more inclined to think twice.

amacachi · 03-01-2011 5:54am

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

That's basically it. If you knew it was illegal to buy weed but there was no risk for the dealer, you wouldn't be so quick to buy it.

The same applies for sex. If a man is risking prosecution for paying a woman to have sex with him, rather than the prostitute taking the risk, he would be more inclined to think twice.

Aye, the principle of trying to stifle demand has been shown over and over again to be an effective way to enforce the prohibition of something.

minidazzler · 03-01-2011 5:59am

Hmm, this article stinks of sh1te TBH.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern has asked Attorney General Paul Gallagher to examine a report on similar laws introduced in Sweden that target male clients and have halved street prostitution over 10 years.

The Internet has halved street prostitution, not their law, since the internet has become more widespread this kind of thing was inevitable.

Personally, I don't see a good reason to have prostitution illegal, but that's just me. Of course it shouldn't be legal to be a pimp, forcing women into prostitution, but if they want to do it then who are the government to judge morals.

Keep the status quo, curb crawling is more sleasy anyway.

jill_valentine · 03-01-2011 6:00am

If I may interject - I think the idea is that if the burden of criminality is shifted onto the client rather than the prostitute, then a) it will reduce the demand, and b) it will make prostitutes themselves a little bit less hostile to the Guards generally; in theory, making life that little bit safer for the women themselves.

Ideally, I'd like to see prostitution legalised and regulated, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, so long as any of the Parnell Street Stringfellows Prayer Brigade are still rattling around, but as it is, I can see the reasoning behind this move.

deirdre_dub · 03-01-2011 12:09pm

making it illegal for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to sell it.

Good news for male prostitutes, I guess? Good grief, if they want to tackle prostitution, then they should tackle prostitution, and not just the male clients of prostitution.

Men would no longer have to be caught soliciting or kerb crawling. Women could still be prosecuted for soliciting but not for the sale of sex.

As a way for combatting male clients of prostitution, I say "fair enough". As a way of combatting prostitution, it is obviously combatting only a part of the problem it claims it is combatting - namely that part where the male is the client and the female is the prostitute. As for whether prostitution should be combatted in the first place - that is another question.

Giselle · 03-01-2011 12:39pm

If its not illegal for a woman to sell sex, then a sex worker can report any abuse to the police without fear of prosecution, making the work safer for the women.

Maguined · 03-01-2011 1:10pm

But the entire point is that they don't want women selling sex? It seems ridiculous and obvious to me that if an act requires two consenting adults and you want to criminalise only one side of the consenting adults you are being discriminatory and biased.

Aswerty · 03-01-2011 1:21pm

Maguined wrote: »

But the entire point is that they don't want women selling sex? It seems ridiculous and obvious to me that if an act requires two consenting adults and you want to criminalise only one side of the consenting adults you are being discriminatory and biased.

This is very much the reason I don't like the sound of this legislation. It appears to just be one more case of "positive" discrimination.

Giselle wrote:

If its not illegal for a woman to sell sex, then a sex worker can report any abuse to the police without fear of prosecution, making the work safer for the women.

Considering it's not currently illegal to sell sex, surely this should already be the case. It obviously isn't though. This is because the problem with prostitution is human trafficking and endemic drug abuse and not the act itself.

Scanlas The 2nd · 03-01-2011 1:56pm

The diamond industry in Ireland won't be happy about this.

Mike 1972 · 03-01-2011 2:10pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Good news for male prostitutes, I guess? .

If this legislation works in the way that the original article suggest surely its going to be struck down on gender discrimination grounds.

03-01-2011 2:21pm

Just so we're clear: In the case of two consenting adults, if a man pays a woman for sex, and the woman robs and/or assaults him, he has no option to go to the Gardaí? Isn't that the exact problem that they're trying to eliminate, that a victim doesn't receive protection from the law?

If they want to make it safe for the people involved, then legalise it (in more than just name) and regulate it

PCPhoto · 03-01-2011 2:54pm

28064212 wrote: »

Just so we're clear: In the case of two consenting adults, if a man pays a woman for sex, and the woman robs and/or assaults him, he has no option to go to the Gardaí? Isn't that the exact problem that they're trying to eliminate, that a victim doesn't receive protection from the law?

If they want to make it safe for the people involved, then legalise it (in more than just name) and regulate it

I dont want to be part of the PC brigade - but what choice is there if he robs or assaults the woman (its a cash business so they should have a fair amount of money nearby...at least I dont think they accept credit cards - do they? )

for me - like all these new laws and regulation - enforcement is the key, we need extra gardai on the streets enforcing the laws that exist - not just picking and choosing some of them and enforcing them at different times of the year, we all know that theres a "clampdown" on drink driving around bank holidays and public holidays....how about doing it constantly ....and at times when people are more likely to drink-drive.....11pm-12am near pubs with large car parks is a start !! rural pubs or pubs difficult to get to...or even pubs where the driver has to go through housing estates to get to them.

03-01-2011 3:07pm

PCPhoto wrote: »

I dont want to be part of the PC brigade - but what choice is there if he robs or assaults the woman (its a cash business so they should have a fair amount of money nearby...at least I dont think they accept credit cards - do they? )

That's my point. The people supporting this law have looked at the current situation, where the prostitute has no recourse to the legal system, and decided a good way to rectify that is to make sure that the client has no recourse to the legal system instead. Either way is equally stupid, which is why I called for legalisation and regulation

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 3:26pm

iptba wrote: »

But I recall seeing cases of women in a region having a "sex ban" to force the men in the community to do something or other. It effectively can/could mean women have all the power. A question of supply and demand - if there is a monopoly on the supply, the price can be set very high. Prostitution may stop this monopoly to an extent. Or another way of putting it is that one could have a women-controlled state, where men are slaves because women institute sex bans until they get what they want. All dramatic sounding I know. And I'm sure lots of PC men will revel in disagreeing and feel all superior. But that's the beauty of the internet - one can express non-PC views.

Puerile nonsense. Women hold the power when it comes to sex? I have news for you: women want sex just as much as men, and in normal loving relationships don't withhold it. If your partner is withholding sex then it behoves you to find out what's wrong in the relationship, not to seek it elsewhere.

I'd also imagine that, despite popular perceptions, men don't seek out prostitutes at the first sign of lack of sex in their relationships.

iptba · 03-01-2011 3:56pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

I have news for you: women want sex just as much as men

Lots of people, both men and women, would not be convinced by a claim that the libidos of men and women are equal on average.

I am not convinced that everyone who agrees with such a statement in such a discussion is being honest. Honesty should probably be the core value of a discussion. People who post or agree with opinions they don't actually hold should question what they've become. I don't know why one should take people seriously in other discussions if they post or agree with messages they don't think to be the truth.

mikom · 03-01-2011 3:58pm

THE GOVERNMENT is considering radical new criminal legislation that would shift the Garda’s approach to prostitution by making it illegal for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to sell it.

Lesbians seeking prostitutes are in the clear though, right.....

jill_valentine · 03-01-2011 4:15pm

Before we go working ourselves into a lather, I would be highly surprised if the law specifies that the client has to be male and the prostitute female. I think that's likely just a weird wording by the Irish Times in an attempt to explain the situation to their gentle readers.

Again, I'd like to see legislation and regulation too, but that's never going to happen with the current generation of aul' wan pleasing politics. Nothing that progressive or radical is ever going to get through the current Irish political system. In the meantime, I think it is better to penalise the client rather than the prostitute because the client is less likely to be acting under any kind of duress, and because tackling the demand side of things is now seen to be quite a bit more effective than trying to cut the head off the hydra.

Finnbar01 · 03-01-2011 4:49pm

If anything this law will force more women to seek out and work for pimps, as men will be too scare and therefore trade will begin to dry up.

Also most of us engage in prostitution in our relationships and marriages.

jill_valentine · 03-01-2011 4:53pm

Um. I'm not sure about that reasoning, no.

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 5:04pm

iptba wrote: »

Honesty should probably be the core value of a discussion.

Are you honestly implying that a lack of prostitutional services will leave men open to being manipulated by women?

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 5:05pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Also most of us engage in prostitution in our relationships and marriages.

Can you unpack that statement? Does it mean (what I think it means) that men in relationships pay, one way or another, for sex within the relationship?

iptba · 03-01-2011 5:08pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you honestly implying that a lack of prostitutional services will leave men open to being manipulated by women?

It appears to me the possibility is there in the future - if society became more matriarchal.

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 5:13pm

iptba wrote: »

It appears to me the possibility is there in the future - if society became more matriarchal.

Can I ask you a straightforward question: what proportion of men engage with prostitutes do you think?

BrianD3 · 03-01-2011 5:14pm

The idea of an organised sex ban and men being "slaves" to their sex drive sounds like the most ridiculous thing ever. I'd imagine if it happened the winners would be the divorce lawyers.

Then again.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8025457.stm

Kenyan women hit men with sex ban

Women's activist groups in Kenya have slapped their partners with a week-long sex ban in protest over the infighting plaguing the national unity government.

The Women's Development Organisation coalition said they would also pay prostitutes to join their strike.

Reward · 03-01-2011 5:28pm

amacachi wrote: »

Feck all to do with feminism, maybe a tiny branch of it that believes that sex is evil.

But yeah, great to know that there'll be a few thousand hours spent on drafting this ridiculous legislation.

Of course they are feminists, the only groups that are anti prostitution are feminist groups and the religious right.

The Swedish system that they are recommending is feminist and if you google a bit for the Dignity Project you will find them associated with anti prostitution feminists from the UK http://www.endprostitutionnow.org/support-the-campaign/our-supporters.aspx

These groups use sex trafficking as a front to criminalise men for using prostitutes.

Finnbar01 · 03-01-2011 5:30pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you unpack that statement? Does it mean (what I think it means) that men in relationships pay, one way or another, for sex within the relationship?

Yes and women too.

Reward · 03-01-2011 6:00pm

These people have no real evidence of a trafficking problem here, there was no evidence found in the UK.

If a woman decides to travel from one country to another to work in the sex trade, she is labelled "trafficked".

No doubt these groups have pornography in their sights too.

"There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons.

In the story of UK sex trafficking, the conclusions of academics who study the sex trade have been subjected to the same treatment as the restrained reports of intelligence analysts who studied Iraqi weapons – stripped of caution, stretched to their most alarming possible meaning and tossed into the public domain. There, they have been picked up by the media who have stretched them even further in stories which have then been treated as reliable sources by politicians, who in turn provided quotes for more misleading stories.

In both cases, the cycle has been driven by political opportunists and interest groups in pursuit of an agenda. In the case of sex trafficking, the role of the neo-conservatives and Iraqi exiles has been played by an unlikely union of evangelical Christians with feminist campaigners, who pursued the trafficking tale to secure their greater goal, not of regime change, but of legal change to abolish all prostitution. The sex trafficking story is a model of misinformation. It began to take shape in the mid 1990s, when the collapse of economies in the old Warsaw Pact countries saw the working flats of London flooded with young women from eastern Europe. Soon, there were rumours and media reports that attached a new word to these women. They had been "trafficked".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 6:37pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Yes and women too.

If both men and women pay, then the payments cancel out? No?

The Corinthian · 03-01-2011 6:39pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you unpack that statement? Does it mean (what I think it means) that men in relationships pay, one way or another, for sex within the relationship?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/housewife-charged-in-sexforsecurity-scam,1773/

Finnbar01 · 03-01-2011 6:43pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

If both men and women pay, then the payments cancel out? No?

We could also say that if a man pays a woman for sex, she then returns sexual favours than both of those things cancel out as well so. No?

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 6:46pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

We could also say that if a man pays a woman for sex, she then returns sexual favours than both of those things cancel out as well so. No?

I'm sure you can. But I thought you were talking about men and women in relationships, no?

Reward · 03-01-2011 6:46pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

If both men and women pay, then the payments cancel out? No?

Its generally women using sex and affection as leverage and relationship cash and asset transfers are for the most part male to female.

I'm not saying that men never withold sex or use it as a reward, but I am saying that its generally women that will do that.

Pherekydes · 03-01-2011 6:50pm

Reward wrote: »

Its generally women using sex and affection as leverage and relationship cash and asset transfers are for the most part male to female.

You could be meeting the wrong type of woman.

Reward · 03-01-2011 6:54pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

You could be meeting the wrong type of woman.

No, using prostitutes regularly can be demonstrably cheaper than an engagement, marriage and divorce. An engagement ring, is what, a e1000 or whatever entry free before a man even signs off on the marriage contract. To use an extreme example, no number of prostitutes would have cost Paul McCartney what his wife charged him.

Clarisse Thorn wrote an interesting piece about it called "Whore stigma makes no sense" she argues that sex for rewards is a fairly common system for women and that stigmatising prostitutes is making a false distinction.

http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2010/12/17/whore-stigma-makes-no-sense/

Mike 1972 · 03-01-2011 7:04pm

Reward wrote: »

No, using prostitutes regularly can be demonstrably cheaper than an engagement, marriage and divorce. An engagement ring, is what, a e1000 or whatever entry free before a man even signs off on the marriage contract.

Think it is overstating the case somewhat to suggest that all marriages(/relationships) are a glorified form of "contract prostitution" although it is undoubtedly the case that quite a few are.

Finnbar01 · 03-01-2011 7:07pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm sure you can. But I thought you were talking about men and women in relationships, no?

What difference does it make whether in a relationship or not? It's the same thing.

jill_valentine · 03-01-2011 7:09pm

*backs out of the thread quietly*

Reward · 03-01-2011 7:19pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Think it is overstating the case somewhat to suggest that all marriages(/relationships) are a glorified form of "contract prostitution" although it is undoubtedly the case that quite a few are.

Not all but most, have you ever heard a woman complain that men are only after sex? We all have, many, many times.
What does that mean if not, "men want sex without paying me for it in some way shape or form". Payment through whats called "commitment" for example, which usually entails cash and asset transfers and other things that are of value, emotional support and so on.

If a man leads a woman to believe that he will provide for her in some way to obtain sex and she has sex with him but he doesn't fulfill his part of the bargain, she feels cheated, why is that?

Is it because she has viewed the sex as something that she will be compensated for in some way shape or form in the future?

What motivated the man to mislead her in order to obtain sex, was it the fact that she had set a price for sex in the first place?

Mike 1972 · 03-01-2011 7:39pm

Reward wrote: »

through whats called "commitment" for example, which usually entails cash and asset transfers and other things that are of value, emotional support and so on.

How does one put a cash value on emotional support ? In any case surely emotional support works (or should work) both ways ?

Reward · 03-01-2011 7:47pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

How does one put a cash value on emotional support ? In any case surely emotional support works (or should work) both ways ?

On going emotional support has a value and its something that women will commonly trade sex for, it should work both ways, but you rarely hear men complaining that they have been cheated out of sex because they weren't significantly paid for it in emotional support but, hearing women complaining that they have been "used for sex", which is just another way of saying not compensated sufficiently in some way shape or form, is very common. They have all sorts of shaming language for men that "use them for sex".

Mike 1972 · 03-01-2011 7:55pm

Reward wrote: »

They have all sorts of shaming language for men that "use them for sex".

While I would to an extent go along with your assertion that the "he used me for sex" line is a heavily overused one Im getting the impression that you have an over cynical view of how relationships work here.

I really find it a bit of a streach that the majority of women (consciously or otherwise) operate some kind of accounting ledger with sex on one side and Cash/Gifts/Services rendered/emotional support/other benefits-in-kind on the other ?

iptba · 03-01-2011 8:06pm

I thought I'd add a poll as a lot of people might prefer:
(i) not to give their opinion publicly,
or
(ii) at least prefer not post in this particular thread,
but might still like to have their say.

Regarding the wording of the poll: one is restricted in the character count - I think I only had two characters left.

I didn't click the option that votes would be visible which is why I have put anon (for anonymous) in front of it. I can't see them any. Perhaps there is a sys admin or somebody on boards.ie that can see but given the traffic on this site, I imagine they're not going to be particularly interested.

ETA: Drat, I think it would be more interesting to have it:

I am male and I would vote in favour
I am male and and I would vote against
I am male and I am unsure

I am female and I would vote in favour
I am female and and I would vote against
I am female and I am unsure

I can't seem to adjust the poll. If a moderator wants to (and there are 10 votes or less at the time), they could do it. If they don't want to, it's not the end of the world. BTW, I'm not looking to stop the poll because it is not going the way I wanted (at this moment in time, there are no votes different to how I voted).

Reward · 03-01-2011 8:08pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

While I would to an extent go along with your assertion that the "he used me for sex" line is a heavily overused one Im getting the impression that you have an over cynical view of how relationships work here.

I really find it a bit of a streach that the majority of women (consciously or otherwise) operate some kind of accounting ledger with sex on one side and Cash/Gifts/Services rendered/emotional support/other benefits-in-kind on the other ?

I'm saying that its so entrenched most of us don't eve realise that its going on. Its not called the worlds oldest profession for nothing. Men are generally the demand, women generally control the supply. The term "giving it away" comes from the assumption that a woman should be charging, women shame and spread rumours about women that "give it away".

Ok, think about this. Men generally make around 20% more taxable income than women yet women are by far the most powerful consumer group, lets exclude buying for the family now, every channel is selling luxury products to women, they spend far more on themselves than you do, the spending gap in the US shows that wives spend x5 more on themselves than their husbands. So how do women have more money to spend and receive more luxury items than men when men out earn them by 20%?

Relationship cash and asset transfer is the answer.

Otis Driftwood · 03-01-2011 8:10pm

This thread is starting to turn into a "women do this,that and the other" rants that have become far too common in tGC of late for my liking.Keep it on the topic at hand,this is the only warning folks.

Reward · 03-01-2011 8:13pm

nedtheshed wrote: »

This thread is starting to turn into a "women do this,that and the other" rants that have become too common in tGC of late for my liking.Keep it on the topic at hand,this is the only warning folks.

I'm generally answering others questions here rather than trying to derail the thread.

Ill also say that when these groups are trying to control and limit the supply of sex (the laws that we are discussing) that its part of sexual economics. Prostitutes offend many women because they undercut them, IMO.

The Corinthian · 03-01-2011 8:20pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

While I would to an extent go along with your assertion that the "he used me for sex" line is a heavily overused one Im getting the impression that you have an over cynical view of how relationships work here.

I really find it a bit of a streach that the majority of women (consciously or otherwise) operate some kind of accounting ledger with sex on one side and Cash/Gifts/Services rendered/emotional support/other benefits-in-kind on the other ?

Call it cynical, but most people operate some kind of accounting ledger where it comes to relationships; we all weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and often when the cons outweigh the pros we end it.

To deny that you would have to be living in a romantic fantasy where you will stay with someone no matter what - doesn't happen in the Real World, I'm afraid.

It is certainly unfair to tar all women as being so mercenary, but it cannot be denied that a man's capacity as a provider is still a factor that women commonly consider when entering a relationship, largely because the role of remaining at home (and being unable to provide for oneself) is still overwhelmingly carried out by women. Traditionally, the trade-off for providing included sex - conjugal rights - to the point that up to only a few years ago rape within marriage was not even legally recognized.

Returning to the OP; I can see the logic in the proposed law, in that it would likely be a more effective means of reducing prostitution and protecting the women working in it.

However, the question has to be asked, who is protecting men? The cohabitation bill was pushed in large part to protect those people (i.e. women) who were most financially vulnerable. The recent paper on parental responsibility proposed giving all fathers 'guardianship', regardless of marital status, then removed even the right to be consulted on decisions regarding their children in favour of the custodial parent (i.e. women). Or who protects the underage boys who may be prosecuted for underage sex with their underage girlfriends, when the latter cannot? And family law still works strongly against men - in particularly in the case of divorce.

Legally men in Ireland now have fewer rights than women. I've repeatedly asked if any law exists at this stage that discriminates against women. Examples of laws that exist that discriminate against men are ridiculously common.

Reward · 03-01-2011 8:25pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is certainly unfair to tar all women as being so mercenary, but it cannot be denied that a man's capacity as a provider is still a factor that women commonly consider when entering a relationship, largely because the role of remaining at home (and being unable to provide for oneself) is still overwhelmingly carried out by women. .

The role of remaining at home is a choice and a privilege thats paid for by the partners work, for example a male friend of mine has not been able find a woman to support him in what he wants to do - be a house husband so he has no choice but to be a wage worker, its not something thats enforced and women are perfectly capable of providing for themselves in todays world.

"New law could criminalise men for buying sex" (IT)

(Anon) In a referendum, would you vote in favour of the law quoted in the 1st post? 117 votes

Comments