Should prostitution be legalised? Or what...

Daveysil15 · 30-12-2012 06:17PM

Judging by her previous posts, SwanSky is definitely a troll.

The Corinthian · 30-12-2012 06:28PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Judging by her previous posts, SwanSky is definitely a troll.

Don't think so - I suspect she's for real. Scary innit?

Eliot Rosewater · 30-12-2012 08:15PM

If you suspect someone is trolling report their posts.

ER.

Cathyht · 05-01-2013 05:16AM

I will say firstly I am against prostitution, totally. Objectifying someone to the sum of their body parts, using them in exchange for money, I find this disgusting. I hate the fact that women (and rent boys etc) are in this vulnerable position for whatever reason, and others, for sexual gratification are prepared to pay them for this act.

I don't believe for a minute prostitution prevents men raping. In fact Nicholas Groth, director of Forensic Mental Health Associates during his 25 years practice, formed a typology of rapists. A startling point he discovered over these years was that, contrary to popular rape myths, most of the patients were not sexually deprived, at the time they committed the rape(s).

Finally, in current times where there are so many women (and men) available for no-strings sex, under various euphemisms such as 'fun' F-buddies, etc, I am astonished there could possibly be demand for paid sex. Which brings one to the conclusion that it is the really depraved visiting prostitutes. They need to pay for these acts as they are not performed by the general free and easy spirit. A person paying for sex is paying for control, sadism or depravity, or a cocktail of some or all these. Whether or not they pay for it, it IS abuse and those working in this trade are not safe, they are vulnerable.

iptba · 05-01-2013 05:30AM

Cathyht wrote: »

Finally, in current times where there are so many women (and men) available for no-strings sex, under various euphemisms such as 'fun' F-buddies, etc, I am astonished there could possibly be demand for paid sex. Which brings one to the conclusion that it is the really depraved visiting prostitutes. They need to pay for these acts as they are not performed by the general free and easy spirit. A person paying for sex is paying for control, sadism or depravity, or a cocktail of some or all these.

What about people with disabilities paying for sex - I don't think they necessarily fit those criteria.

Cathyht · 05-01-2013 05:43AM

Lots of people with disabilities have perfectly happy relationships, and don't need to pay for sex.
There are plenty of people without disabilities do not have partners and do not pay for sex.

Objectifying a person is wrong even if you are disabled. Subordinating a vulnerable person and paying them for the joy of it has to be one of the UNsexiest things imaginable. Prostitution is a dis-service to each individual involved, and teaches people to abuse and mistreat each other. When you see, overall the suffering, vulnerability and dysfunction in the prostitute's life, it is not right to stand by and pretend this is a job. It is criminal to treat a human being with such disrespect, to allow them abuse themselves like that. We don't ALLOW anorexics to starve themselves, or teenagers to cut themselves, equally it is wrong to allow prostitution, even if the person (in their dysfunction) allows it. Or is forced to allow it.

Procrastastudy · 05-01-2013 11:11AM

Cathyht wrote: »

Lots of people with disabilities have perfectly happy relationships, and don't need to pay for sex.
There are plenty of people without disabilities do not have partners and do not pay for sex.

Objectifying a person is wrong even if you are disabled. Subordinating a vulnerable person and paying them for the joy of it has to be one of the UNsexiest things imaginable. Prostitution is a dis-service to each individual involved, and teaches people to abuse and mistreat each other. When you see, overall the suffering, vulnerability and dysfunction in the prostitute's life, it is not right to stand by and pretend this is a job. It is criminal to treat a human being with such disrespect, to allow them abuse themselves like that. We don't ALLOW anorexics to starve themselves, or teenagers to cut themselves, equally it is wrong to allow prostitution, even if the person (in their dysfunction) allows it. Or is forced to allow it.

I find there is as much objectifying going on by people at your end of the spectrum as there is at mine. There are a fair few women that work in the sex industry in England that would object to being called vulnerable and dysfunctional - they are anything but. They enjoy their jobs, work short hours and are their own bosses.

They are the lucky ones in a profession that does indeed have vulnerable people trafficked into it. That isn't stopped, indeed it is helped, by making prostitution illegal. When has making something illegal ever stopped it? Indeed going further; when has prohibition ever made a situation better?

Daveysil15 · 05-01-2013 03:04PM

Cathyht wrote: »

It is criminal to treat a human being with such disrespect, to allow them abuse themselves like that. We don't ALLOW anorexics to starve themselves, or teenagers to cut themselves, equally it is wrong to allow prostitution, even if the person (in their dysfunction) allows it. Or is forced to allow it.

You either respect people or you don't. Is it so inconceivable that a person could treat a sex worker with the same courtesy they would treat any other professional? Not all prostitutes are victims and not all people who use their services are depraved. The situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Cathyht · 05-01-2013 03:25PM

Yes, actually, I believe it is inconceivable that a people generally treat a sex worker with the same courtesy they would treat any other professional.

Unfortunately they attract attacks, they are subjected to abuse which passes as part and parcel of their job, they are not treated with any respect. It is a dangerous, seedy world they inhabit. Most people in prostitution are not enjoying a glittering career of choice. For the vast majority it is a result of poverty, drug abuse or incredible vulnerability. We must treat the disease which is the majority of this seedy abused sector. Not the individuals, but the whole cancer prostitution is on decency and respect for another.
It is not right in a so called civilized society to allow this continue, I have no problem targeting those who would pay for sex, using money to take advantage of these people.

Making something illegal certainly reduces it. How many people would tax their cars if the Guards turned a blind eye, but you get caught enough times without your tax by a traffic warden or Guard and there is a fine, or failing that, court appearance. You will pay your tax. Speeding is illegal, even in those ridiculous dual carriageway 50km zones, you lose your licence if you keep breaking the speed limit. There are many examples of making things illegal where you can be sure the incidence is a tiny fraction now of what it would be if the legislation were changed.

I don't understand the argument, Oh since when has making something illegal stopped it. It may not stop all the people all the time, but the understanding is accepted you don't do it without legal consequences, and by and large people don't.

Daveysil15 · 05-01-2013 03:37PM

Cathyht wrote: »

Unfortunately they attract attacks, they are subjected to abuse which passes as part and parcel of their job, they are not treated with any respect. It is a dangerous, seedy world they inhabit. Most people in prostitution are not enjoying a glittering career of choice. For the vast majority it is a result of poverty, drug abuse or incredible vulnerability.

Are you trying to say all prostitutes are subjected to the things you've described? I don't think prostitution in itself is wrong, each person brings to it what they will. People are exploited in all sorts of jobs. Trafficking and prostitution are two different things. We need to get rid of the pimps and traffickers, not target the people who are paying for sex. Why should a mutual act between two consenting adults be legal for one person and not for the other?

Procrastastudy · 05-01-2013 03:39PM

Cathyht wrote: »

Yes, actually, I believe it is inconceivable that a people generally treat a sex worker with the same courtesy they would treat any other professional.

Unfortunately they attract attacks, they are subjected to abuse which passes as part and parcel of their job, they are not treated with any respect. It is a dangerous, seedy world they inhabit. Most people in prostitution are not enjoying a glittering career of choice. For the vast majority it is a result of poverty, drug abuse or incredible vulnerability. We must treat the disease which is the majority of this seedy abused sector. Not the individuals, but the whole cancer prostitution is on decency and respect for another.
It is not right in a so called civilized society to allow this continue, I have no problem targeting those who would pay for sex, using money to take advantage of these people.

Making something illegal certainly reduces it. How many people would tax their cars if the Guards turned a blind eye, but you get caught enough times without your tax by a traffic warden or Guard and there is a fine, or failing that, court appearance. You will pay your tax. Speeding is illegal, even in those ridiculous dual carriageway 50km zones, you lose your licence if you keep breaking the speed limit. There are many examples of making things illegal where you can be sure the incidence is a tiny fraction now of what it would be if the legislation were changed.

I don't understand the argument, Oh since when has making something illegal stopped it. It may not stop all the people all the time, but the understanding is accepted you don't do it without legal consequences, and by and large people don't.

You expose the fallacy of your own logic. My wife drove from Kilkenny to Dublin yesterday, she broke the speed limit on a number of occasions. She was not caught.

The majority of drug deals go undetected. What happens by making it illegal though is the risk to reward ratio is massively increased.

Prohibition of Alcohol - failed
Prohibition of Gambling - failed
Prohibition of Narcotics - failed

All with disastrous results. You don't tackle something by forcing it underground you just make it worse.

Retail staff are subjected to attacks on a regular basis - should we ban shops?

Cathyht · 05-01-2013 03:44PM

But she knew she was breaking it, she was aware of the limit, she then chose to break it, more than likely at a lower speed than if there were NO limit. This is different to people driving whatever way they want. There are still constraints.

It has been shown in Australia that legalising prostitution made the situation worse.

Criminalising prostitution and charging those who use them has proved effective in Sweden.

I still prefer to live in a society where narcotics and prostitution are illegal.

Procrastastudy · 05-01-2013 03:50PM

Cathyht wrote: »

But she knew she was breaking it, she was aware of the limit, she then chose to break it, more than likely at a lower speed than if there were NO limit. This is different to people driving whatever way they want. There are still constraints.

Nope she is a very careful driver she just tipped over - she generally drives under the speed limits - regulates her own behaviour. You're asserting because something is illegal people will get caught. They wont.

Cathyht wrote: »

It has been shown in Australia that legalising prostitution made the situation worse.

Criminalising prostitution and charging those who use them has proved effective in Sweden.

I'll think you'll find that opinion is pretty divided on the subject, neither approach has proved successful.

Cathyht wrote: »

I still prefer to live in a society where narcotics and prostitution are illegal.

That's your right of course - I'd ban smoking in public places, maintain the abortion ban and legalise all drugs except heroin which I would give away in clinics - none of that makes the opinion informed, that of the majority or indeed the right thing to do.

Daveysil15 · 05-01-2013 04:06PM

Swedish police stats show more, not less prostitution and trafficking. A lot of the sex workers there are not happy with the law either. Many work in such unsavoury jobs because they're very, very short of other options in their lives. Using the force of the law to drive away a large proportion of their customers doesn't change whatever life circumstances have led them to this point. All it does is to limit their already limited options even further. They still need to earn the money, but they have fewer clients to pick and choose from. That means they may be more likely to feel their only option is to accept unpleasant clients.

iptba · 05-01-2013 04:56PM

Cathyht wrote: »

Lots of people with disabilities have perfectly happy relationships, and don't need to pay for sex.
There are plenty of people without disabilities do not have partners and do not pay for sex.

That may well be the case.

But what you argued was:

Cathyht wrote:

Finally, in current times where there are so many women (and men) available for no-strings sex, under various euphemisms such as 'fun' F-buddies, etc, I am astonished there could possibly be demand for paid sex. Which brings one to the conclusion that it is the really depraved visiting prostitutes. They need to pay for these acts as they are not performed by the general free and easy spirit. A person paying for sex is paying for control, sadism or depravity, or a cocktail of some or all these.

I think plenty of disabled people wouldn't have 'fun' F-buddies, etc, so one can't assume that they are thus really depraved for visiting prostitutes, etc (using your "logic"). (BTW, I also read that some disabled women also avail of such services).

Probably plenty of other people in society don't have 'fun' F-buddies, either.

The Corinthian · 05-01-2013 05:33PM

Cathyht wrote: »

Finally, in current times where there are so many women (and men) available for no-strings sex, under various euphemisms such as 'fun' F-buddies, etc, I am astonished there could possibly be demand for paid sex.

If you're single, attractive and have a modicum of charm and self assuredness, have enough free time to find a woman willing to enter such an arrangement, are not trapped in a sexless marriage and have no health of disability issues - then sure, I can't imagine anyone from such a demographic needing a prostitute.

Being honest, this is probably the reason the thought of going to a prostitute has never entered my own head. But beyond that, in the Real World, I suspect your NSA solution is a little unrealistic for many.

Cathyht wrote: »

Yes, actually, I believe it is inconceivable that a people generally treat a sex worker with the same courtesy they would treat any other professional.

I agree that the treatment of anyone in the sex industry is appalling. Imagine someone did typesetting for a pornographic magazine, or just happened to work in a sex shop at the counter; strangely enough where they work is something that's unlikely to be revealed on the first date with someone.

Why? As with opposition to prostitution, opposition to the sex industry in general tends to be a modern incarnation of Victorian, middle class, puritanism. We've no problem letting some poor sod wade waste deep in sewage in pursuit of their job, or give an incontinent geriatric a sponge bath, but the moment sex is involved, then that's when it's suddenly degrading enough to act on. Odd that.

Wouldn't it be better if we worked on this prejudice, rather than reinforce it?

Most people in prostitution are not enjoying a glittering career of choice. For the vast majority it is a result of poverty, drug abuse or incredible vulnerability.

Someone's got to dig ditches.

By this I mean that there are numerous occupations in the World that are not a glittering career of choice - most, probably. Also many people end up in degrading jobs, or turning to crime, as a result of poverty, drug abuse or "incredible vulnerability" (is this a generic 'victim' label?).

And there are numerous occupations in the World that are degrading, dangerous and downright unpleasant. Perhaps we should criminalize all of those?

And finally, you say "most people in prostitution are not enjoying a glittering career of choice" - are you conceding that some are? If so, what of them?

Making something illegal certainly reduces it.

Yes, but it can also make it worse - a lot worse. The classic example of this was the American prohibition period, which decreased alcohol consumption overall, but spawned such an increase in organized crime and dangerous bootleg alcohol, that eventually it was abandoned as a law.

Cathyht wrote: »

Criminalising prostitution and charging those who use them has proved effective in Sweden.

Actually that's open for debate. What's been found there is that it has simply shifted off the streets and on-line, becoming more underground and secretive.

iptba · 05-01-2013 06:28PM

I've never used a prostitute and haven't read or seen much about what happens in reality, but found the following item of interest when I happened to come across it on the Psychology Today site yesterday:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/are-all-women-essentially-prostitutes

This is the author quoting from a prostitute who wrote to them

This [my distinction between prostitutes and "ordinary women"] presumes that prostitutes are fundamentally different from what I call "amateurs," which we aren't; your assumption seems to be based on the fallacies that 1) prostitutes provide a consistent level of service no matter how we're treated; and 2) to a man, all sex is good sex. While the second statement may certainly be true of some men, especially those who patronize streetwalkers, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination true of most; the average client of a $300/hour hooker (which was exactly what I charged) wants a good, quality "girlfriend experience" (GFE), which will be much more likely if he treats his "date" like a lady. Most escorts who are treated as though they're "bought and paid for" will try to complete the act as quickly as possible and get such a client out the door. Furthermore, in my experience, the typical client enjoys the illusion that a beautiful woman wants to spend time with him, even if he intellectually knows she is there for the money. I guarantee you that the majority of my clients tried their utmost to impress me, even to the point of bringing me gifts, flowers, and the like.

Daveysil15 · 05-01-2013 06:38PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you're single, attractive and have a modicum of charm and self assuredness, have enough free time to find a woman willing to enter such an arrangement, are not trapped in a sexless marriage and have no health of disability issues - then sure, I can't imagine anyone from such a demographic needing a prostitute.

I’m sure there are even people within that demographic who use prostitutes. Some premiership footballers have used prostitutes - maybe because they’d be less likely to sell their stories to the tabloids. Others may just like variety or have a particular fetish or fantasy they’d like to try.

And while there is a stigma associated with paying for sex, there’s also a stigma associated with going out and looking for casual sex through the conventional routes, that is if the women are not interested in the same thing, in which case the man is often labelled a creep.

Cathyht · 06-01-2013 07:29AM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Nope she is a very careful driver she just tipped over - she generally drives under the speed limits - regulates her own behaviour. You're asserting because something is illegal people will get caught. They wont.

.

She may not get caught each time she breaks the law, but the probability rises each time she does speed. Or she could be unlucky enough to be caught the only time she breaks the speed limit. I drove about 200 miles adhering conscientiously to the speed limit, yet at a badly sign posted 50 km zone I was caught speeding on a dual carriageway. I got my points in the post a few days ago, which will last 3 years from the 23rd of January. The fact you are even mentioning her speeding/tipping over the limit, means you are both aware of the limit. You may find she self regulates a little differently when she has accrued 2 or 4 penalty points.

Whether you admit it or not, the law is affecting her driving behaviour. It is the funniest debate, I've ever heard, a little childish, to say she drives completely self regulatory, yet you are both well aware of when she went over the limit :cool:. Just like peppering what you say with 'the fallacy of your logic' does not point out fallacy in my logic. The term is not being used in the correct context to best serve your debate. Happy driving!!!

Procrastastudy · 06-01-2013 11:52AM

Cathyht wrote: »

She may not get caught each time she breaks the law, but the probability rises each time she does speed. Or she could be unlucky enough to be caught the only time she breaks the speed limit. I drove about 200 miles adhering conscientiously to the speed limit, yet at a badly sign posted 50 km zone I was caught speeding on a dual carriageway. I got my points in the post a few days ago, which will last 3 years from the 23rd of January. The fact you are even mentioning her speeding/tipping over the limit, means you are both aware of the limit. You may find she self regulates a little differently when she has accrued 2 or 4 penalty points.

Whether you admit it or not, the law is affecting her driving behaviour. It is the funniest debate, I've ever heard, a little childish, to say she drives completely self regulatory, yet you are both well aware of when she went over the limit :cool:. Just like peppering what you say with 'the fallacy of your logic' does not point out fallacy in my logic. The term is not being used in the correct context to best serve your debate. Happy driving!!!

Glad you enjoyed it. I do have to admit yes our debate is a bit childish, you are ignoring basic facts when put in-front of you like a child that won't eat their greens.

Attacking each other aside I'm still waiting for you to answer any of the points raised by myself or the majority of posters in this thread. Sweden has been pretty much debunked, which seems to be your only concrete point.

How does making something illegal and forcing it underground help? As we've pointed out the majority of times crime goes undetected. The black market model simply encourages more of what you, and most posters, here want to combat. I assume you have some moral, rather than logical objection? That's fair enough but at least be clear about it.

The Corinthian · 06-01-2013 12:14PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I’m sure there are even people within that demographic who use prostitutes.

Naturally. However, I was simply responding to the ridiculous assertion that f*ckbuddies have rendered prostitution obsolete for everyone in society.

iptba · 27-01-2013 04:35PM

The minutes of hearings of this committee can be read in considerable detail here:

Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality - 16/Jan/2013 Table of Contents (http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/JUJ2013011600001?opendocument)

and here:

Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality - 23/Jan/2013 Table of Contents (http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/JUJ2013012300001?opendocument

31-01-2013 11:40PM

iptba wrote: »

The minutes of hearings of this committee can be read in considerable detail here:

Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality - 16/Jan/2013 Table of Contents (http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/JUJ2013011600001?opendocument)

and here:

Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality - 23/Jan/2013 Table of Contents (http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/JUJ2013012300001?opendocument

Very interesting stuff there iptba, thanks for that. Just finished reading the first debate there. What I've read is somewhat disturbing however- while it is obviously difficult to interpret everything just from reading transcripts (and thus lacking an insight into important aspects such as tone of voice and body language etc), it seems the committee had already arrived at a preconceived verdict and were simply going through the motions to make it seems like there was a semblance of public consultation. Look at the grilling and hostility Dr. Whitaker faced compared to the pro-prohibition speakers. Dr Whitaker to her credit responded calmly and coherently and plainly laid out the facts and figures (i.e increase in trafficking in Sweden, success of policies in NZ, failure of policies in Norway) on prostitution for all to see- and correctly came to the conclusion that legal and regulated is the best solution.

The first speaker provided a practically stat-free facile analysis where she attempted to draw a tenuous link between violence against women and prostitution she got off very lightly in terms of questioning.

One thing I found very disturbing was the proposal by Emma Regan to have an "education" (see- propaganda) campaign in schools relating to prostitution. I am firmly opposed to this kind of indoctrination and social conditioning and any other liberal should be too.

One other incident which was both enjoyable and illuminating was the exchange on page 13:

Senator Katherine Zappone: In terms of the submissions received by the committee there has been criticism of the evaluation conducted by the Swedes into their own legislation, particularly that it lacked scientific rigour. Does Ms O'Connor wish to comment?

Ms Monica O'Connor: I have met Anna Skarhed who is a Supreme Court judge.

Senator Katherine Zappone: She was the author of the evaluation.

Perfectly and succinctly sums up the inaccuracy and intellectual dishonesty of the prohibitionist position.

The Corinthian · 01-02-2013 08:35AM

gaffer91 wrote: »

it seems the committee had already arrived at a preconceived verdict and were simply going through the motions to make it seems like there was a semblance of public consultation.

Be careful, you may monumentality shake iptba's faith in letter writing...

Policy has been pretty much enacted like this, in Ireland, since probably the mid eighties - not that it was more democratic prior to that, of course.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-02-2013 09:47AM

Cathyht wrote: »

Objectifying someone to the sum of their body parts, using them in exchange for money, I find this disgusting.

Even outside the sex industry there are many jobs and roles... in the manual industry, army and more... where essentially all we are doing is using people (and paying them) for the use of their bodies for our own ends in one way or another.

It is only your own hang ups / opinions related to the subject of sex that elevates this one job over the others as one to be worried or concerned about. Or disgusted by.

Many people like yourself have an idea of what sex "should be" or for those of a more theistical bent "is meant to be" for.

There is no objective reason outside those subjective impressions of what this "sexual ideal" is meant to be however to single out sex and not army work, packing boxes on a production line, cleaning their toilets or any other role. In all of them the employer or contractor is paying people to use their bodies in ways that benefits or pleases them or furthers their aims and agendas.

Cathyht wrote: »

I am astonished there could possibly be demand for paid sex.

So what? This is a thread about whether it should be legal or not. Your astonishment is entirely irrelevant to that discussion.

I, for example, am astonished that in a time of easily achieved medical knowledge and readily available facts and figures on the internet that there could possible be demand for cigarettes.

Has my personal astonishment got anything to do with the ethics, morality or legality of the tobacco industry?

Not in the slightest. No.

Just because YOU can not get your head around why people would purchase a product in no way validates the extrapolation that therefore that product must be "abuse, control, sadism or depravity". And how you imagine you would treat a prostitute in no way licenses you to extrapolate that is how all customers do.

This attitude of "If people do not want what I want, the way I want, then they must be sick on some level" is the problem here. Not prostitutes or their customers. Work on it for us please. Society would benefit from a reduction of it.

iptba · 19-05-2013 09:40PM

From today's Sunday Times (only part of the article is free online):

Oireachtas wants to name and shame buyers of sex

The payment of a prostitute for sex will become illegal in Ireland if the government adopts recommendations expected to be agreed by the Oireachtas justice committee on Wednesday.

TDs and senators will make a final decision on proposals for a two-tiered regime of on-the-spot fines and name-and-shame court appearances for those who use prostitutes.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1261624.ece

iptba · 25-01-2014 09:59PM

Prime Time covered it a bit on the show on Tuesday:

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2014/0122/499474-prime-time-tuesday-21st-january-2014/

A campaign to criminalise the men who buy sex is gaining momentum, but will it bring an end to prostitution or simply deny woman a valid choice and put them at further risk?

Watch at: http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2014/0122/499474-prime-time-tuesday-21st-january-2014/#

Sid Fletcher · 21-02-2014 11:47PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26261221

It won't be long until the progressive countries like Germany come under pressure from the prudish proponents of the Swedish model. Encouraging to see the poll results here however.

The Corinthian · 22-02-2014 12:20PM

Sid Fletcher wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26261221

They left out Switzerland and Lichtenstein.

It won't be long until the progressive countries like Germany come under pressure from the prudish proponents of the Swedish model.

German attitudes are more pragmatic and far less moralistic and from what I can see most Germans are pretty much in favour of regulated legal prostitution.

Additionally the Federal and the various Bundeslander governments research and produce reports in the area on a regular basis, which tend to show that while it has it's problems, it's better than the criminalized alternative. In countries where criminalization is being considered, research is almost exclusively being supplied by those campaigning for criminalization, which naturally leads to a severe bias in the debate.

Encouraging to see the poll results here however.

Poll results are irrelevant; who has the better lobby group is what wins things in Ireland. From what I gather, when a panel was set up on it, they excluded sex workers from appearing before it, because they opposed criminalization. I expect it'll get pushed through, in some form or other.

Sid Fletcher · 22-02-2014 06:50PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Poll results are irrelevant; who has the better lobby group is what wins things in Ireland. From what I gather, when a panel was set up on it, they excluded sex workers from appearing before it, because they opposed criminalization. I expect it'll get pushed through, in some form or other.

As soon as Shatter is eventually (and deservedly) removed then the law will be brought in quickly enough unfortunately.

Should prostitution be legalised? Or what...

Comments