RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

gozunda · 02-12-2014 12:47AM

looking_around wrote: »

It's Ireland, we have a welfare system for the unemployed, with fantastic back to school allowance, why can't they?

(assuming they aren't in there for drugs, if they are, that's a different problem, that legalising, having regulations etc would go a long way to sorting out.)

So it is a serious issue then?

looking_around · 02-12-2014 12:49AM

gozunda wrote: »

So it is a serious issue then?

I'm not even going to bother.

~out~

gozunda · 02-12-2014 01:15AM

looking_around wrote: »

I'm not even going to bother.

~out~

No? No stats? I would suggest do some relevant reading on the subject then ...

http://www.drugs.ie/resourcesfiles/research/2009/Druguse_SexWork-Web.pdf

02-12-2014 09:25AM

gozunda wrote: »

Ha ha -seriously you've been reading way too many porn fantasy stories. Nymphos mad to try prostitution, naughty college girls

If that is the spin you want to put on the anecdotes I present - then it is you that has been affected by such stories not me

gozunda wrote: »

There is way too many blokes here patently ignoring the ugly side of the prostitution industry and subsidising their own reality.

If you say so. I am not seeing much of it. Not on this thread. Perhaps more spin from you. Rather I see people who are protesting that legalisation and regulation of the sex industry would specifically deal with much of the "ugly side" that is caused by - or at least heavily fed by - pushing the industry underground and/or peoples general attitudes to people engaged in it.

It is the "anti" side that appears to have an issue with reality. Such as over inflating the existence of trafficking without actual statistics. Or imagining scenarios like women getting "banged" in "all holes" from "multiple partners a night".

As I said - work out your own take home pay - divide it by 150 euro a pop - and work out yourself how many clients an actual woman would need to entertain in order to take home a workable and decent wage.

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 09:39AM

Lmao if that story is true about girls not needing the money yet still wanting to try it out. Some poor fools will put a ring on them.

02-12-2014 09:45AM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lmao if that story is true about girls not needing the money yet still wanting to try it out. Some poor fools will put a ring on them.

I think many people get off on breaking taboos and the like. And being a sex worker is something of a taboo of sorts. Silly house party we had recently enough where we discussed sexual ideas we have all had but never engaged in. The lads ones were boring and standard. Usually threesomes and the like.

The girls ones were eye brow raising. And usually very intricate and thought out relative to anything the guys had come out with. Some of them surprised me a lot - especially when they are totally not fitting with the person they were coming from (like exhibitionism and more coming from the total shyest member of the group).

But yes one of the girls came out with the notion that she would somewhat be into the idea of doing the sex trade for a few weeks - just to see how it would be. And having heard her ideas and reasoning behind it one of the other girls decided she liked the idea and was convinced. Cue half serious joking about me doing the tech and online side of it for them. Never followed it up though.

It is not as shocking as you think. Girls like sex just as much as guys and - if my experience is anything to go by here - engage in more intricate and in depth fantasies than the standard fare of their male counter parts. There are whole websites dedicated to voluntary exhibitionism and on line sex related stuff from women - Newbie Nudes being the one I have seen mentioned on boards a few times for example - and more. I am now not surprised by any of it any more I think as I have been divested of this notion I used to naively have of males being sex fiends who will take sex anywhere they get it - and females being reserved and barely interested in it at all

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 10:08AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think many people get off on breaking taboos and the like. And being a sex worker is something of a taboo of sorts. Silly house party we had recently enough where we discussed sexual ideas we have all had but never engaged in. The lads ones were boring and standard. Usually threesomes and the like.

The girls ones were eye brow raising. And usually very intricate and thought out relative to anything the guys had come out with. Some of them surprised me a lot - especially when they are totally not fitting with the person they were coming from (like exhibitionism and more coming from the total shyest member of the group).

But yes one of the girls came out with the notion that she would somewhat be into the idea of doing the sex trade for a few weeks - just to see how it would be. And having heard her ideas and reasoning behind it one of the other girls decided she liked the idea and was convinced. Cue half serious joking about me doing the tech and online side of it for them. Never followed it up though.

It is not as shocking as you think. Girls like sex just as much as guys and - if my experience is anything to go by here - engage in more intricate and in depth fantasies than the standard fare of their male counter parts. There are whole websites dedicated to voluntary exhibitionism and on line sex related stuff from women - Newbie Nudes being the one I have seen mentioned on boards a few times for example - and more. I am now not surprised by any of it any more I think as I have been divested of this notion I used to naively have of males being sex fiends who will take sex anywhere they get it - and females being reserved and barely interested in it at all

Shocker!

I just draw a line somewhere and dating, let alone marrying, someone who was paid to have sex with strangers crosses that line. I don't care what anyone's kinks or fetishes are just as long as they were honest when dating in the future if asked about their sexual past. Can't imagine too many people would be comfortable dating someone who was once a prostitute though lol.

02-12-2014 10:15AM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Shocker!

I used to be quite naive about women. What can I say

But there are people who still seem to operate under such illusions - yet are the same age or older than I

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I just draw a line somewhere and dating, let alone marrying, someone who was paid to have sex with strangers crosses that line.

And there is nothing wrong with that. But for every person like you bothered by it - there are people who would not be. Being paid for sex is - to me - nothing more to worry about than any other one night stand a girl might have had. Where is the difference really?

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I don't care what anyone's kinks or fetishes are just as long as they were honest when dating in the future if asked about their sexual past.

A persons sexual past is not something anyone should feel obliged to know. With the caveat that the person be clean and healthy of course.

Should a person wish to ask that is fine. Should a person wish to divulge then that is fine too. But it should not be expected of them. If _you_ expect it then that is ok - and feel free to not enter into any relationships with anyone who refuse to give you this data. But do so realizing this is your issue - not theirs - and they are no way obliged to give you such data - in the same way as you are not obliged to enter into a relationship with them

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Can't imagine too many people would be comfortable dating someone who were once prostitutes though lol.

Some would. Some would not. In this case it would have been experimental - not a full on career. So perhaps less people would be bothered by that than a full career based on it. The girl I know from college for example who did it to subsidise her education.

As I said it would not bother _me_ how many sexual partners someone had - or the reasons why they had them - as long as the person is clean and dedicated to me _now_. Again I ask - what is the difference between a one night stand paid - and a one night stand unpaid - for example. It is still sex. I do not differentiate myself. You do. And that's ok

DoYouEvenLift · 02-12-2014 10:40AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I used to be quite naive about women. What can I say But there are people who still seem to operate under such illusions - yet are the same age or older than I

And there is nothing wrong with that. But for every person like you bothered by it - there are people who would not be. Being paid for sex is - to me - nothing more to worry about than any other one night stand a girl might have had. Where is the difference really?

A persons sexual past is not something anyone should feel obliged to know. With the caveat that the person be clean and healthy of course.

Should a person wish to ask that is fine. Should a person wish to divulge then that is fine too. But it should not be expected of them. If _you_ expect it then that is ok - and feel free to not enter into any relationships with anyone who refuse to give you this data. But do so realizing this is your issue - not theirs - and they are no way obliged to give you such data - in the same way as you are not obliged to enter into a relationship with them

Some would. Some would not. In this case it would have been experimental - not a full on career. So perhaps less people would be bothered by that than a full career based on it. The girl I know from college for example who did it to subsidise her education.

As I said it would not bother _me_ how many sexual partners someone had - or the reasons why they had them - as long as the person is clean and dedicated to me _now_. Again I ask - what is the difference between a one night stand paid - and a one night stand unpaid - for example. It is still sex. I do not differentiate myself. You do. And that's ok

The Corinthian · 02-12-2014 11:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again I ask - what is the difference between a one night stand paid - and a one night stand unpaid - for example. It is still sex.

"The big difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money usually costs a lot less" - Brendan Behan

One thing I've noticed is that of the two groups that oppose sex work, one is religiously motivated, while the other is what appears to be the dominant strain of feminism in Western society. It appears to be largely a female, middle-class, educated group, which would have little or no contact with the sex industry, beyond their partners or husbands having gone to a prostitute.

Call me cynical, but it appears to me that this particular branch of Feminism, isn't really all that interested in women's rights, but the interests of middle-class, educated women. And call it coincidence, but eliminating all possible sexual competition is not a bad way to serve interests of middle-class, educated women.

At least, I don't really see it serving the interests of working class women, given that all that such policies have been proven to achieve is driving the industry even further underground. I wonder who benefits from all the quotas that are being discussed too...

Banana Strawberry · 02-12-2014 11:17AM

In my opinion the reason so many feminists and women react so strongly opposed to prostituiton comes from the same place as when men are having lots of casual sex. It's not good for the "trade union", it reduces the power women can get over men. Just look at the number of hen pecked men who do whatever their wives and girlfriends tell them. Therefore there will be feminists and women who will vehemently oppose prostitution and men who have lots of casual sex to discourage such behaviour from the men seeking women's approval, who are the ones who can be controlled.

Gbear · 02-12-2014 11:20AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Call me cynical, but it appears to me that this particular branch of Feminism, isn't really all that interested in women's rights, but the interests of middle-class, educated women. And call it coincidence, but eliminating all possible sexual competition is not a bad way to serve interests of middle-class, educated women.

I think you're reading too much in to it. I'd be very surprised if it's generally that sort of conscious pettiness.

A huge proportion of what governs people's reactions to taboo subjects are pure gut responses.

You can see with the sorts of language used - sluttiness, dirtiness, "used" and so forth. And I think it's the same for both the religious opposition and more leftist opposition.

It seems common to nearly every culture on earth so, while the cultural conventions have no doubt been reinforced by religion it's clearly rooted in our psyche. Controlling the sexuality of "your women" makes evolutionary sense so it's no surprise a huge amount of our culture has developed espousing that idea.

That's not to say that sort of irrational thinking should be tolerated in these debates but I think it's important to see it for what it is.

The thing about beliefs about taboo subjects is that people avoid challenging them. The chances are, people who base their approach to prostitution on this yuck response (most of them, IMO) have never actually considered why they really oppose it. It's axiomatic to them.

catallus · 02-12-2014 11:28AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Call me cynical....

:pac: ok, I will.

You are waaay too cynical; your assertion that elite feminist cliques are directing public policy is akin to a modern version of "the witches are poisoning our wells!" and a little bit less subtle, at that.

Prostitution isn't a "threat" to the middle class woman and it is over-simplistic to use a sexual-barter equation to conclude that feminism views prostitution through the lens of supply-and-demand.

There ARE many many women out there who are exploited by pimps; legalised or not, that is the nature of the business; the idea that whoring is a valid career path for a woman is a ruse used by morally blind social warriors whose motives are to undermine the validity of the taboo against prostitution; and where would we be without our taboos?

Dravokivich · 02-12-2014 11:38AM

catallus wrote: »

:pac: ok, I will.

You are waaay too cynical; your assertion that elite feminist cliques are directing public policy is akin to a modern version of "the witches are poisoning our wells!" and a little bit less subtle, at that.

Prostitution isn't a "threat" to the middle class woman and it is over-simplistic to use a sexual-barter equation to conclude that feminism views prostitution through the lens of supply-and-demand.

There ARE many many women out there who are exploited by pimps; legalised or not, that is the nature of the business; the idea that whoring is a valid career path for a woman is a ruse used by morally blind social warriors whose motives are to undermine the validity of the taboo against prostitution; and where would we be without our taboos?

Arguing against this has nothing to do with any sort of "Social Warrior" crap. Nor is it disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. If people need support, put in place schemes and services to support them. This does not do that.

MRnotlob606 · 02-12-2014 11:42AM

I look forward to the eradication of licentiousness in Ireland.

The Corinthian · 02-12-2014 11:58AM

Gbear wrote: »

I think you're reading too much in to it. I'd be very surprised if it's generally that sort of conscious pettiness.

Even viewing it cynically I'd never suggest anything conscious - that's why I've simply pointed out that it's an interesting coincidence.

Given this, on other policies, such as the quotas for political candidates, this was a pretty blatant policy that benefited a small number of middle-class, educated women already in politics. It did nothing to address why women stand less often, nor why they are elected less often; all it did was allow this small number to skip the cue within their political parties and did nothing for women as a whole.

A huge proportion of what governs people's reactions to taboo subjects are pure gut responses.

But we're not talking about 'people' but a small number of people who make up lobby groups. You can hardly make a claim that this bill has a groundswell of popular support - it's arguable it has any popular support judging by many of the responses here - and has like a number of recent laws been pushed through in the background by a few, not the many.

You can see with the sorts of language used - sluttiness, dirtiness, "used" and so forth. And I think it's the same for both the religious opposition and more leftist opposition.

Certainly I'd agree that this is what influences the religious groups who favour such laws, but the Feminist ones? I thought they rejected such labels?

catallus wrote: »

You are waaay too cynical; your assertion that elite feminist cliques are directing public policy is akin to a modern version of "the witches are poisoning our wells!" and a little bit less subtle, at that.

Then it's just a coincidence that the same people are pushing these laws though lobbying with little or no input from the electorate?

Prostitution isn't a "threat" to the middle class woman and it is over-simplistic to use a sexual-barter equation to conclude that feminism views prostitution through the lens of supply-and-demand.

What other reason is there then? The protection of exploited women makes no sense - there's very little evidence of it and the best (by that I mean not authored by someone with an obvious agenda once you read their bios) report I ever read was by the German police which concluded that there is some increase in trafficking as a result of increased demand, but this was hugely compensated for by the better conditions that legalization brought about.

There ARE many many women out there who are exploited by pimps; legalised or not, that is the nature of the business

That's unfortunately the nature of every business, which is why we regulate them. Or should we simply make mining, sanitary work or hospitality illegal too? Or just those jobs where the majority of the workers are women?

One eyed Jack · 02-12-2014 12:07PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

A thread on Boards is plenty of discussion now? Grand so.

You made the point in your post I quoted that there was a lack of democratic debate on the issue, which in my opinion simply isn't true. There have been many debates and discussions on the issue that perhaps you weren't aware of, and that thread was just one example I pointed to as it was from two years ago. If you want a more recent example, I could have pointed to the decision by the EU in February of this year which has chosen to adopt the Swedish model in all member states (and that includes the Netherlands which were already reviewing their current stance) -

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament

The Corinthian wrote: »

What gets me about this bill, which will almost certainly pass btw, is the lack of democratic debate on it. For many this thread will be the first time they'll have heard of it. Indeed, what happened was they had an expert panel to discuss it about two years ago, refused to recognize any sex workers that wished to go before it, the panel was made up of only people who supported it's implementation (e.g. Bacik) and finally ignored the expert opinion of many of the experts that did go before them.

Your assertion that for many in this thread that this will be the first time they will have heard of the proposed legislation is hardly anyone else's fault but their own. If they had been interested in making their submission to the Justice Committee at the time opposing the proposed legislation there was ample opportunity for them to do so. It's also incorrect to state that they ignored the opinions of sex workers on the issue.

We're not worthy! We're not worthy!

It didn't take you five minutes to try and twist what I had said to suggest something I hadn't said at all. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference between saying someone isn't worthy, and what I actually said which was that it isn't worth trying to discuss this issue on Boards. It really isn't worth trying because of the group think, the twisting, the obfuscation, the having to address each and every piece of misinformation or misunderstanding.

It's a bloody head melt, and one I could definitely do without entertaining. The legislation is likely to be passed, but IMO it doesn't go far enough, and doesn't have the underlying structures in place yet to support it's implementation with the aim of improving society and addressing the welfare of all citizens who will be affected by the implementation of the legislation.

Grayson wrote: »

I remember that thread. Any argument that didn't match his was dismissed because the people making them were "uninformed".

Like I said - this thread is just more of the same. Would you really attempt to have a discussion with someone telling you that your opinion was wrong, even though they had no idea what they were talking about, and it was clear from their posts that they had no idea what they were talking about? I doubt you'd bother wasting your time.

Yamanoto wrote: »

Did you contribute to the thread linked to above and if so, under what name?

I did, and closed my account since, because it was demonstrated in a later discussion on a completely different issue that things like that have a habit of coming back to bite you in the ass, a bit like a sex worker who wants to change careers, but can't put down their previous occupation on their resume because they know it'll come back to bite them in the ass.

catallus · 02-12-2014 12:21PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then it's just a coincidence that the same people are pushing these laws though lobbying with little or no input from the electorate?

That's how 99.99% of our laws develop.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What other reason is there then? The protection of exploited women makes no sense - there's very little evidence of it...

It makes perfect sense, if one has any shred of humanity; the evidence is right in front of your face.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's unfortunately the nature of every business, which is why we regulate them...?

This is patently untrue. It is not the nature of every business that the employee is kept as a virtual slave through violence and/or the threat of violence.

It might be comfortable to forget that prostitution is based on exploitation; it might make the consumer feel better to think a prostitute is a sole-trader, free to decide their own fate; but it is not the case in the vast majority of the cases.

Banana Strawberry · 02-12-2014 12:39PM

catallus wrote: »

That's how 99.99% of our laws develop.

It makes perfect sense, if one has any shred of humanity; the evidence is right in front of your face.

This is patently untrue. It is not the nature of every business that the employee is kept as a virtual slave through violence and/or the threat of violence.

It might be comfortable to forget that prostitution is based on exploitation; it might make the consumer feel better to think a prostitute is a sole-trader, free to decide their own fate; but it is not the case in the vast majority of the cases.

What evidence that women are being exploited, at least anymore so than any other industry?

newport2 · 02-12-2014 12:54PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You made the point in your post I quoted that there was a lack of democratic debate on the issue, which in my opinion simply isn't true. There have been many debates and discussions on the issue that perhaps you weren't aware of, and that thread was just one example I pointed to as it was from two years ago. If you want a more recent example, I could have pointed to the decision by the EU in February of this year which has chosen to adopt the Swedish model in all member states (and that includes the Netherlands which were already reviewing their current stance) -

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament

You're right, there have been many debates on this issue in the last year or two. The problem has been that the sex workers themselves have been pretty much omitted from these debates. The likes of the TORL and Ruhama have only included reformed sex workers who regret their past to speak up. Whenever existing sex workers have spoken, their opinions have been dismissed by the very people claiming to be campaigning for them.

I'm pretty neutral on the subject and would like whatever is best for the people working in the sex industry. I'm not involved and don't use their services, so it'll have no effect on me. But I think it's pretty bad that their voices have been ignored in determining their future.

Sleepy · 02-12-2014 01:16PM

Was anyone else watching the RTE documentary Connected? It followed a number of women living in Ireland over the course of a year, one of whom was an American sex-worker. During the show, she appeared on the radio objecting to this bill.

While she claimed to "adore" sex work, she really didn't seem all that happy to be doing it and was rather more interested in chasing the dream of her own Feminist Burlesque show... It seemed rather ironic to me, that all her expensive liberal arts feminist education had qualified her with to make a living from was her body....

Anyway, I digress. This bill, like pretty much everything else the unelected (and, frankly, unelectable) Ivanna Bacik is involved in, is preposterous rubbish.

The only proven means of improving the lot of sex workers is via legalisation and tight regulation of the industry. When the vast majority of prostitutes are operating from legal brothels, they can be provided with legal (and physical) protection, easy to access healthcare, counselling services etc. Given that legal brothels would be far easier to tax, the provision of increased services could actually be done in a revenue neutral fashion (or may actually cost less than the tax revenues generated).

One can only assume (or at least hope?) that the vast majority of those who use the services of prostitutes would choose to avail of the legal option over any illegal operations still running post-legalisation (even if only out of a sense of self-preservation due to lower STD rates, chance of criminal record etc.) which should make trafficking and enforced prostitution an even less viable business model that it would already appear to be in western Europe.

The only basis for an objection to legalisation is a moral one. And since prohibition doesn't work (and the industry will be there regardless) and since morality is an entirely subjective, and individual thing, that's not a very good basis for an argument imo.

Gbear · 02-12-2014 02:02PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given this, on other policies, such as the quotas for political candidates, this was a pretty blatant policy that benefited a small number of middle-class, educated women already in politics. It did nothing to address why women stand less often, nor why they are elected less often; all it did was allow this small number to skip the cue within their political parties and did nothing for women as a whole.

I think it's partly needing to be seen to be doing something (for political reasons) and partly down to narcissism and trying to show how progressive they are.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But we're not talking about 'people' but a small number of people who make up lobby groups. You can hardly make a claim that this bill has a groundswell of popular support - it's arguable it has any popular support judging by many of the responses here - and has like a number of recent laws been pushed through in the background by a few, not the many.

Whether my point is true of this specific issue (I haven't seen any data on the popularity of legalised and regulated prostitution), I think it's generally true of taboo subjects. I've never heard a person IRL tell me that prostitution is anything other than intrinsically bad.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly I'd agree that this is what influences the religious groups who favour such laws, but the Feminist ones? I thought they rejected such labels?

You would think that autonomy and empowerment would go hand in hand with liberalisation but that isn't always the case. A subset of left-wing people are just as fundamentally authoritarian and conservative as their right-wing counterparts. They just have a different flavour of morality they want to enforce.

The Corinthian · 02-12-2014 02:06PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You made the point in your post I quoted that there was a lack of democratic debate on the issue, which in my opinion simply isn't true.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a little difficult to take seriously. Your average citizen cannot follow ever single international debate on every single topic - so if there was debate in Sweden, chances are only someone with the time and specific interest, like you, would likely take notice. When introduced in Ireland, the debate was only opened up to any public scrutiny quite late - unless, like you, one were to keep a close eye on all Dail business, the first time that the may have heard about it was with the panel that was set up on it about two years ago. If anything great care was made to keep it out of the public domain, just as debate on the 'opt-out' clause was for the cohabitation act and presently the 'debates' taking place on the abolition of custodial sentences for women.

Your response to this appears to be "hardly anyone else's fault but their own", which is the height of contempt for democracy.

It didn't take you five minutes to try and twist what I had said to suggest something I hadn't said at all.

No, I didn't take five minutes to respond to your condescending argument that the unwashed masses don't understand or are too stupid to follow such legislation and what a drag it was that you had to post here after all.

It's a bloody head melt, and one I could definitely do without entertaining.

Then don't bother. Honestly. If it's too dispiriting for you to post because we are all too stupid to understand your more enlightened opinions, then don't bother. After all, it couldn't be because you're wrong.

catallus wrote: »

That's how 99.99% of our laws develop.

How many of our social laws have done so? I don't mean legislation on taxation of ham, but stuff that governs our basic civil rights. Examples please?

It makes perfect sense, if one has any shred of humanity; the evidence is right in front of your face.

Awe... an appeal to emotion argument.

This is patently untrue. It is not the nature of every business that the employee is kept as a virtual slave through violence and/or the threat of violence.

I'm afraid it is the nature of every business that employees may be exploited and it is quite naive of you to suggest that it is not. Of course that does not mean that they all exploit their employees, especially when regulations are in place to stop this, but in a similar fashion it is rather naive to suggest that all prostitutes would be exploited.

It might be comfortable to forget that prostitution is based on exploitation; it might make the consumer feel better to think a prostitute is a sole-trader, free to decide their own fate; but it is not the case in the vast majority of the cases.

Prostitution is only based on exploitation if you believe that people doing, what you consider to be, unpleasant jobs must be exploited. In which case miners are all exploited. Nurses too. Sanitary workers.

Could you explain what makes prostitution always exploitative without resorting to Victorian sexual values?

looking_around · 02-12-2014 02:08PM

Gbear wrote: »

I've never heard a person IRL tell me that prostitution is anything other than intrinsically bad.

Would be happy to meet you in person, to discuss this, so you don't think all people in real life are too ashamed etc about it. :P :pac:

Although admittedly, it's still seen by the majority of people as "bad", but when you really discuss this with them. It's not because of the risks, or the crime, or problems. It's intrinsically about them. And that because they could not imagine ever "selling their body", then clearly anyone who does is "forced, in some way".

sbsquarepants · 02-12-2014 02:10PM

I don't understand how or why it is illegal to sell something that you can give away for free as much as you like. Makes no god damn sense whatsoever!

sbsquarepants · 02-12-2014 02:22PM

Gbear wrote: »

Whether my point is true of this specific issue (I haven't seen any data on the popularity of legalised and regulated prostitution), I think it's generally true of taboo subjects. I've never heard a person IRL tell me that prostitution is anything other than intrinsically bad.

.

Well allow me to be the first. I think if you want to sell your body then have at it - what do I care, plus it's none of my business. You should absolutely be able to sell sex or buy sex should you so desire.
As for "it's hardly anyones dream to be a hooker" and all that bollox you hear, it's hardly anyones dream to clean toilets, flip burgers, fix windows, wire houses, or fit tyres and so on and on and on- doesn't mean those things should be illegal.

And when it comes right down to it - what job, of any description doesn't involve "selling your body"
You can sell the use of your hands, your feet, your back, your eyes, your brain, your voice just not your vag - that's dirty! Fúcking purtitanical nonsense.

The Corinthian · 02-12-2014 02:24PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't understand how or why it is illegal to sell something that you can give away for free as much as you like. Makes no god damn sense whatsoever!

The official line appears to be that no one would freely become a prostitute and are forced into it by financial circumstances and/or by a 'pimp' that will then force and/or traffic the individual onto the game.

The problem with this is firstly that it perpetuates the usual patriarchal stereotypes such as sex being a 'fate worse than death' and that women (given men are at best an afterthought in such debates) incapable of choosing something for herself.

It also ignores the fact that there are many occupations out there that are as potentially dangerous (e.g. mining) if not more so. And many occupations that people can be 'forced' into due to financial circumstances (who's ever wanted to be a sanitary worker when they grew up?). Not everyone grows up to be an astronaut.

As Gbear correctly pointed out, Irish attitudes are probably cultural (shared by all Anglophone cultures where sex is 'dirty') and also legal. Where I say legal, I'd point to how attitudes tend to change based upon the legality of something; you'd be amazed how something being legal or illegal influences how we perceive it.

darkpagandeath · 02-12-2014 02:24PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't understand how or why it is illegal to sell something that you can give away for free as much as you like. Makes no god damn sense whatsoever!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well allow me to be the first. I think if you want to sell your body then have at it - what do I care, plus it's none of my business. You should absolutely be able to sell sex or buy sex should you so desire.
As for "it's hardly anyones dream to be a hooker" and all that bollox you hear, it's hardly anyones dream to clean toilets, flip burgers, fix windows, wire houses, or fit tyres and so on and on and on- doesn't mean those things should be illegal.

Because Religion....

sbsquarepants · 02-12-2014 02:45PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Because Religion....

I had a sneaking suspicion that bastard was to blame!

gozunda · 03-12-2014 12:21AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If that is the spin you want to put on the anecdotes I present - then it is you that has been affected by such stories not me

Ancedote - definition:

No 1 - a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Or

No. 2 - an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

I'll definitively go with option no2 on this. The coal face of prostitution is definitly not mad nymphos and randy college students :rolleyes:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you say so. I am not seeing much of it. Not on this thread. Perhaps more spin from you. Rather I see people who are protesting that legalisation and regulation of the sex industry would specifically deal with much of the "ugly side" that is caused by - or at least heavily fed by - pushing the industry underground and/or peoples general attitudes to people engaged in it.

I refer to how things are at present - not some fantasy land.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is the "anti" side that appears to have an issue with reality. Such as over inflating the existence of trafficking without actual statistics. Or imagining scenarios like women getting "banged" in "all holes" from "multiple partners a night".

I believe that was another poster btw

but anyway as least as good as your porn based fantasies tbh ..

[Deleted User] wrote: »

IfAs I said - work out your own take home pay - divide it by 150 euro a pop - and work out yourself how many clients an actual woman would need to entertain in order to take home a workable and decent wage.

You really don't get the relevant issues do you - if it simply boils down to euros and is so profitable and rewarding - I would suggest you ditch the day job and take up a job as a sex worker - but hey hang on I see from one of your previous posts, you suggested that you were considering the position of pimp instead - nice one :rolleyes:

RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

Comments