RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

Kangoo Man · 03-12-2014 12:48AM

facebook.com/sexworkersallianceireland

gozunda · 03-12-2014 01:11AM

As another poster succinctly put it - the "witches are poisoning the wells" :rolleyes:

An Alternative version ...[edited by me to show the fallacy of stereotyping groups]

The Corinthian wrote: »

"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 support sex work on this thread one is motivated for personal gratification while the other is what appears to be the dominant strain of patriarchy in Western society. It appears to be largely a male, middle-class, group, which appear to have a desire / fantasy for contact with the sex industry, with either themselves or where bought sex is another form of escapism

Call me cynical, but it appears to me that this particular branch of patriarchy isn't really all that interested in women's rights, but the sexual interests of men[/B]. And call it coincidence, but providing sex for sale opportunities legislated by users is a poor way to serve interests of sex workers.

At least, as of yet it is not possible to see if this will it serve the interests of sex workers[/b] given that that such policies have yet to be proven here ...

Cienciano · 03-12-2014 01:30AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

One thing I've noticed is that of the two groups that oppose sex work, one is religiously motivated...

I'd leave it there to be honest. Seems to me to be entirely motivated by religion. Religion has drummed into us that sex has to be an act between a loving couple. Some people can't understand that for a lot of people it's just a physical act. They may be shocked to see the amount of one night stands and waking up after a night on the beer and regretting what you did the night before. Maybe one night stands after blood alcohol limit goes above a certain limit should be made illegal too? We could have a dildo shaped breathalyzer that people need to blow into

The Corinthian · 03-12-2014 09:04AM

gozunda wrote: »

An Alternative version ...

Do try to note that you've altered someone else's post when you choose to misquote them with your misadrist fantasy propaganda please.

Cienciano wrote: »

I'd leave it there to be honest. Seems to me to be entirely motivated by religion.

Since when was Ivana Bacik motivated by religion? Apart from opposition thereof, of course.

03-12-2014 09:29AM

gozunda wrote: »

Ancedote - definition:

Grammar nazi cherry picking of dictionary definitions does not for one moment address a single thing I say.

gozunda wrote: »

The coal face of prostitution is definitly not mad nymphos and randy college students

Then you must be positively over joyed to realise I never once claimed it was.

gozunda wrote: »

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

As do I - which was my point exactly. One of the reasons we have many issues with the sex industry is precisely because it is pushed underground - taboo - hidden away - illegal and much more.

Those supporting legalisation AND regulation of the industry do so because they recognise that that is the direction with the most potential for dealing with such issues. Nothing "fantasy land" about that at all.

gozunda wrote: »

I believe that was another poster btw

That would be percisely why I did not ascribe it to you - but very specifically I made it clear it was a comment about the "anti side" in general.

gozunda wrote: »

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

You have failed at any point to establish anything I said was fantasy.

gozunda wrote: »

You really don't get the relevant issues do you

You failing to understand my points does not mean I am not the one "getting the issues"

gozunda wrote: »

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

I am perfectly content with the career I am in - the salary it affords me - and the flexibility of time it allows me. I see no reason to consider a career change now.

Yamanoto · 03-12-2014 09:54AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You were called out repeatedly for equivocation, soap-boxing and discounting the opinions of others in a fairly haughty manner, a habit you appear determined to indulge once more. As for folks telling you your opinion was wrong, when the guff below is the starting point for your argument, it'd be mightily naive to expect such statements to go unchallenged.

Paying somebody to have sex with you, or charging somebody money to have sex with you, is itself coercion.

The Corinthian · 03-12-2014 10:07AM

Spinachliver wrote: »

It is in many women'should interests that sex be kept scarce for men as when it is scarce you get the hen pecked husband who does what you say.

Yes and I did note this coincidence. However, I would not go as far as to suggest that this is a conscious agenda or a 'conspiracy' - I think such an accusation would likely be unfounded or even ridiculous - but it is difficult to deny that campaigns that have been taken up by the dominant strain of feminism in recent years will, without exception, both favour the interests of (typically) middle-class, educated women to the determent of other groups.

For example, can anyone cite a single campaign (not passive position) taken up by the dominant strain of feminism in Ireland, that will put gender equality ahead to the determent of middle-class, educated women?

gozunda · 03-12-2014 10:32AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do try to note that you've altered someone else's post when you choose to misquote them with your misadrist fantasy propaganda please.
.

Indeed it was the very opposite. The re-typing is an simple example of substituting one convenient 'blame group' such as feminists with an equivilant. Btw as far as I'm aware there is no feminist conspiracy to castrate men and render them powerless. There has been enough of this nonsense on boards in the last while to fill a landfill tbh. You really do seem to have a serious mind bend on 'de feminists' and 'middle class educated women' (how date they be either!) and some vast conspiracy.

Laws change. Society changes. What one group may seem acceptable may change overtime. Age of consent is a case in point. When this was changed in the 1800's it caused an absolute farour.

What I would like to see is legislation that favours sex workers. 'Johns' (for want if a better word') advocating for their version of sexual services is akin to foxes legislating for the welfare of fowl. ...

gozunda · 03-12-2014 10:47AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Grammar nazi cherry picking of dictionary definitions does not for one moment address a single thing I say.

You do know how a dictionary works? A word can only be understood in context and in this context ie an unsupported story - the latter meaning is more relevant. But yes your 'anecdote' remain just that -

an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then you must be positively over joyed to realise I never once claimed it was.

Your contribution to the state of prostitution was a personal fantasy about a number of ladies you know personally who were either naughty college students or nymphos who 'think' sex work is a turn on - wtf!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As do I - which was my point exactly. One of the reasons we have many issues with the sex industry is precisely because it is pushed underground - taboo - hidden away - illegal and much more.

And the point remains is that frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate for their version of what they think should be made available to them.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Those supporting legalisation AND regulation of the industry do so because they recognise that that is the direction with the most potential for dealing with such issues. Nothing "fantasy land" about that at all.

The problem as I listed above is that it is akin to the fox legislating for the welfare of fowl. Highly dubious at best.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That would be percisely why I did not ascribe it to you - but very specifically I made it clear it was a comment about the "anti side" in general. You have failed at any point to establish anything I said was fantasy.

It was plonked right in the middle of your post rebutting my previous post. It appeared if this piece was mine. Btw It's not up to me to prove the veracity of what on paper reads like something out of a third rate porn mag.
...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

am perfectly content with the career I am in - the salary it affords me - and the flexibility of time it allows me. I see no reason to consider a career change now.

Well good for you - but you do not have any right do not advocate money as the only consideration for workers and sex workers specifically.

gozunda · 03-12-2014 10:59AM

Yamanoto wrote: »

You were called out repeatedly for equivocation, soap-boxing and discounting the opinions of others in a fairly haughty manner, a habit you appear determined to indulge once more. As for folks telling you your opinion was wrong, when the guff below is the starting point for your argument, it'd be mightily naive to expect such statements to go unchallenged.

Wow back there! The whole point of discussion is exchanging different opinion. I believe we are advocated to concentrate on the post not the poster. 'Opinion' can't be wrong - it is by definition 'opinion' ie a belief held by someone for a variety of reasons. Now if I tell a story and you chose to state that you believe that's a load of BS - then fair enough. But if you don't agree with someone here - put up your own opinion instead - it always works better.

03-12-2014 10:59AM

gozunda wrote: »

You do know how a dictionary works? But yes your 'antidote' remain just that

Nor did I claim otherwise so not clear what your point is. The fact remains though that some people like to generalise the reasons why people are in prostitution. They are all forced. They are all trafficked. They are all desperate. None of them WANT to be there.

The reality however is that there is a full continuum of motivations - and some people actually enter the trade voluntarily and are happy with their work.

gozunda wrote: »

Your contribution to the state of prostitution was a personal fantasy

Nothing fantasy about it, the people in question are quite real, however that is a crass misrepresentation of everything I have written here. You choosing to focus on one single point I have made does not mean it is the only one I have made here. I have made several.

The point of my mentioning it is to call into question this assumption, backed up by nothing at all, that some people present that sex workers are being "banged in every hole" by "multiple punters a night".

Since you have an issue with fantasy, take it up with them, because that IS fantasy and they have not backed it up with anything but their assertion of it.

gozunda wrote: »

frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate

Why? This is a democracy we operate. Everyone has just as much right as everyone else to voicing of their opinion or advocacy.

gozunda wrote: »

The problem as I listed above is that it is akin to the fox legislation for the welfare of fowl. Highly dubious at best.

Not so. Especially for the people who are actually perpetrating crimes against sex workers because they know they can get away with it easier. The protections and more we can afford to sex workers in a legal regulated industry are naturally higher than what we can afford to underground black market workers not on our radar.

gozunda wrote: »

It's not up to me to prove the veracity of what on paper reads like something out of a third rate porn mag.

So you just dodge the points I make instead. Nice.

gozunda wrote: »

Well good for you - but you do not have any right do not advocate money as the only consideration for workers and sex workers specifically.

Within obvious reason I have every right to advocate whatever I want in this society thanks. You are certainly not the arbiter of what I can or can not advocate on this topic.

gozunda · 03-12-2014 11:06AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nor did I claim otherwise so not clear what your point is. The fact remains though that some people like to generalise the reasons why people are in prostitution. They are all forced. They are all trafficked. They are all desperate. None of them WANT to be there.

The reality however is that there is a full continuum of motivations - and some people actually enter the trade voluntarily and are happy with their work.

Nothing fantasy about it, the people in question are quite real, however that is a crass misrepresentation of everything I have written here. You choosing to focus on one single point I have made does not mean it is the only one I have made here. I have made several.

The point of my mentioning it is to call into question this assumption, backed up by nothing at all, that some people present that sex workers are being "banged in every hole" by "multiple punters a night".

Since you have an issue with fantasy, take it up with them, because that IS fantasy and they have not backed it up with anything but their assertion of it. .

Again that quote above you are referring to is from another poster that you keep on 'banging' on about - as for the rest of the above I have no idea what your point if any is about ...

But I will repeat as I said previously 'johns' advocating on the needs of sex workers is dubious at best and needs to be taken with a bucket of salt.

But as you misquoted my post I will repost what u did say

And the point remains is that frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate for their version of what they think should be made available to them.

Any one can of course advocate for the right of sex workers to seek legislation that will support them and give legal protection -what sex workers don't need is johns insisting /advocating for their own version of what they think sex workers need!

The Corinthian · 03-12-2014 11:08AM

gozunda wrote: »

Indeed it was the very opposite. The re-typing is an simple example of substituting one convenient 'blame group' such as feminists with an equivilant.

No, you don't appear to understand my objection; you altered the text of my post and at no point noted in your post you were doing so. Don't misquote me and if you are going to alter my posts clearly mark them as so.

Btw as far as I'm aware there is no feminist conspiracy to castrate men and render them powerless.

I agree and if you bothered to read what I've posted you'll see I've said that more than once.

You really do seem to have a serious mind bend on 'de feminists' and 'middle class educated women' (how date they be either!) and some vast conspiracy.

Again, read what I've posted, not what you would prefer I posted, as I've never suggested a conspiracy. What I have done is pointed out that these policies have been pursued by a small number of people who identify as feminists and that in many cases these policies only benefit said number of middle class, typically university educated, women. Often they even disadvantage working class women - which the bill in question will likely do as it will make it harder for them to choose prostitution as a means to make money.

Laws change. Society changes. What one group may seem acceptable may change overtime. Age of consent is a case in point. When this was changed in the 1800's it caused an absolute farour.

Indeed. What's your point? That one should never question it?

What I would like to see is legislation that favours sex workers. 'Johns' (for want if a better word') advocating for their version of sexual services is akin to foxes legislating for the welfare of fowl. ...

I completely agree, but this bill does not favour sex workers, and went out of it's way to exclude them when 'discussed' and no one has suggested any legislation favouring 'Johns' (does the use of the term 'John' mean we should use other terms like 'whore', or do you think that derogatory terms are only acceptable for one group?), so please don't rebut an imaginary argument.

03-12-2014 11:17AM

gozunda wrote: »

Again that quote above you are referring to is from another poster that you keep on 'banging' on about

I am well aware of that. My point stands independent of whether I am directly talking to the person who made it or not. I was responding to the point made by Neyite and then you rolled up and replied to me. So I have in turn replied to you about that point / post.

gozunda wrote: »

as for the rest of the above I have no idea what your point if any is about

I am happy to help you with that failing if you wish to ask anything specific. I have made several points on the thread. I can summarise them here:

1) People claiming that sex workers are "banged in every hole" by "multiple partners a night" appear to be making it up and have not supported this claim in any way.

2) Sex work involves a lot of risks and problems at present. What has been referred to as the "ugly side" on this thread. I feel many of these issues would be dealt with by legalisation and effective regulation. For the clear reason that we can better protect people above the radar than under it.

3) Anti Sex work campaigners like to generalise based on nothing the reasons people get into sex work. Usually declaring they are forced - trafficked or desperate. The reality is there is a whole continuum out there are many people get into it perfectly voluntarily and even enjoy their work.

4) The "anti" side that appears to have an issue with reality. Such as over inflating the existence of trafficking without actual statistics.

gozunda wrote: »

But I will repeat as I said previously 'johns' advocating on the needs of sex workers is dubious at best

And as I said - that is tosh. Their opinion is just as valid as anyone elses. No reason to be any more dubious of their opinions and input on the matter - than anyone elses.

Actually in _some_ ways the validity of their opinion is _more_ so because they have at least seen that world by being involved as a customer of it. Whereas many people commenting on it are doing so from a position of _complete_ ignorance of the matter and hearsay and - as I pointed out in points 1 3 and 4 above - outright fantasy. So Sex Work Customers at least have _some_ degree of first hand knowledge and experience of the trade that is denied the rest of us.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2014 11:22AM

gozunda wrote: »

But I will repeat as I said previously 'johns' advocating on the needs of sex workers is dubious at best and needs to be taken with a bucket of salt.

As are any employers musings on the needs of employees.
Seems to me your whole stance comes from your point of view that sex is somehow magically different from any other physical act. Just because you believe something to be special doesn't mean everyone does. If person a is willing do whatever for money and person b is willing to pay them, provided they aren't hurting person c - who else's business is it really?
Last year I organised the movement of maybe 15 million quids worth building materials - not because I gave a flying fúck where they went, but because someone who did care was willing to pay me to do it for them. How is that different from if they wanted sex and I was willing to provide it?
It's simple economics - 50 quid for a blow job, no thanks i'll get the 50 quid elsewhere, 50 grand a pop - i'll suck cock like a dyson, night and day without a break and I'm not even gay, but for that kind of money i'll do a damn good impression of being so! Who the fúck are you or anyone else to tell me I can't?

Yamanoto · 03-12-2014 11:22AM

gozunda wrote: »

Wow back there!

'Tis One eyed Jack who's bemoaning his treatment on previous threads tbf.

gozunda wrote: »

'Opinion' can't be wrong - it is by definition 'opinion' ie a belief held by someone for a variety of reasons.

Again...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you really attempt to have a discussion with someone telling you that your opinion was wrong...

gozunda · 03-12-2014 11:25AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you don't appear to understand my objection; you altered the text of my post and at no point noted in your post you were doing so. Don't misquote me and if you are going to alter my posts clearly mark them as so.

Did so - it's titled 'an alternative version'
Miss that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree and if you bothered to read what I've posted you'll see I've said that more than once.

Again, read what I've posted, not what you would prefer I posted, as I've never suggested a conspiracy. What I have done is pointed out that these policies have been pursued by a small number of people who identify as feminists and that in many cases these policies only benefit said number of middle class, typically university educated, women. Often they even disadvantage working class women - which the bill in question will likely do as it will make it harder for them to choose prostitution as a means to make money.

You clearly inferred there is a conspiracy by them nasty feminist men haters ... And you really do have an uncomfortable concentration on 'middle class, university educated, women' - that's a helluva lot of woman that you are reducing to a stereotype. I'm not sure which bit is more worrying tbh.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I Indeed. What's your point? That one should never question it?
I completely agree, but this bill does not favour sex workers, and went out of it's way to exclude them when 'discussed' and no one has suggested any legislation favouring 'Johns' (does the use of the term 'John' mean we should use other terms like 'whore', or do you think that derogatory terms are only acceptable for one group?), so please don't rebut an imaginary argument.

I used 'Johns' as a want for a better term - it's a term I believe in fairly common usage and is not comparable to a term like 'whore' - I have never heard of 'John' being used as a derogatory term against someone tbh.

But yes sex workers not 'johns' are the ones that require improved legislation - This makes much put forward on this matter on this thread dubious at best

03-12-2014 11:32AM

gozunda wrote: »

But yes sex workers not 'johns' are the ones that require improved legislation - This makes much put forward on this matter on this thread dubious at best

Two errors in thinking in your post here.

1) Firstly is the error that somehow you think that only the people affected by legislation or regulation have valid opinion as to what that legislation or regulation should be. This is nonsense. Everyone input is valuable and relevant. That is how democracy and advocacy works. But even further - as I already said - customers of sex workers have more direct experience and knowledge of sex work than those of us who have never partaken anyway.

2) Actually the "johns" require such improvements too despite your claiming otherwise. The effects regulation would have on STD transmission would - for example - affect the "johns". Also the security and protections it would afford will also keep "Johns" safe too. And more.

So yeah I disagree with both the claim their opinion is not as valid as anyone elses on this (if not more valid in some ways) and I disagree that beneficial regulation would not have positive effects for them too.

The Corinthian · 03-12-2014 11:42AM

gozunda wrote: »

Did so - it's titled 'an alternative version'
Miss that?

No. Insufficient. Take greater care in future not to pass your own inventions as the words of others please.

You clearly inferred there is a conspiracy by them nasty feminist men haters

Oh, so I didn't actually say it, and repeatedly pointed out I was not actually saying it, but you still insist that I did, when you read in-between the lines? OK, you're wasting my time now.

... And you really do have an uncomfortable concentration on 'middle class, university educated, women' - that's a helluva lot of woman that you are reducing to a stereotype. I'm not sure which bit is more worrying tbh.

So you deny what I pointed out? So far all you've done is dismiss it.

I used 'Johns' as a want for a better term - it's a term I believe in fairly common usage and is not comparable to a term like 'whore' - I have never heard of 'John' being used as a derogatory term against someone tbh.

I would consider 'John' to be as derogatory as 'whore', 'hooker', or numerous other terms. The better term is 'client', just as 'sex worker' is - it's not complicated. You're betraying your prejudices, I'm afraid.

But yes sex workers not 'johns' are the ones that require improved legislation - This makes much put forward on this matter on this thread dubious at best

That makes no sense; grammatically and what I presume is the meaning of your conclusion.

It's been repeatedly been said in this thread that this legislation will actually harm sex workers, independent of what it does to their clients (that you persist in calling using derogatory terms) - are you not reading what's posted?

gozunda · 03-12-2014 11:44AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As are any employers musings on the needs of employees.
Seems to me your whole stance comes from your point of view that sex is somehow magically different from any other physical act. Just because you believe something to be special doesn't mean everyone does. If person a is willing do whatever for money and person b is willing to pay them, provided they aren't hurting person c - who else's business is it really?
Last year I organised the movement of maybe 15 million quids worth building materials - not because I gave a flying fúck where they went, but because someone who did care was willing to pay me to do it for them. How is that different from if they wanted sex and I was willing to provide it?

Making all that up? I said nothing even akin to your quote above. Nice imagination btw.

But I will take up your bizarre take on sex just being a 'physical act' :rolleyes:

Ok let's look at logically - sexual activity on a biological level is linked to procreation and nurturing. Ok do we as humans have gone beyond that.

So shaking hands is a physical act - to do so each individual needs to enters into the personal space of the other and through expressed body language agrees (or disagrees) to mutual hand shaking.

So let's take coitus agreed for a price. - this time there is explicit request to physically enter into the personal space and body of the other. Because sex is additionally complicated by needs of personal gratification on one hand and personal safety on the other - such sexual activity is anything but just a 'physical act'. **** yourself off may be just a 'physical act' - sexual activity between one or more individuals is better described as a highly complicated conversation (not necessarily with words either) that brings with it the left over of inherent biological processes and human psychology.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's simple economics - 50 quid for a blow job, no thanks i'll get the 50 quid elsewhere, 50 grand a pop - i'll suck cock like a dyson, night and day without a break and I'm not even gay, but for that kind of money i'll do a damn good impression of being so! Who the fúck are you or anyone else to tell me I can't?

Well done and good for you. Best of luck in your new career!

gozunda · 03-12-2014 11:47AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. Insufficient. Take greater care in future not to pass your own inventions as the words of others please.

Oh, so I didn't actually say it, and repeatedly pointed out I was not actually saying it, but you still insist that I did, when you read in-between the lines? OK, you're wasting my time now.

So you deny what I pointed out? So far all you've done is dismiss it.

I would consider 'John' to be as derogatory as 'whore', 'hooker', or numerous other terms. The better term is 'client', just as 'sex worker' is - it's not complicated. You're betraying your prejudices, I'm afraid.

That makes no sense; grammatically and what I presume is the meaning of your conclusion.

It's been repeatedly been said in this thread that this legislation will actually harm sex workers, independent of what it does to their clients (that you persist in calling using derogatory terms) - are you not reading what's posted?

Obfuscation ...

gozunda · 03-12-2014 11:55AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Two errors in thinking in your post here.

1) Firstly is the error that somehow you think that only the people affected by legislation or regulation have valid opinion as to what that legislation or regulation should be. This is nonsense. Everyone input is valuable and relevant. That is how democracy and advocacy works. But even further - as I already said - customers of sex workers have more direct experience and knowledge of sex work than those of us who have never partaken anyway.

2) Actually the "johns" require such improvements too despite your claiming otherwise. The effects regulation would have on STD transmission would - for example - affect the "johns". Also the security and protections it would afford will also keep "Johns" safe too. And more.

So yeah I disagree with both the claim their opinion is not as valid as anyone elses on this (if not more valid in some ways) and I disagree that beneficial regulation would not have positive effects for them too.

Reposting what I have said

And the point remains is that frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate for their version of what they think should be made available to them.

Any one can of course advocate for the right of sex workers to seek legislation that will support them and give legal protection -what sex workers don't need is johns (clients) insisting /advocating for their own version of what they think sex workers need!

'clients' advocating for their rights as 'clients' ? That's Another thread that away =>

03-12-2014 11:57AM

gozunda wrote: »

Reposting what I have said 'clients' advocating for their rights as 'clients' ? That's Another thread that away =>

Perfectly happy with this thread thanks. So it seems you agree therefore with the points I just made entirely and see nothing worthy of challenge or conversation?

Great - would that agreement were always so easy to reach in After Hours threads.

The Corinthian · 03-12-2014 12:07PM

gozunda wrote: »

Obfuscation ...

Lazy dismissal...

gozunda · 03-12-2014 12:08PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Perfectly happy with this thread thanks. So it seems you agree therefore with the points I just made entirely and see nothing worthy of challenge or conversation?

Great - would that agreement were always so easy to reach in After Hours threads.

When there is no need to go back over what already said but misquoted - then posting it again often is more effective and time effective

gozunda · 03-12-2014 12:10PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Lazy dismissal...

Again cherry picking 'points' - a discussion does not make. So your correct - I couldn't be bothered

03-12-2014 12:10PM

gozunda wrote: »

When there is no need to go back over what already said but misquoted - then posting it again often is more effective and time effective

But reposting what is wrong does not magically turn it right. You reposted the claim that "frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate for their version of what they think should be made available to them." and I have rebutted that.

By merely reposting your rebutted argument - all you do is dodge and ignore the counter argument.

They have as much right as any of us to do so. You do not get to dictate what their rights are. And in fact:

1) They are more informed than many of us given they have direct experience of the industry and

2) Changes to the rights and conditions of sex works will also affect the clients. Therefore they have every right to comment on the changes.

gozunda · 03-12-2014 12:12PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But reposting what is wrong does not magically turn it right. You reposted the claim that "frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate for their version of what they think should be made available to them." and I have rebutted that.

By merely reposting your rebutted argument - all you do is dodge and ignore the counter argument.

They have as much right as any of us to do so. You do not get to dictate what their rights are. And in fact:

1) They are more informed than many of us given they have direct experience of the industry and

2) Changes to the rights and conditions of sex works will also affect the clients. Therefore they have every right to comment on the changes.

Reposting when it was misquoted does.

'clients' advocating for their rights as 'clients' ? That's Another thread that away =>

03-12-2014 12:16PM

gozunda wrote: »

Reposting when it was misquoted does.

But no such thing happened. You are just making that up. And I am still happy with this thread thanks.

The fact is your point is that "frequenters of the services of sex workers are in fact the very last ones who should have any right to advocate for their version of what they think should be made available to them." and I have given you two reasons why this is not so.

They have every right to advocate. You do not get to remove rights.

Further any legislation or regulation that affects them - they also have a right to comment on.

This is free society. Everyone has the right to advocate. You do not get to meaningfully declare otherwise. You have every right to ignore or rebut what they advocate of course - but no right to remove their rights to advocate it.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2014 12:18PM

gozunda wrote: »

But I will take up your bizarre take on sex just being a 'physical act' :rolleyes:!

I "imagined" you think it's somehow special but my stance that it's not is bizarre? Eh, ok!

gozunda wrote: »

Ok let's look at logically - sexual activity on a biological level is linked to procreation and nurturing. Ok do we as humans have gone beyond that. !

Some of us have, some of us haven't.

gozunda wrote: »

So let's take coitus agreed for a price. - this time there is explicit request to physically enter into the personal space and body of the other. Because sex is additionally complicated by needs of personal gratification on one hand and personal safety on the other - such sexual activity is anything but just a 'physical act'. **** yourself off may be just a 'physical act' - sexual activity between one or more individuals is better described as a highly complicated conversation (not necessarily with words either) that brings with it the left over of inherent biological processes and human psychology. !

Eh. There's no point in there, I've looked closely - it's just not in there!
The only difference between sex for money and sex for free - is money.
I have no idea what this highly complicated conversation complete the left over of inherent biological process and human psychology means. I'm not into that kinky shít:D

gozunda wrote: »

Well done and good for you. Best of luck in your new career!

Unfortunately I've yet to meet anyone willing to pay my price. But I live in hope!

RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

Comments