exiztone wrote: » The criminalisation of sex workers has been heavily pushed by The Good Shepherd Sisters Ireland and the Order of Our Lady of Charity. This is no conspiracy, you can check the former's statement on the matter here. It's interesting to note that these are two of the religious orders that ran the Magdalene Laundries--a "haven" for "fallen" or promiscuous women.
One eyed Jack wrote: » People will be more unlikely to become sex workers in the first place. It's an immediate deterrent, but it is part of a long term strategy. The unfortunate part about it is that these new laws being introduced will do fcuk all, without the proper support structures in place to offer viable education and employment opportunities to people who might still consider sex work a viable alternative to legitimate employment. I didn't say you suggested force. I was asking is that what you were suggesting. I take from that then that you weren't suggesting that anyone was being forced to avail of the services of sex workers. Well I'm glad we cleared that much up at least!
Eramen wrote: » I loved the poster who believed that nuns control the government
melissak wrote: » That would have been my position too, but the issue is it coerced consent?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Well like anyone else in society does, they have to learn to make opportunities for themselves, rather than exploit the lack of opportunities that forces other people into sex work.
Finnley Colossal Backdrop wrote: » Part of the situation at the moment is that vulnerable demographics - asylum seekers, the homeless, teenagers - are at increased risk of being forced into sex work, and the unregulated, invisible nature of the industry feeds into this. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that the vast, vast majority of people who buy sex would, if they had the option, choose a legitimate business with guarantees for the welfare of its employees, and if full legalisation causes harm reduction I'm all for it.
Olishi4 wrote: » Sex work for the "client" is basically sexual rejection however the sex still goes ahead in the form of a "transaction". Rejection and constant rejection, I would think, would cause insecurity and resentment internally (towards yourself) and externally (towards the sex worker). It's all mixed up because sex and healthy sex is more about acceptance.
MacauDragon wrote: How about making both parties involved in breaking a law equally responsible.
MacauDragon wrote: You know for equality. We're all equal after all. Or is equality too inconvenient in this case.
melissak wrote: » I would much prefer to sell sex than do that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Ahh no, I wouldn't say you were naive, but part of the attraction of sex workers for people who use sex workers, is that they can leave their morals at the door on the way in. SoupMonster gave a good example of it earlier. Johns/Janes don't particularly have to worry about their reputation and their standing in society, because they're aware that a sex worker with loose lips doesn't stay in business very long, and they take advantage of the fact to do things to sex workers that they could only dream of doing with a nice, respectable woman or man (whichever the case may be). If it were regulated (only a minority of the more affluent sex workers with lobbying clout actually want the industry regulated, as only they can afford to pay income tax, insurance, etc), then the stigma that drives the taboo and illicit nature of sex work wouldn't be the same for the Johns/Janes, the same thrill wouldn't exist, the same freedom to abandon their morals wouldn't exist, and they would avoid the regulated sex workers in favour of the sex workers where they know they will get the same thrills for cheaper, and still be able to leave with their reputation and status intact. Not so for the person whom they just paid to allow themselves to be violated. Full legalisation (or decriminalisation even) would only be beneficial for commercial interests in the UK and Europe. Irish Government would actually get fcuk all revenue from it as none of the visiting sex workers would be registered to pay tax in Ireland. In short - it would actually do more harm to Irish society, than any harm reduction. Investing in education and employment however, would be of far greater benefit to society than legislating for people to get their rocks off.
LexieOnRale wrote: » Isn't most sex purchased? He buys me shoes, I give him blowjobs He doesn't treat me well, he can paddle his own canoe. Anyways I digress, who cares what people do as long as neither party are forced into it.
LexieOnRale wrote: » Well yeah, sex makes him happy, material things make me happy. He keeps me happy, I keep him happy. Though I'm a joy to be around so he's blessed anyway Anyway - being in a relationship is not free
eviltwin wrote: » We can't police every choice a person makes. Unfortunately people do things under duress all the time. It shouldn't be that way but that's life. Denying those men and women protection from a regulated industry, removing the stigma of sex work and giving them legitimacy is the way forward, it's gives those who are not there by choice a better chance than the situation we currently have.
LexieOnRale wrote: » Well let's put it like this. When he buys me designer shoes for my birthday, he's the one that thinks all his birthdays come together. The better the gesture, the better the reward.
mhge wrote: » So you're trading sex for gifts and that's fine but please do not generalise that this is what relationships run on and most sex is purchased like that...
LexieOnRale wrote: » What, so most relationships don't involve doing something nice for the other person? Your oh doesn't buy presents, bring you away for weekends/holidays? Doesn't take you out to dinner? Doesn't bring home your favourite wine if he knows your having a bad day? My point is simply not all sex is free, and it doesn't mean sleeping with them because you owe them for whatever they've given you, but because you're happy you feel appreciated or cared about and you want to. If I was in a relationship with a tightwad, who penny pinched and was miserable, I can't imagine the sex part of the relationship being too exciting either
melissak wrote: » But do we need to make it easier for vulnerable people to get into it? Shouldn't we strive for a society where people aren't coerced in whatever manner, be it force or desperation, to sell sex? This is not a " that's life" scenario. This is a sign that our country as a system is a sick system and I think that is sad.
melissak wrote: » Bangkok for example is destroyed with European stag parties doing things they wouldn't dream of doing at home with "real" people, which is awful because thai people are pretty reserved/modest in general. A real eye opener tbh.
sabat wrote: » Seriously? I've never seen a single stag party in Bangkok. I mean what fiancée would agree to that and what groom would have the balls to ask/tell her and enough friends with the money and permission from their partners to go on a debauched week in Thailand before their wedding? Enough to "destroy" a city of 10 million people? The western sex tourist scene in Thailand, which sprung up during the Vietnam War-often with direct funding from the US government, is just the tip of the iceberg of prostitution in the country and by some margin the least exploitative aspect of the industry.
eviltwin wrote: » What do you suggest then, keep it illegal and underground?
esforum wrote: » How ****ing big was the manor mlord???? 100 yards, thats about 5 neighbours away from me!
melissak wrote: » Have you been to Bangkok. Or koh samui or phuket ? Seriously, unless it has changed radically in the last ten years. I hope it is tbh
sabat wrote: » I'm in Bangkok right now. The point I'm making is that the very visible western sex tourist scene is actually quite small and far less exploitative compared to the various 'establishments' used by Thais.
Brevio wrote: » It's quite sad that grown adults need "permission" to go away on stag parties.
