nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Should the purchase of sex be legal or illegal in Ireland?

freshpopcorn

I think I heard recently that the purchase of sex in France is now a criminal offence.

Should the purchase of sex be legal or illegal in Ireland?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

pablomakaveli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's legal under certain provisions. That's the tricky part about stating that it's banned or it's legal - the statement needs to be qualified. The resources going into policing illegal activity are far less than would be needed to put proper supporting structures in place before sex work could ever be fully decriminalised and legislated for, and even then it wouldn't address issues such as sex tourism, exploitation and indignity, nor would it at all bring in enough revenue if all sex workers had to be registered as self-employed or working in legal brothels, to justify it's existence. The same money as I said would be far better spent on providing educational and employment opportunities to young people for the good of society as a whole, and not simply the minority involved in the sex industry.

If its legalized we get a return in revenue. As it stands now we get nothing. If buying sex is banned which has been proposed i.e the Swedish model we get no return either with more expenditure on policing the ban.

In case you hadn't noticed, your posts are only your opinion either. What, in your opinion, does it suggest to you about my attitude to sex, and obviously separate from that - what does it suggest to you about my attitude to sex workers?

You're right its my opinion. But at the end of the day it shouldnt be something based off my opinion or yours. We're not affected by any of it. Its the prostitutes who should be asked for their opinion. Instead in Ireland we have the government taking advice of a christian charity. One who idealogically can only advocate a ban whether its good for the prostitutes or not.

Laws based on whether an activity is beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole is not a good basis for law? We base laws on their effect on society as a whole, rather that what benefit they give solely to a subset of people who are offended by the fact that progressive societies generally frown on industries that perpetuate the exploitation of people within that society.

And how does the activities between two or more consenting adults in the bedroom negatively impact on society. It has little bearing on most people.

Also laws arent always broad cover alls. We have laws related to very specific things, stuff that has no bearing on most people.

Still trying to make the argument all about women, eh? Who's engaging in sexism now?

Let's actually face what's really going on here which is that feminism has caved in on itself - feminists are using the welfare of women argument to argue for criminalisation of the sex industry, and feminists are using the welfare of women argument to argue for the decriminalisation of the sex industry.

Both sides of the argument are arguing that the other side are wrong, because their real only concern is not for the betterment of society as a whole, but for the betterment of their own selfish interests. I have no interest in the politics of the argument tbh, can't stand some people on either side of it.

You obviously didnt fully read what I typed. I'm not the one making it all about women. Some groups involved in this debate do that. Male prostitutes should be factored into the debate also. However they often arent.

And your going on about the betterment of society again so i'll refer you back to what I said earlier.

Also you just seem to be contradicting yourself at the end. You dont like either side and dont care about the politics of the issue yet your posting about it here anyway.

enfant terrible

Is the Swedish model working anyone know?

One eyed Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If its legalized we get a return in revenue. As it stands now we get nothing. If buying sex is banned which has been proposed i.e the Swedish model we get no return either with more expenditure on policing the ban.

Just how much resources do you think are given to policing prostitution as it is, and how much revenue do you think would be generated from it's decriminalisation and regulation? Ball park figures will do, I'm not going to break your balls altogether.

You're right its my opinion. But at the end of the day it shouldnt be something based off my opinion or yours. We're not affected by any of it. Its the prostitutes who should be asked for their opinion. Instead in Ireland we have the government taking advice of a christian charity. One who idealogically can only advocate a ban whether its good for the prostitutes or not.

Realistically though, you can only speak for yourself in that regard, as you're not aware of anyone else's circumstances, let alone whether I am, or am not affected by it's criminalisation or decriminalisation. It's not just sex workers should be asked for their opinion on an issue that affects a society as a whole.

In Ireland nobody actually really gives a shìt about Ruhama's opinion, and they don't have to, because they can make determinations based upon outcomes in other countries and the outcomes of criminalisation or decriminalisation on those societies. Various self-interested lobby groups on both sides will always want to give their input anyway, merely to justify their existence under the pretence of their various ideologies.

And how does the activities between two or more consenting adults in the bedroom negatively impact on society. It has little bearing on most people.

It's not just "the activities of two or more consenting adults in the bedroom" though, is it?

Also laws arent always broad cover alls. We have laws related to very specific things, stuff that has no bearing on most people.

Laws apply to society as a whole, and they become very relevant to people who choose to contravene those laws as though the laws that govern a society shouldn't apply to them.

You obviously didnt fully read what I typed. I'm not the one making it all about women. Some groups involved in this debate do that. Male prostitutes should be factored into the debate also. However they often arent.

Well what's your point? Do you think the law shouldn't apply to men in the same way as it does to women? Are men not entitled to the same protection of society as women? What exactly is your point you're trying to make in pointing out that male sex workers are often ignored in the discussion?

Also you just seem to be contradicting yourself at the end. You dont like either side and dont care about the politics of the issue yet your posting about it here anyway.

That's not what I said though. I said I can't stand some people on either side, and I can't, because they're less interested in other people's welfare, and more interested in using other people's welfare to push their own ideology and their ideas for society, which, when you strip away the bullshìt, reveal that the person who benefits the most, is themselves, and not society.

That's the politics I can't stand, and yes, I'm here posting about it anyway because I, as part of Irish society, am entitled to give my opinion on the issue, just as much as they are. I don't have to like them, and they don't like me. I'm ok with that though as I'm not particularly interested in whether they like me or not.

exiztone

enfant terrible wrote: »

Is the Swedish model working anyone know?

It isn't working. In fact, it pushed existing sex workers further underground and made the process of purchasing sex far more perilous for both client and worker alike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZUTmefC4A

One eyed Jack

exiztone wrote: »

It isn't working. In fact, it pushed existing sex workers further underground and made the process of purchasing sex far more perilous for both client and worker alike.

I think the answer to whether the Swedish model has worked or not, is a very complicated one that depends upon what it's aims really were in the first place, and depending upon whom you ask. The video above is actually a very good explanation of the effects of the introduction of the model, without the social supports that should have been in place before the legislation was introduced. It goes back to exactly what I said earlier -

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.

It's an immediate deterrent, and the same will happen here as has happened in Sweden, if the social supports aren't in place before the legislation is introduced into Irish law.

Now, depending upon how you look at it - has the legislation worked for the "out of sight, out of mind" types who don't particularly want sex workers in their communities? Absolutely.

Has it worked to provide for a more progressive society for all? Absolutely not.

Does that concern the NIMBY types for whom the problem is dealt with as far as they're concerned? Well, they don't have to think about it any more because it's not in their faces any more, and they feel no moral obligation to care for the welfare of people whose behaviour falls below their moral standards.

So in that respect at least, the Swedish model has worked, but it's a question of who it was supposed to work for. It was certainly never meant to work for people who choose to be involved in the sex industry, and it was certainly never meant to work for people who perpetuate the existence of the sex industry.

Creating structures for the betterment of society as a whole though? I'm sure politicians and self-interested lobby groups will get around to it eventually at some stage...

Not really :rolleyes:

esforum

mynameis905 wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Stupid, regressive laws based on outdated religious mores ensure that prostitution is associated with criminality. Allow for full legalisation and you take it out of the hands of criminals. The state has absolutely no business interfering in sexual activity between consenting adults. None.

correct, because it costs more money for a criminal to traffic a human into the country and treat her like a sex slave than to employ a voluntary person who has the nely required license and medical checks

Im being sarcastic

esforum

melissak wrote: »

But what will stop criminals exploiting people and being perverts so? This is what we need to think about a bit harder. I haven't got a clue. Making drugs cheaper would illeviate the junkie aspect maybe?

absolutely, Im not suggesting otherwise, what I am doing is cautioning against the simplistic view that bringning in licenses and medical checks will be some sort of magical cure.

Junkies are a situation in themselves and in that regard intervention and the availability of treatment is all you can do, forcing someone to undergo treatment never works.

timthumbni

Would legalising prostitution help reduce sex trafficking and exploitation of the vulnerable or not???

Speedwell

timthumbni wrote: »

Would legalising prostitution help reduce sex trafficking and exploitation of the vulnerable or not???

Yes, because someone who is trafficked and/or exploited will be free of the threat of a criminal prosecution that could get them deported or jailed, so they won't feel trapped and can get help and medical care. Being labeled a criminal could also make them a less effective witness against their abusers.

timthumbni

Speedwell wrote: »

Yes, because someone who is trafficked and/or exploited will be free of the threat of a criminal prosecution that could get them deported or jailed, so they won't feel trapped and can get help and medical care. Being labeled a criminal could also make them a less effective witness against their abusers.

And does this play out like this in countries that have legalised prostitution?

As said in an earlier post I personally would not use the services of a prostitute. I'm not a prude but the whole idea of it puts me off tbh. It therefore wouldn't really bother me if it was legal or not.

Cathy.C

timthumbni wrote: »

Would legalising prostitution help reduce sex trafficking and exploitation of the vulnerable or not???

It's hard to say. I am in Holland at the moment and there is a big problem here with criminal gangs opening brothels and trafficking women into the country. They target this country because brothels are legal. My sister-in-law worked on film about two of the oldest prostitutes here and I believe they have spoken out against how legalizing the industry has made it worse. In fact there is a government project underway here now to close the window prostitution and to clean up Amsterdam. So while many use Holland as an example of how legalizing prostitution would be a good thing, that might not be the case at all, or at least not as far as they are concerned at least.

Personally I struggle with why it should be illegal in Ireland on purely a freedom of choice basis, it's the surrounding secondary issues that perhaps makes one pause for further thought. Making brothels legal for example and you effectively create a European base for criminal pimps and traffickers to work from. If it were somehow possible to make prostitution legal but keep it illegal for brothels to operate, well then perhaps that would have a negative effect on brothels and might be a positive thing. One thing is for sure, it's far from a black and white issue as there are simply to many unknowns. Its just as easy to make a case for why legalizing prostitution would be a bad move as it is to make a case for why it would be a good one.

One eyed Jack

Cathy.C wrote: »

It's hard to say. I am in Holland at the moment and there is a big problem here with criminal gangs opening brothels and trafficking women into the country. They target this country because brothels are legal. My sister-in-law worked on film about two of the oldest prostitutes here and I believe they have spoken out against how legalizing the industry has made it worse. In fact there is a government project underway here now to close the window prostitution and to clean up Amsterdam. So while many use Holland as an example of how legalizing prostitution would be a good thing, that might not be the case at all, or at least not as far as they are concerned at least.

I was just about to say pretty much the above. The Amsterdam model of legalisation just hasn't worked. Legalising drugs and prostitution has just made the ordinary citizens of Amsterdam hate the place, and the rest of the Netherlands glad they don't have to live there. It has increased trafficking and that's why Amsterdam local council politicians have been making attempts for the last couple of years to push out prostitution and drugs and are gagging to adopt the Swedish model.

It would be the same thing if prostitution were fully decriminalised here. We don't really have an issue with trafficking now (never mind the Immigrant Council of Ireland, their idea of 'trafficking' is a sex worker moving from one county to another ffs!!), but if it were legislated for, then we'd have the same as has happened to Amsterdam in a couple of years.

esforum

timthumbni wrote: »

Would legalising prostitution help reduce sex trafficking and exploitation of the vulnerable or not???

yes, it would reduce by allowing customers to make more informed decisions and know that they are using a legal, sancctioned facility. This would reduce if not eliminate the demand for illegal / trafficed / coerced prostitutes.

At present, with the best of intentions in mind you still cannot know if the woman is voluntary or not.

Speedwell wrote: »

Yes, because someone who is trafficked and/or exploited will be free of the threat of a criminal prosecution that could get them deported or jailed, so they won't feel trapped and can get help and medical care. Being labeled a criminal could also make them a less effective witness against their abusers.

Being trafficed is a guaranteed pass to legal residency, no trafficed person gets prosecuted or deported.

If you are trafficed you are controlled, they will NOT be licensed or medically treated any more than they are now.

The only difference in that scenario is that a customer will know that by utilising an unlicensed prostitute they are using a forced person or a diseased / drug dependent person which will, as I said, reduce demand for their services.

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was just about to say pretty much the above. The Amsterdam model of legalisation just hasn't worked. Legalising drugs and prostitution has just made the ordinary citizens of Amsterdam hate the place, and the rest of the Netherlands glad they don't have to live there. It has increased trafficking and that's why Amsterdam local council politicians have been making attempts for the last couple of years to push out prostitution and drugs and are gagging to adopt the Swedish model.

It would be the same thing if prostitution were fully decriminalised here. We don't really have an issue with trafficking now (never mind the Immigrant Council of Ireland, their idea of 'trafficking' is a sex worker moving from one county to another ffs!!), but if it were legislated for, then we'd have the same as has happened to Amsterdam in a couple of years.

spot on, Amsterdam is an example of how not to legalise something

2 stroke

Just seeing this thread now and have only read 2 pages.
What right do politicians have to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults.
I am against pimping, forced trafficking, and forced sex work, and governments are not doing enough to enforce existing laws regulating these issues.
Instead it appears that governments want to jam up the legal system by prosecuting consenting adults.
While I don't visit brothels, I would like to think that if I were to become wealthy but more unattractive to the opposite sex, that I could come to an arrangement with a consenting female without worry of prosecution.
Also what would define payment for sex? Because there have certainly been times that I've put my hand into my pocket, or donated my time or services, on the understanding that if I played my cards right, I'd be getting laid. Infact, i highly suspect that ladies undo a button or 2, and stuff their bras just before asking me a favour

2 stroke

The biggest coercion factor seems to be economic pressures. If governments want to reduce prostitution, they can do this by ensuring work and a decent standard of living for everyone. This wont stamp out prostitution though, there will always be ladies that prefer to work on their backs, legs in the air for lifes little luxuries.

Little CuChulainn

2 stroke wrote: »

The biggest coercion factor seems to be economic pressures. If governments want to reduce prostitution, they can do this by ensuring work and a decent standard of living for everyone. This wont stamp out prostitution though, there will always be ladies that prefer to work on their backs, legs in the air for lifes little luxuries.

The same can be said for all crime.

silverharp

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The same can be said for all crime.

ordinary crime as we know it is taking stuff of someone else using force. Prostitution, like selling alcohol or marijuana is a transaction. Its not criminal by nature.

Its not really the government's job to protect adults from themselves because where would it stop?

Discodog

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The same can be said for all crime.

Also there will always be people who exploit an opportunity to supply a commodity or service that is in demand. Drugs & prostitution provide opportunities because they offer big returns at low risk.

The licensing of prostitution would make it easy to catch those operating illegally because, unlike drug dealers, they have to advertise.

The huge hole in the argument of banning prostitution is that you will never stop the demand.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's generally a choice made by only one party

What do you mean by "generally" here exactly. Do we have figures or workings we can look at? Which party is making the choice? Which party is being precluded a choice. How and why? I fear you are being willfully vague here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's generally a choice made by only one party, and that's the only party that is generally free to walk away from it at any time

esforum wrote: »

I would dispute your opinion that prostitutes are not doing so willingly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're not disputing my opinion then, you're making up something I never said, and disputing that instead.

That is a bit unfair from you there OEJ as such an implication comes across strongly in what you wrote and esforum is not the only one to have picked up on it.

What you wrote very strongly implies a lack of choice, both before and during the transaction, and it is a bit crass to accuse someone who picks up on that implication of putting words in your mouth.

But by all means elaborate on it and clarify what you said and mean, rather than simply throwing out accusations and then not clearing up any misunderstandings that exist. Of the NUMEROUS times you have shoved your words into my mouth in the past for example, I generally point out you have done so and THEN proceed to explain my ACTUAL position further to clear up the mess. Try it sometime.

That is of course assuming you are not being willfully vague in the attempt to be happily misunderstood.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By your own admission that they may not enjoy the work, that hardly suggests they're engaged in sex work willingly

That would be a rather pedantic over application of the word "willingly". What people generally mean by "willingly" in these contexts is that they considered the option of taking the job, and all things considered they CHOSE to go into the job. Actual ENJOYMENT of the job is not a requirement here. Many could have chosen otherwise, but did not.

I have concern for anyone in ANY job, not just the sex trade, who are there because they had no other choices. It is a sad reality many are in such jobs, but that is just how our society works alas, it says nothing about the jobs themselves.

But anyone who had a choice, and made that choice, I would have less sympathy for.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whether or not other people who are legitimately employed do or don't enjoy their chosen employment, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Except it is not irrelevant. It is exactly the point. The point being that lack of enjoyment of a job or role is not the same as doing that job or role "unwillingly". Because willingness is not relevant to level of enjoyment, it is relevant to whether they themselves CHOSE the role, or whether they were given no choice in it. So what IS irrelevant to the discussion is discussion of "enjoyment" in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How exactly, are sex workers forcing anyone, to avail of their services?

I have not seen anyone saying they are. But equally I am not seeing much in the way of showing that "generally" sex workers are being forced to OFFER that service either.

So if there is a point being made here, so far I am not actually seeing what it is, let alone what supports it. Nor am I seeing much in the way of moves from you to clarify or explain it. You APPEAR to be happier to maintain the confusion to leave other users floundering in their responses to you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, I'm very confused with your bed hopping goalpost moving. You're making it very difficult to pin you down for a straight answer!

Irony. Meter. Exploding. As I said above, you appear not to be offering any clear point or comment, and appear to be resisting any attempts to get you to clarify what you are getting at. You have made some very (likely willfully) vague comments related to "choice" in this matter, and being entirely evasive on lending those comments any substance at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm absolutely not being evasive at all. You said initially that both parties are free to walk away any time they want. I said that generally, only one party is free to walk away any time they want.

"Generally" is again very vague here. Where are you getting this and what is it based on?

Even then however any lack of ability or choice on their part to terminate the encounter or contract at any time is of course a problem. I do not see it as a problem in terms of justifying banning prostitution or making any aspect of it illegal. It is a problem of implementation of the contract itself. There should be few, if any, types of employment in this world were the worker can not step back and stop if their desire is to do so. Unless one party has signed or agreed to a contract that states otherwise.

I for example could get up and leave my desk right now and choose not to come back. I would, due to the contract I agreed to openly at the beginning, suffer some legal and financial repercussions from that choice of course. But it is still my choice regardless.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That is why targeting the buyer by criminalising the buyer, who is not forced or coerced to pay to avail of the services of a sex worker, makes the activity more unattractive for the buyer, and without buyers, the potential market for sex workers to earn an income in sex work declines, because there isn't any real money to be made, leading to people who might have made the decision to become sex workers, seek alternative, legitimate, employment.

Yet I have seen little to suggest that that is what happens as a result of such laws in reality. What appears to happen is that it becomes more unattractive to SOME legitimate sex workers but not all. And the buyers still exist and continue to see paid sex when they can.

So the actual results of such policies do not appear to be what you suggest. Rather what the risk is is that:

1) While some legitimate workers stay away, others do not, but the environment those workers enter into is more underground and therefore riskier, unhealhy, dangerous and stigmatized.

2) Any drop off in numbers of such workers then leaves a hole to be filled by non legitimate sex workers. The people forced or trafficked into the role.

So I wonder is there any citation that supports the reality of the effects you SUGGEST such laws have, or is it just the effect you internally HOPE such laws would have... but you do not actually know if they do? Because history seems quite full of attempts to make things illegal doing nothing more than pushing them underground and forming a nastier cartel inside a more dangerous version of the industry.

Not to mention the fact you have not even made arguments to justify the attempt. You have merely suggested (without substantiation) that such laws would dry up and help stop the sex industry. But I am not seeing any arguments from you (or anyone else) as to why that is something we should even want to do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the State should be investing it's resources in education and employment opportunities for people rather than wasting it's resources on facilitating exploitation and indignity.

Where is the exploitation OR indignity in someone CHOOSING to sell sex and someone else CHOOSING to sell it? You appear to be projecting your own values here as if they are some kind of standard.

And if your concern, as you pretend here, is about protecting resources.... then perhaps you should compare how much resources banning it and maintain that ban takes.... with how much regulating and licensing and taxing it takes.

I see no such figures or calculations or arguments from you and remain unconvinced you even know what the comparisons are or would even look like.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

EDIT: Well that's half an hour of my life I won't get back. Lucky I wasn't paying then to listen to Maggie's basic argument that she's right... and everyone else in society needs to grow up :rolleyes:

And yet your abject and empty dismissal above here does not even address the core of the argument that the person who offered the video summarized for you. Which is that what we are doing to some women when making this illegal is "removing agency for them under the guise of protecting them".

Perhaps you can address that position or argument rather than summarizing it in a completely unrelated straw man version of "I am right and everyone else needs to grow up".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The resources going into policing illegal activity are far less than would be needed to put proper supporting structures in place before sex work could ever be fully decriminalised and legislated for

Nice assertion but I am seeing no citation or support for it. Can you show your workings here please?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and even then it wouldn't address issues such as sex tourism, exploitation and indignity

The indignity appears to be something you have entirely invented. So I am not sure how to address that other than to ask you to validate it.

What exactly do you mean by sex tourism and why is it to be avoided? I am not seeing what the issue is here or what you mean by it.

As for exploitation, the whole purpose of legalizing and regulating it would be to address that. So not seeing what the issue is here either?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same money as I said would be far better spent on providing educational and employment opportunities to young people for the good of society as a whole, and not simply the minority involved in the sex industry.

Not mutually exclusive. Spending money on such education and employment opportunity is something we should be doing all the time ANYWAY. So I do not see it as a relevant point in this discussion at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let's actually face what's really going on here which is that feminism has caved in on itself - feminists are using the welfare of women argument to argue for criminalisation of the sex industry, and feminists are using the welfare of women argument to argue for the decriminalisation of the sex industry.

Exactly. So simply touting the phrase "welfare of women" tells us nothing. People arguing for one side or the other need to establish how and why they feel their position is beneficial for such welfares. I have given several such arguments in my post here for example.

I am not seeing that in your posts. I just see you throwing out asserted words like "indignity" and not qualifying them AT ALL.

nozzferrahhtoo

Eramen wrote: »

The regulations have also led to increases in forced prostitution, pimping, and human trafficking.

That sounds very vague. What kind of increases? How were they measures? What WERE these new regulations? Which ones led to the increases? What is the causal, not correlative, links between those regulations and the increases?

You started the post complaining about people being uninformed, but I am not seeing anything IN your post that actively informs. Too vague, too general, and no specifics at all.

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Legal, but you have to be licensed. I'm deadly serious.

As would I be saying the same thing. I think it should be a legal and regulated industry. And that would involve SOME kind of licensing system with periodic renewals of that licences that would involve things like STD checks and the like.

And people within that industry, thus licenced, would benefit from all the protections and employee rights and social supports that behooves their trade or people in other "legitimate" employment get by default.

I see neither argument nor benefit to anyone from having it illegal. Certainly not from anyone on this thread.

melissak wrote: »

But what will stop criminals exploiting people and being perverts so? This is what we need to think about a bit harder.

I agree we need to think about it harder. Unfortunately some people lack the ability or interest in investing in that thought process. So they throw their hands up and just cry "ban it, stop it, make it illegal".

And often that approach not only does not achieve what they want it to, it actually makes things worse by pushing it underground, stigmatizing it, attracting criminal elements to it, and removing legitimacy from the workers.

That is why I think it should be legal and regulated as best we can, and we should invest thought and effort into regulating it in the best possible ways to protect ALL involved.... the workers and the buyers.

timthumbni wrote: »

Would legalising prostitution help reduce sex trafficking and exploitation of the vulnerable or not???

It depends HOW it is legalized and regulated I would imagine. But in general consumers do seem to go for a legitimate product over a black market one, especially is the black market version represents a higher health risk to them personally. Black market cigarettes and Alcohol for example might be cheaper due to the lack of government taxes and the like.... but do the vast majority of people still not prefer to buy the legitimate over the counter higher priced version because they know at least SOME level of industry standards are maintained for their protection and health?

A similar argument is made for the legalization of Marijuana. At least with an industry regulated standard version available legitimately you have some confidence your product is not being cut in weird ways, or with varying levels of potency, designed to increase the sellers profit margins at the expense of your health or well being.

But the effects of legalization and regulation entirely depend on what form those two things actually take. A fact most people would like to ignore. As those AGAINST regulation will cite the worst example of a country where regulation was tried...... while those FOR it will cite the best examples of it.

The only sane way to proceed is identify exactly what concerns regulation should address, observe other countries to see how well or badly their attempts to address those concerns faired, and then produce a set of regulations and standards that we best feel will do the job.

What we never seem to get from the anti-prostitution types are specific arguments for concerns we need to address that regulation would not address or can not address or never has addressed.

esforum wrote: »

spot on, Amsterdam is an example of how not to legalise something

Alas as I just said above many people will use it as an example not for HOW not to do it.... but an example for NOT to do it. And we should be vigilant for people making that move. It is not a useful move. And it certainly is not an honest move.

Kev_2012

If legalizing it removes the criminal aspect of it and protects the workers then yes. But overall I have a problem with the morality of it and worry that buying or paying for sex would become a socially accepted norm.

I'm not religious or anything in any way shape or form but I wouldn't like my kids growing up thinking it's ok to sell sex if money is tight.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kev_2012 wrote: »

But overall I have a problem with the morality of it and worry that buying or paying for sex would become a socially accepted norm.

I am not seeing anything morally wrong with it though. For me consent and choice and harm are big aspects of what I mediate morality on. And as long as the sale of sex is done with choice and consent, I am not seeing what the moral arguments ever ARE on the subject?

Perhaps morality is not the right word for it? It sounds more like you have personal taste issues with it, but that is a bit distinct from morality.

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing anything morally wrong with it though. For me consent and choice and harm are big aspects of what I mediate morality on. And as long as the sale of sex is done with choice and consent, I am not seeing what the moral arguments ever ARE on the subject?

Perhaps morality is not the right word for it? It sounds more like you have personal taste issues with it, but that is a bit distinct from morality.

there is probably a middle ground of understanding the consequences of it. One could see the that there might be psychological consequences of working in the sex industry or otherwise miscalculating the situation. I would certainly think I'd have failed as a parent if my daughter ended up in the sex industry.

Speedwell

silverharp wrote: »

there is probably a middle ground of understanding the consequences of it. One could see the that there might be psychological consequences of working in the sex industry or otherwise miscalculating the situation. I would certainly think I'd have failed as a parent if my daughter ended up in the sex industry.

Well, then, they seem to be your psychological consequences.

armaghlad

If there were any substantial changes in legislation... would that mean prostitution increasing in border areas?

nozzferrahhtoo

silverharp wrote: »

there is probably a middle ground of understanding the consequences of it.

The same could be said for many other industries and roles however. There are many jobs people can enter that have consequences. Some physical. Some emotional.

silverharp wrote: »

One could see the that there might be psychological consequences of working in the sex industry or otherwise miscalculating the situation.

There might but as I said I am not sure that is relevant to whether there is anything morally wrong with it or not. And moving past the moral argument to the legal one.... are those consequences helped or exacerbated by making prostitution illegal and therefore underground and stigmatized? I would fear such a move exacerbates the consequences, not addresses them.

To answer those questions however one would need to identify exactly what "psychological consequences" we are talking about and why they occur.

silverharp wrote: »

I would certainly think I'd have failed as a parent if my daughter ended up in the sex industry.

Not sure I would, as I do not measure my success as a parent in those terms. I would more measure my success on my childs ability to make a choice, and their ending up happy.

So if my child CHOSE to enter into the sex trade and was HAPPY to do so.... I would be much happier as a parent than if she felt COMPELLED to become a neurosurgeon and she did so and ended up miserable hating every minute of it.

It may not be the career path I would choose for her myself, but one aspect of being a parent I feel is learning what choices are yours to make in the first place.... and realizing that your role as a parent is sometimes not to make choices for your children....... but to equip them with the knowledge and inner strength to make their own.

Berserker

I have strong feelings on this issue. It should be illegal to buy and sell sex in Ireland. Both parties, caught in the act, should be prosecuted (jailed). The police here could shut down this "business" or the vast majority of it quite quickly by performing a series of aggressive raids on known hotels and residences, from which prostitution is sold. That'd make the men and women who buy sex think twice. If men and women weren't willing to pay for it, the prostitutes wouldn't work here.

Speedwell

Berserker wrote: »

I have strong feelings on this issue. It should be illegal to buy and sell sex in Ireland. Both parties, caught in the act, should be prosecuted (jailed). The police here could shut down this "business" or the vast majority of it quite quickly by performing a series of aggressive raids on known hotels and residences, from which prostitution is sold. That'd make the men and women who buy sex think twice. If men and women weren't willing to pay for it, the prostitutes wouldn't work here.

Your strong feelings are noted. Good thing we have a rule of law and not of feelings.

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The same could be said for many other industries and roles however. There are many jobs people can enter that have consequences. Some physical. Some emotional.

Sure, there probably are other professions that have a burnout rate or lead to depression etc. but there is a stigma to sex work and an 18 or 19 year old might equate it to "au pairing" for a few years but it might not be so easy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There might but as I said I am not sure that is relevant to whether there is anything morally wrong with it or not. And moving past the moral argument to the legal one.... are those consequences helped or exacerbated by making prostitution illegal and therefore underground and stigmatized? I would fear such a move exacerbates the consequences, not addresses them.

To answer those questions however one would need to identify exactly what "psychological consequences" we are talking about and why they occur.

moral or immoral are not words I would use but on the face of it, it could be damaging to the woman depending on what her future goals are, it could be career where someone comes out of the industry essentially with a blank CV for several years. It could be relationships and lets face very few men would marry a prostitute .

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure I would, as I do not measure my success as a parent in those terms. I would more measure my success on my childs ability to make a choice, and their ending up happy.

So if my child CHOSE to enter into the sex trade and was HAPPY to do so.... I would be much happier as a parent than if she felt COMPELLED to become a neurosurgeon and she did so and ended up miserable hating every minute of it.

It may not be the career path I would choose for her myself, but one aspect of being a parent I feel is learning what choices are yours to make in the first place.... and realizing that your role as a parent is sometimes not to make choices for your children....... but to equip them with the knowledge and inner strength to make their own.

well I would because I would like to think I had passed on values like investing in oneself and delayed gratification. A prostitute would strike me as someone that wants to short circuit long term planning and just wants "shiny" things now.