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

esforum wrote: »

If you have to go delberately off on a silly tangent to avoid answering, you have lost the arguement

Actually, that would mean that i won at the very beginning

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If by "fixed" you mean you ignored most of it and then changed it from what it was into what it was not, then sure, you fixed it real good.

It is always fun when you make a comparison or analogy based on the similarly between two or more things..... when the other person ignores the points of comparisons and instead makes some comment based on the differences. It genuinely makes me wonder if people get or understand analogy or comparison at all, or the purposes of engaging in it.

But much like I did for the other user who was struggling with the utility of analogy, I can repeat my point for you without analogy. The point being that there are plenty of things we do not want for ourselves, enjoy ourselves, or wish to offer ourselves. That does not mean OTHERS should be precluded from, or judged for, engaging with them.

Or put simpler, I am genuinely not seeing what your problem with "I would noo do it, but I am ok for others to do it" type statements actually is, if anything.

Oh I got your analogy alright. You didn't need to simplify because it was already too simple.

Tombi!

mod, Olish4, esforum, this isn't a childn's classroom. Knock the petty bickering off.

One eyed Jack

Speedwell wrote: »

Who the hell do you think you are? You are not the boss of other people and the moral authority over their feelings.

I haven't heard that in a while - "You're not the boss of me!"

I don't think anyone is trying to be the boss of anyone, but they're under no obligation to facilitate sex work if they choose not to. Whatever their reasons are, it doesn't have to be anything more than "I don't want prostitution legislated for in Irish society".

Still not the boss of anyone else, but themselves.

silverharp wrote: »

Well I would like to see more data on the well being of prostitutes But I will hypothesis that they as a group would score less well than other women in terms of lifetime wellness or the ability to maintain relationships for example.

I genuinely do not know. I would wait for the data before making any such assumptions. Take people, of either sex, who enjoy going out at weekends and having casual sex while drunk or drugged up.... compared to the planned and more practiced professional sex worker. Who is more likely to vet who they are sleeping with, use condoms and other protections, and get regular medical check ups?

I am not going to answer that question myself. Suffice it to say there are too many questions and too many assumptions one can fall prey to when entering into assumption and hypothesis on the subject.

But given that sex work seems to proceed regardless whether it is legal or not...... which solution (again given this is what the thread is about) is more conducive to reducing such negatives occurring, or addressing them when they do? It would appear the answer to that is much easier to get at.

silverharp wrote: »

So it circles back to statements like I wouldn't want to see my daughter be a prostitute or god forbid my son says he met a nice one and wants to settle down with her

And as I said, neither would bother me so long as A) my child was happy and

Where they ended up was based on informed consent.

If I get THAT much from my role as a parent, I could not care less whether they end up sex workers, politicians, or astronauts.

silverharp wrote: »

A prostitute most likely has to keep a low profile socially

But that does not really affect the point I am making. The point being that just because you MAY be negatively judged for your career.... this has little to no relevance on the topic this thread is actually about.

Especially given that attribute.... the stigma.... is something having an above board, normalized regulated and legal industry is likely to address much better than a dark, underground, criminal version.

So the whole side discussion you have introduced appears to veer somewhere between irrelevancy, and a pro-legalisation argument. Though I am unsure if you were hoping it would be either.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Oh I got your analogy alright. You didn't need to simplify because it was already too simple.

And yet your response to it, and the lack of response to my argument presented without the analogy, suggests otherwise. Can you be clearer then what your issue with "I would not do it, but I am ok for others to do it" type statements actually is, if anything? Because I genuinely am not seeing it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet your response to it, and the lack of response to my argument presented without the analogy, suggests otherwise. Can you be clearer then what your issue with "I would not do it, but I am ok for others to do it" type statements actually is, if anything? Because I genuinely am not seeing it.

I didn't feel the need to respond because if you don't understand why someone saying "it's not ok for me but it's ok for someone else" in this context then there is no point in trying to explain it as it is self explanatory.

Olishi4 wrote: »

I didn't feel the need to respond because if you don't understand why someone saying "it's not ok for me but it's ok for someone else" in this context then there is no point in trying to explain it as it is self explanatory.

I understand them saying it. The problem is I see no issue with them saying it. So I am asking you what the issue actually is. The world is full of people who do not want to do certain things themselves, as a hobby or as a career, but are happy for other people to choose to do them.

So if it is not an issue there, why is it an issue here?

I really am not seeing where the force of your point lies here.

silverharp

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I genuinely do not know. I would wait for the data before making any such assumptions. Take people, of either sex, who enjoy going out at weekends and having casual sex while drunk or drugged up.... compared to the planned and more practiced professional sex worker. Who is more likely to vet who they are sleeping with, use condoms and other protections, and get regular medical check ups?

I am not going to answer that question myself. Suffice it to say there are too many questions and too many assumptions one can fall prey to when entering into assumption and hypothesis on the subject.

But given that sex work seems to proceed regardless whether it is legal or not...... which solution (again given this is what the thread is about) is more conducive to reducing such negatives occurring, or addressing them when they do? It would appear the answer to that is much easier to get at.

Promiscuity and divorce have been correlated in the States. I believe 18 or more partners meant an 80% chance of getting a divorce. If someone has had sex with over 500 or a thousand lord knows. There maybe data out there Im just saying I cant be ar5ed looking of it , neither would most people, The presumption has to be that it is not an overly healthy activity

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So the whole side discussion you have introduced appears to veer somewhere between irrelevancy, and a pro-legalisation argument. Though I am unsure if you were hoping it would be either.

Ive said a few times that I don't think it should be outlawed just that I wouldn't approve of it being normalised or something one would expect to be on the CAO :pac: more that society should tolerate it because driving it underground gives more power to criminals

Personally I would say that it shouldn't be glamorised or in people's faces like in Amsterdam . Possibly regulated in purpose built places that can be inspected easily

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I understand them saying it. The problem is I see no issue with them saying it. So I am asking you what the issue actually is. The world is full of people who do not want to do certain things themselves, as a hobby or as a career, but are happy for other people to choose to do them.

So if it is not an issue there, why is it an issue here? I really am not seeing where the force of your point lies here.

Because if they are saying "I would only become a sex worker if i had a gun to my head" then it shows the shame and humiliation associated with the "profession". It is an attempt to distance oneself. Its like saying "keep it way from me", its like saying "i dont care as long as it is not me". Its not like a hobby. It is not something that someone is proud of. Somebody mentioned in another post about the importance of keeping the dignity of the sex worker but the job itself is undignified.

Would you be a sex worker? Why? If no, then why would you think someone else would?

Olishi4 wrote: »

Because if they are saying "I would only become a sex worker if i had a gun to my head" then it shows the shame and humiliation associated with the "profession". It is an attempt to distance oneself. Its like saying "keep it way from me", its like saying "i dont care as long as it is not me". Its not like a hobby. It is not something that someone is proud of. Somebody mentioned in another post about the importance of keeping the dignity of the sex worker but the job itself is undignified.

Would you be a sex worker? Why? If no, then why would you think someone else would?

What do my personal choices have to do with other people's personal choices, unless they directly impact me? Pure projection. Just because you don't like stewed prunes doesn't mean I have to hork up my breakfast.

One eyed Jack

Speedwell wrote: »

What do my personal choices have to do with other people's personal choices, unless they directly impact me? Pure projection. Just because you don't like stewed prunes doesn't mean I have to hork up my breakfast.

Other people when they seek protection from the State to validate their personal choices by regulating the industry they chose to get into, then it has a direct impact on everyone who is a member of that society, and it's not simply about the personal choices of the individual any more. It becomes a matter of public interest when a small lobby group are campaigning for laws that are more about benefitting them as a group, than advocating that a change in the law is for the benefit of all society.

Time after time it has been demonstrated that the sex industry offers no benefit to society as a whole, and it's certainly not a marker of a civilised, progressive society that we would still be so desperate not only to hang on to prostitution, but for a small group to want to legislate for it?

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than "personal choice".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Other people when they seek protection from the State to validate their personal choices by regulating the industry they chose to get into, then it has a direct impact on everyone who is a member of that society, and it's not simply about the personal choices of the individual any more. It becomes a matter of public interest when a small lobby group are campaigning for laws that are more about benefitting them as a group, than advocating that a change in the law is for the benefit of all society.

Time after time it has been demonstrated that the sex industry offers no benefit to society as a whole, and it's certainly not a marker of a civilised, progressive society that we would still be so desperate not only to hang on to prostitution, but for a small group to want to legislate for it?

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than "personal choice".

No, that's an indirect impact.

And has the sex industry been studied in a context in which it is free and legal?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

If people enjoy sex and are comfortable with having sex with people for cash, what's the problem?
If they're forced into it, that's a different story. You can't dictate to people how they live their lives

Eramen

I see that nobody commented on the issues I brought up about Saarland, Germany on page 5. As usual AH likes to seer well clear of factual discourse.

Plenty of European countries or regions have legalised prostitution to some extent. We need to look here for the evidence before we do anything because there are many negative social and public health issues you need to take into consideration. Simply appealing to emotion and saying 'it's an agreement between consenting adults' is short-sighted and weak. The reason our government (and most others) haven't legalised it is because of the multifaceted problems associated with the legal sex trade.

For a start legal brothels are deeply unpopular among the Dutch. There have been a record number of closures due to the rise in organised crime using them to launder money and to force people into sexual slavery. The number of hotels and coffeeshops in the area is also being reduced via government policy. Again because of serious crime.

The operators of 18% of the licensed companies have a criminal record; while the managers of 49% of the licensed companies have a criminal record

Other considerations:

Only 5% of prostitutes are registered to pay tax in the Netherlands, with a similar number in Saarland - the public coffers argument goes out the window here.

The average age of a girl entering the sex trade is only 14 in the Netherlands

In 2008, six men were convicted of the "largest case of human trafficking ever brought to trial in the Netherlands."

According to the investigation: "some of the victims were compelled to have breast enlargement surgery, and one defendant was convicted of forcing at least one woman to have an abortion.

Rather look at the Swedish model which criminalises the buying and selling of sex, reducing the prevalence of prostitution, as well as the number of people trafficked into sex slavery. That some people think prostitution empowers a woman is laughable. It usually binds them into a life of servitude under various criminal enterprises.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/where-paying-for-sex-is-a-crime-prostitution-fell-attitudes-changed-235351.html

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If people enjoy sex and are comfortable with having sex with people for cash, what's the problem?

Human trafficking.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If they're forced into it, that's a different story. You can't dictate to people how they live their lives

How do you know if someone's been forced in to it though?

smash wrote: »

Human trafficking.

People enjoy and are comfortable with being trafficked? Come again?

How do you know if someone's been forced in to it though?

I imagine you ask them.

Speedwell wrote: »

People enjoy and are comfortable with being trafficked? Come again?

No. That was an answer to 'what's the problem?'

Speedwell wrote: »

I imagine you ask them.

And I imagine they never say yes for fear of being killed.

smash wrote: »

No. That was an answer to 'what's the problem?'

"What's the problem" was a dependent clause in a sentence beginning with "if" that I suggest you re-read, in good faith this time.

And naturally you ask them in a context where their answer is meaningful, if you care about their answer at all. That really, really, should go without saying.

silverharp wrote: »

Promiscuity and divorce have been correlated in the States.

And you know what they say about correlation

But as I keep pointing out a lot of the things you are concerned about would be addressed in a legal regulated process that are not addressed in an underground illegal industry.

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldn't approve of it being normalised

Which is where my confusion lies, because the concerns you raise would be addressed by normalization. Because things like stigma and the like go down with normalization. Not up. So it is confusing to see you raise concerns on one had, but up front preclude what could address those concerns on the other hand. I a missing something between hand A and hand B.

silverharp wrote: »

Personally I would say that it shouldn't be glamorised or in people's faces like in Amsterdam . Possibly regulated in purpose built places that can be inspected easily

Not sure I would be interested in an in in your face version either. I live in Germany. I am aware only because I was told, that the city in which I live has three brothels which facilitate 4 or 5 workers a week and continuously change. It would be entirely legal for me to go there right now, and I could be there within 10 minutes if I so wished.

Yet had I not been told, I would be entirely unaware the three places were even there or existed.

I assume that would bet he goal of most of the "pro" side on the subject. That is about as NOT in your face as it gets I think.

Or something like in Ireland where there is a single quite popular website which lists all the sex workers by location, with the contact details they chose to share. Again other than being told it was there, or going looking for it or finding it, everyone would simply be oblivious to it's existence.

So yea you get no argument for me on that score! I wholly agree.

Olishi4 wrote: »

Because if they are saying "I would only become a sex worker if i had a gun to my head" then it shows the shame and humiliation associated with the "profession".

No. It does not. It just shows that the person talking would not like to work in the profession. It says nothing about the profession itself.

I, for example, would only become a solider, a toilet cleaner, or a kinder garten carer, a masseuse, or a priest.... if you put a gun to my head.

Does that mean something is wrong with those professions too? Or is it just MY feelings I would be displaying by saying it would take a gun to make me pursue those careers?

Olishi4 wrote: »

Its not like a hobby. It is not something that someone is proud of.

Some people in sex work ARE proud of it. You can not speak for all of them. I am not even sure you can speak for ANY of them, but certainly not all of them.

Olishi4 wrote: »

the job itself is undignified.

Why?

Olishi4 wrote: »

Would you be a sex worker? Why? If no, then why would you think someone else would?

Because everyone is different and just because I want, or do not want, something.... that does not for one instant suggest the next person will, or will not.

Are you forgetting people are individuals here for a reason? Or do you just genuinely forget?

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Other people when they seek protection from the State to validate their personal choices by regulating the industry they chose to get into, then it has a direct impact on everyone who is a member of that society, and it's not simply about the personal choices of the individual any more. It becomes a matter of public interest when a small lobby group are campaigning for laws that are more about benefitting them as a group, than advocating that a change in the law is for the benefit of all society.

Time after time it has been demonstrated that the sex industry offers no benefit to society as a whole, and it's certainly not a marker of a civilised, progressive society that we would still be so desperate not only to hang on to prostitution, but for a small group to want to legislate for it?

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than "personal choice".

it might have some benefits . I'd imagine a society that banned prostitution (and actually enforced the ban) and porn would tend to have more rape or sexual violence. surely its better to give frustrated men an outlet? should a disabled man for instance be denied sex as one would assume paying for sex it is the only way it will happen for him?

But I think the more important thing is that realistically there will always be a demand for it so its about avoiding downsides rather than setting a high bar of social benefits. We live in a society where everything is presumed to be legal until its not , not the other way round.

Speedwell wrote: »

"What's the problem" was a dependent clause in a sentence beginning with "if" that I suggest you re-read, in good faith this time.

Human trafficking is the biggest issue. There's no point saying "What's the problem if someone enjoys sex and wants to get paid to do it?" because the reality is that a huge percentage of prostitutes don't enjoy it and don't want to do it. That's even before you get in to the human trafficking side of things. If they enjoyed it and wanted to make a career out of it then they could become porn stars. I wouldn't view anyone who pays for sex with high regard either because they just don't care whether the girls are being forced in to it or not.

I think it's an industry that should be legalised but it needs really really heavy regulation and support services and should never be glamorised.

Aidan Holland

No it shouldn't be made illegal because some men especially if they are socially awkward or have down syndrome will never have a girlfriend.People buy sex all over the world and if that offends you I suggest you become a hermit.

Eramen wrote: »

I see that nobody commented on the issues I brought up about Saarland, Germany

Errrrr I did. You ignoring my reply does not mean a reply was never made.

Aidan Holland wrote: »

No it shouldn't be made illegal because some men especially if they are socially awkward or have down syndrome will never have a girlfriend.

This is a really silly statement.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Time after time it has been demonstrated that the sex industry offers no benefit to society as a whole

So what? I was not aware that benefit had to be demonstrated to make something legal, or preclude it from being made illegal. What "benefit to society" does McDonalds bring exactly? Yet it is perfectly legal. What benefit to society does XFactor bring? Yet it continues to be aired. What benefit to society does the alcohol industry bring us? Yet look at alcohol sales and number of establishments.

Why does "benefit to society" need to be displayed before we regulate an industry like any other. Or is it only THIS industry that has to justify itself in your mind?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's certainly not a marker of a civilised, progressive society that we would still be so desperate not only to hang on to prostitution, but for a small group to want to legislate for it?

What is not a marker of a civilized society is that people who wish to enter into a private and consensual transaction should be precluded for doing so solely because someone somewhere finds the transaction distasteful.

Consenting sex between consenting adults.... no one is showing a SINGLE moral argument against it on this thread. Yet they want to make it illegal anyway? I don't think such people get to decree what constitutes being civilized. They do not appear to even know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than "personal choice".

Why, if the anti side are not coming up with ANY arguments, least of all you? In the face of no argument, the personal choice argument is more than enough. It is you that needs better (or at least some) arguments here. Not anyone else. Especially as you simply dodge over and ignore posts rebutting the points you have thus far made.

The simple fact is there is a dearth of arguments on offer here against the morality or ethics of selling sex. What concerns people have raised about the well being of sex workers and so forth all, so far, appear to be arguments we could best address in a well regulated legal sex work environment.

So yes, it really is people like yourself who need to come up with better arguments.

smash wrote: »

Human trafficking is the biggest issue. There's no point saying "What's the problem if someone enjoys sex and wants to get paid to do it?" because the reality is that a huge percentage of prostitutes don't enjoy it and don't want to do it. That's even before you get in to the human trafficking side of things. If they enjoyed it and wanted to make a career out of it then they could become porn stars. I wouldn't view anyone who pays for sex with high regard either because they just don't care whether the girls are being forced in to it or not.

I think it's an industry that should be legalised but it needs really really heavy regulation and support services and should never be glamorised.

You know, I and others have addressed this argument multiple times. Boiled down, it consists of, "If sex work were legalized, you couldn't trap exploited sex workers by threatening them with a criminal record."

One eyed Jack

Speedwell wrote: »

No, that's an indirect impact.

And has the sex industry been studied in a context in which it is free and legal?

It's a direct impact on society, of which everyone who is a member of that society is affected by the laws which govern that society - choose to contravene those laws, why should society protect you?