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

melissak

bubblypop wrote: »

Up until 2002, the age of consent was 12 in the Netherlands, so it's probably just a knock on effect from that.
It's 16 now.

12. Really? When did they raise it?

Eramen

bubblypop wrote: »

Up until 2002, the age of consent was 12 in the Netherlands, so it's probably just a knock on effect from that.
It's 16 now.

That might explain the Netherlands to a degree, but it's not a full answer. The age at which prostitution begins is universally low all over the world so can't be correlated with the age of sexual consent alone. If this were so, the average age of first prostitution would be far higher.

Also consider that prostitution as a phenomenon is usually instigated by someone within the immediate family, or by a relative, with the girl (or boy) being 'given out' in return for resources. Most people engaged in prostitution aren't there by choice, but were born and weened into it. They eventually become psychologically, economically, and/or physically (addiction) dependent on the activity. This goes on in all societies and is the main inroad into the trade.

They haven't lost sight of this reality in the East of Europe like we have in the socially-sanitised, media-friendly West, where we tend to brush things aside into dark corners and forget about it.

Most other prostitutes are 'immigrants'/slaves trafficked in from other countries and forced into sexual service by criminals. Investigate where the window girls of Amsterdam come from by nationality - the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe - are all over-represented by a large margin.

Prostitution isn't as fun nor as 'happy-go-lucky' as some here are trying to pretend.. When you boil it right down and look at the history and studies you come to see it's a dangerous trade, carried out largely by people who have it forced upon them and who'd rather not be there. People who glamourise it probably believe that the Hollywood depictions are real.

[Deleted User]

melissak wrote: »

12. Really? When did they raise it?

In 2002

melissak

bubblypop wrote: »

In 2002

That's why the post said until 2002. It's late I can't read!

One eyed Jack

esforum wrote: »

Not really, we ban things because they are damaging to society and as a whole, society wants it banned.

Banning something that is popular and society by and large has no issue with will not work. That was why prohibition didnt work, the majority of people wanted to drink and saw no harm in it. According to the attached poll, society is pretty OK with prostitution.

Sex work isn't popular by any stretch, and it is damaging to society as a whole, and has never been demonstrated to be of any benefit to society as a whole. Prohibition didn't work because it was implemented badly. The smoking ban worked, because it was implemented well. Almost overnight Ireland became smoke free. Now people's attitudes to both drinking and smoking have changed, and society has changed for the better as a whole. I wouldn't take a poll on After Hours as representative of society by any stretch either - there are over 80 Irish organisations supporting the new legislation, many of them women's support and advocacy groups.

Jesus wept man! Have you not been reading my posts? They will always be in the boat, making something a crime pushes the boat further out to sea. It makes those being victimised even more isolated and hard to find.

Yeah, isn't that every reason then why prostitution should be eliminated from society? We may never eliminate it completely, but what we can do is criminalise the buyers, give people better support structures, and pass legislation that doesn't allow people to put other people in the boat in the first place.

Legal or illegal, trafficking for prostitution will still exist, unlicensed hookers will still exist. The difference is they will be easier to find and easier to deal with as they will not be mixed with the licensed ones.

But we don't really have a problem with trafficking in this country anyway? It's more of an issue where prostitution has been legislated for! And again - you're aware that trafficking goes on, and you want to make it easier for criminals by legislating for prostitution? Where's the society's approval for that? One minute you're trying to tell me there's no harm in a popular activity, and the next thing you're making it sound like there's nothing can be done about the exploitation?

Well there is, there's a lot that can be done, and there's a lot being done, because society doesn't want to facilitate prostitution!

and theres no evidence that men are being trafficked or kept against their will for the purpose of prostitution so no, in my opinion there are no men in that boat. theres gigaolos, they choose to be, I have no desire to force my morals on them.

I didn't say anything about men being trafficked, I'm telling you that the trafficking thing is a red herring with regard to Ireland anyway. I have no desire to force my will on male sex workers either, I simply don't have to facilitate them if they choose to engage in sex work. I'm not paying tax so that they don't have to pay any! And they won't pay any, and they don't want the industry regulated because it would mean that they'd have to be licensed and regulated and pay tax just like any other person in employment. It would mean that there'd have to be standards met before they could work and your struggling college student in dire straits and in need of some quick cash, wouldn't even get a look in, as the costs to them to get regulated would be prohibitive!

Regulation would only benefit foreign interests who want to operate legally in Ireland, yet pay nothing into the economy, and the Irish people pick up the tab for the cost of operating their business!

Are you deliberately refusing to acknowledge that Voluntarily means of ones own free will? I am beginning to think that your pal Oirish really did think that Freely meant for no money and wasnt being witty at all when he made the statement earlier.

If you have to pay someone to do something, then by virtue of the fact they're only doing it because they're being paid to do it - it's not voluntary!! It's certainly not done with free will. How many times now have people who advocate for prostitution tried to use the whole idea that making prostitution unlawful will put sex workers at risk? It's as though they're straddling both sides of the fence - people are voluntarily putting themselves at risk of harm?

I still don't see why society should have to facilitate that, let alone facilitate people who exploit people who voluntarily put themselves at risk of harm.

You knew a lot of strange kids.

Not at all, I still know plenty kids with those sorts of ideas, but they'll grow up too.

what does that even mean? They dreamed of being road sweepers but realised such a lofty goal was beyond them so settled for a more realistic option? Or they knew no better but as they became adults realised that the stars were out there so fecked off to Nasa to be all that they could be? If someone dreams of being a porn star why the **** not? Its their choice, not yours. (people being paid to have sex with strangers)

They realised that being a road sweeper or a porn star wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and they decided to opt for more viable career choices instead. If they still want to become road sweepers and porn stars as adults, then more power to them, but I also have the choice, not to have to facilitate their choice!

theres so much wrong with that example, possible because you cant get your head around the difference between forcing someone against their will and someone making a career choice that you dont agree with

Not too mention not a single person here is advocating that we sell our children into a life of child abuse and its actually a pretty disgusting comparison.

It's actually a very apt comparison, because by facilitating prostitution, you're giving young people the impression that it's a viable career option for them, when really, it's not a viable career option for anyone IMO, and I don't have to facilitate it, and society doesn't have to facilitate it, and that's why criminalising the buyers, and offering social supports to people already in the industry to get out of it is the way to go. If they choose to stay in the industry, then they accept the consequences of their decision and they reject the protection offered by society. They can't have it both ways, and they can't have everything their own way either. That's simply a very childish mentality.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not presumptuous at all though. The fact is that nobody needs to visit sex workers, and people don't need to become sex workers. There really isn't any need in society for the sex work industry to continue to exist, and there has never been any convincing argument made to necessitate it's continued existence.

its not for you to say what somebody does or does not need to do. I could say society doesn't need gambling or alcohol but people are going to do what they are going to. Your reasoning is not applicable as a standard. You have basically said you don't like therefore it should be made illegal.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People going to college can often find themselves in dire straits, and rather than encouraging them to view sex work as an way to alleviate those dire straits, they should be encouraged to seek alternative means to repay their debts, like legitimate employment, the same as every other college going student.

general waffle me thinks , parents raise children and by the time anyone is 19 or 20 they are going to make their own decision. Nobody should be encouraged to go into prostitution and it has a stigma to it which is adequate to not make it a normal alternative to a J1

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sex work isn't popular by any stretch, and it is damaging to society as a whole, and has never been demonstrated to be of any benefit to society as a whole. Prohibition didn't work because it was implemented badly. The smoking ban worked, because it was implemented well. Almost overnight Ireland became smoke free. Now people's attitudes to both drinking and smoking have changed, and society has changed for the better as a whole. I wouldn't take a poll on After Hours as representative of society by any stretch either - there are over 80 Irish organisations supporting the new legislation, many of them women's support and advocacy groups.

who says it isn popular? Its very popular. Theres thousands of prostitutes in Ireland for a reason and it isnt because of no trade.

Ireland overnight became smoke free? Are you insane? Where does a statement like even come from? Research and evidence please.

The poll is all we have, we can only go with whats preented. Over 80, many supporting the new legislation, well first off what legislation and how many are opposed?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, isn't that every reason then why prostitution should be eliminated from society? We may never eliminate it completely, but what we can do is criminalise the buyers, give people better support structures, and pass legislation that doesn't allow people to put other people in the boat in the first place.

You are refusing to listen to my reasoning so theres little point in continuing. You arent debating the facts, just forcing comments to fit your view. No, theres no evidence that criminalising prostitution has a positive effect on prostitutes lives. I have outlined why already

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well there is, there's a lot that can be done, and there's a lot being done, because society doesn't want to facilitate prostitution!

Again you cant backup that arguement, you just want it to be true.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say anything about men being trafficked, I'm telling you that the trafficking thing is a red herring with regard to Ireland anyway. I have no desire to force my will on male sex workers either, I simply don't have to facilitate them if they choose to engage in sex work. I'm not paying tax so that they don't have to pay any! And they won't pay any, and they don't want the industry regulated because it would mean that they'd have to be licensed and regulated and pay tax just like any other person in employment. It would mean that there'd have to be standards met before they could work and your struggling college student in dire straits and in need of some quick cash, wouldn't even get a look in, as the costs to them to get regulated would be prohibitive!

thats absolutely all over the place, really it is. Trafficking isnt the issue in your eyes and you dont wish to force your will BUT lets criminalise something. Thats forcing your will and whats worse, your excuse for doing so is so very very silly.

Tax? They wont pay tax, and they pay such whopping great big dollops of it now? You dont think you are paying for a sex workers medical care now? You are deluded. You obviously dont know the industry you are fighting against. (or how tax works really)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Regulation would only benefit foreign interests who want to operate legally in Ireland, yet pay nothing into the economy, and the Irish people pick up the tab for the cost of operating their business!

I am all ears for an explanation of this view.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I still don't see why society should have to facilitate that, let alone facilitate people who exploit people who voluntarily put themselves at risk of harm.

So now we accept the meaning of the word vuluntary. Progress.

Why do I as a non drinker 'facilitate' alcohol sale? or cigaretttes? Actually I dont because its regulated and taxed.

There is zero financial arguement for you here, zero. Your taxes cover illegal workers far more than they will ever cover legal ones.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you have to pay someone to do something, then by virtue of the fact they're only doing it because they're being paid to do it - it's not voluntary!! It's certainly not done with free will. How many times now have people who advocate for prostitution tried to use the whole idea that making prostitution unlawful will put sex workers at risk? It's as though they're straddling both sides of the fence - people are voluntarily putting themselves at risk of harm?

Ok well let me honest here Jack, I wont be answering you again. Go to a shop, now I realise jack that the person in the shop is a shop slave by your definition but allow them to sell you a book anyway. Its called a dictionary. Open it and look up the word 'Voluntary'.

Now, second and stay with me here, I voluntarily agreed to do my job, I do not do it for free, I volintarily put myself in harms way.

So do firemen, soldiers, paramedics, farmers, builders and........well literally hundreds if not thousands of various occupations in the world.

People sign up having made the decision freely, they get paid as part of the employment, many jobs carry risks.

We legislate to minimise those risks and make the workers safer.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they still want to become road sweepers and porn stars as adults, then more power to them, but I also have the choice, not to have to facilitate their choice!

So its ok to have sex with people for money providing you are not facilitating them? whatever the hell that means. You realise that not facilitating means not assisting it yes? You wont be assistsing a prostitute or porn star unless you offer assistance. You wont be offering them anymore than you already do.

Let me spell this out for you, a large slice of prostitites claim welfare, they have medical cards, the drug addicted ones may in some cases be on methadone which tax buys. They will not qualify for a mortgage and a fair few will not be able to rent on their own. When you have a 'worker' also in the benefit system it costs you more than if they arent.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's actually a very apt comparison, because by facilitating prostitution, you're giving young people the impression that it's a viable career option for them, when really, it's not a viable career option for anyone IMO, and I don't have to facilitate it, and society doesn't have to facilitate it, and that's why criminalising the buyers, and offering social supports to people already in the industry to get out of it is the way to go. If they choose to stay in the industry, then they accept the consequences of their decision and they reject the protection offered by society. They can't have it both ways, and they can't have everything their own way either. That's simply a very childish mentality.

For some it is a viable career choice, it is absolutely NOT your place to tell people what careers they can and cannot have but besides that, you classify most peoples jobs as being forced work anyway unless they are willing to work for free which would be closer to slavery ironically enough.

May I ask, what actual experience have you got with prostitution? You seem to have zero in my opinion.

Paulownia

I met a Hungarian woman in Budapest who had worked in Dublin as a sex worker [her term, not mine] for 5 years and had returned to home with enough money to buy a sweet shop and an apartment. She said that the Irish men were all gentlemen and she never had a problem with any of her clients. I gathered though that she worked as an independant person in a high class apartment block, but her experience was very positive and not what I would have expected.

esforum

melissak wrote: »

But society by and large had no issue with children cleaning chimneys in victorian England either,as long as it wasn't their children I suppose

thats incorrect, society did have a problem with child workers and thats why it was made illegal to employ children in certain industries and conditions placed on other. Then in the last decade as a result of more concerns, further restrictions were placed on childrens working hours. Perhaps in abother 20, under 18's will not be able to work at all.

At one state homosexuality was a crime because it was NOT viewed as acceptable, but damaging. Societies views changed and that resulted in a change in law.

Things change, societies views change and as they change, so should our laws. Thats why our constitution is adaptable, because those that wrote it were intelligent enough to realise that it should reflect societies views and desires.

esforum

Eramen wrote: »

That might explain the Netherlands to a degree, but it's not a full answer. The age at which prostitution begins is universally low all over the world so can't be correlated with the age of sexual consent alone. If his were so, the average age of first prostitution would be far higher. .

the age of starting work full stop is universally low. Its not unique to prostitution.

the age of consent is universally lower than in Ireland.

None of that or your arguement is relevent to a debate about prostitution in Ireland.

sbsquarepants

I think it should be legal - with all the relevant safeguards in place for disease and exploitation.
It makes no sense whatsoever to me how it can be illegal to sell something that is not illegal to give away

How can a perfectly legal activity be rendered illegal by monetising it??
It can only be down to religious bolloxology in my opinion - puritanism and so on. The law has no place in the sexual antics of consenting adults (unless you're in to dressing up - which I'm not btw!)

Kev_2012

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.

Well the way I see it, if a single mother for example is struggling to feed her kids, she may end up resorting to something like this. I don't like the idea that this ever should be an option for people.

Also, outside of this and people forced into it, I also don't think that any self respecting person should ever go down this road willingly. In my opinion, it's immoral. But hey, each to their own.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

its not for you to say what somebody does or does not need to do. I could say society doesn't need gambling or alcohol but people are going to do what they are going to. Your reasoning is not applicable as a standard. You have basically said you don't like therefore it should be made illegal.

But I'm not saying what anyone else does or doesn't need to do, I'm saying that I see no need for society to facilitate those people doing what they choose to do. You could say society doesn't need gambling or alcohol and you have every right to say that you see no need for society to facilitate people who want to drink and gamble. As you say yourself - people are going to do what they want to do.

Arguing that society should facilitate people who are going to do what they want to do anyway, doesn't sound like any reason why society should facilitate those people.

general waffle me thinks , parents raise children and by the time anyone is 19 or 20 they are going to make their own decision. Nobody should be encouraged to go into prostitution and it has a stigma to it which is adequate to not make it a normal alternative to a J1

For sure, and by the time they're 19 or 20 they'll have also figured out that looking to get paid for sex to pay off an overdue credit card bill, isn't only financially irresponsible, but it's also personally and socially irresponsible and is likely to affect their social, physical, sexual and mental health.

There's also for women that occupational hazard that tends to crop up even with the best contraception available to them. No such thing as maternity leave in the prostitution industry though.

Speedwell

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It makes no sense whatsoever to me how it can be illegal to sell something that is not illegal to give away How can a perfectly legal activity be rendered illegal by monetising it??

I don't disagree with you as far as the rest of your post goes, but I really honestly wish you would stop using this particular argument until you've thought about it more deeply. I can think of lots of things that are legal to give away but not legal to commodify (that is, I think, the word you might be looking for). That said, there are things that are perfectly legal to commodify and nothing should be wrong with doing so (such as the act of singing a song, which is commodified by means of charging for public performances). I think a lot of us are arguing that sex is normally considered to be part of the first category (things that should not be commodified), but should instead be considered part of the second category (things that the actor should be free to choose to commodify).

As far as whether people should or should not choose to commodify specific sexual acts at specific times, that's certainly up to them. (Naturally nobody should be forced, coerced, or manipulated into doing so, because that would constitute a violation of bodily integrity.) I'm not one of those people who thinks they understand every situation well enough to pass judgment on it before the fact.

esforum

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well the way I see it, if a single mother for example is struggling to feed her kids, she may end up resorting to something like this. I don't like the idea that this ever should be an option for people.

that is a nice idea and by all means lets as a society try to ensure children are always cared for but in the context of prostitution, is the fact that its illegal going to change this scenario for the single mother? If she is desperate at the moment and turns to prostitution, she does so with little legal protection or security. Make it licensed and we bring in some protections and security.

Kev_2012

esforum wrote: »

that is a nice idea and by all means lets as a society try to ensure children are always cared for but in the context of prostitution, is the fact that its illegal going to change this scenario for the single mother? If she is desperate at the moment and turns to prostitution, she does so with little legal protection or security. Make it licensed and we bring in some protections and security.

Yeah, I agreed with that point of protecting the workers in an earlier post. I was just making the point that prostitution should never need to be an option for anyone, and after that, the people that engage in it are people I never want to be in my life or my family's lives.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I'm not saying what anyone else does or doesn't need to do, I'm saying that I see no need for society to facilitate those people doing what they choose to do. You could say society doesn't need gambling or alcohol and you have every right to say that you see no need for society to facilitate people who want to drink and gamble. As you say yourself - people are going to do what they want to do.

Arguing that society should facilitate people who are going to do what they want to do anyway, doesn't sound like any reason why society should facilitate those people.

why facilitating? society doesn't "facilitate" other personal services like massage or hairdressing or tattoos. they are just commercial transactions between 2 people. Why a different attitude to prostitution?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For sure, and by the time they're 19 or 20 they'll have also figured out that looking to get paid for sex to pay off an overdue credit card bill, isn't only financially irresponsible, but it's also personally and socially irresponsible and is likely to affect their social, physical, sexual and mental health.

There's also for women that occupational hazard that tends to crop up even with the best contraception available to them. No such thing as maternity leave in the prostitution industry though.

women have agency we are told, its not the gov. job to protect them from themselves.

Speedwell

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Yeah, I agreed with that point of protecting the workers in an earlier post. I was just making the point that prostitution should never need to be an option for anyone, and after that, the people that engage in it are people I never want to be in my life or my family's lives.

Christ, buddy, people who engage in prostitution aren't public health risks after they stop being prostitutes (and if prostitution is legal and they can get regular medical care without fear, they needn't be health risks while they are sex workers, either). Are you also one of those people who apologizes to your bedmates that you weren't a virgin when you met?

One of my better friends, years ago, was a transsexual woman who was a hooker. She herself kept her business out of our friendship, not because she was ashamed or I was ashamed of her, but because she just wanted to preserve my private life from the curiosity of her clients. She was a good woman, very intelligent and wise about life, and she made my life better in many ways, including introducing me to the best-kept-secret Vietnamese food in the city, greeting me with a smile every time I got home from work, and introducing me to the fact that there were some ways my ex was treating me that I didn't need to stand for.

She died alone from AIDS-related pneumonia, complicated by the fact that the apartment complex we lived in turned off her heat in midwinter. I didn't find her for four days, thinking she was out of town with a client. She had borrowed money from me before and was probably too ill or ashamed to ask me for help again. She might be alive today if she had felt like she could access public health and support services without being treated like garbage for her gender status or her profession.

One eyed Jack

esforum wrote: »

that is a nice idea and by all means lets as a society try to ensure children are always cared for but in the context of prostitution, is the fact that its illegal going to change this scenario for the single mother? If she is desperate at the moment and turns to prostitution, she does so with little legal protection or security. Make it licensed and we bring in some protections and security.

Of course the fact that it's illegal is going to change the scenario for many women, because they don't want to break the law. In order to avail of legal protection she would have to become self-employed, registered, licensed, etc. The protection and security of society doesn't come for free either!

There are any number of social supports for people who find themselves in these situations, because turning to prostitution when they're that desperate, only makes a bad situation worse.

Kev_2012

Speedwell wrote: »

Christ, buddy, people who engage in prostitution aren't public health risks after they stop being prostitutes (and if prostitution is legal and they can get regular medical care without fear, they needn't be health risks while they are sex workers, either). Are you also one of those people who apologizes to your bedmates that you weren't a virgin when you met?

One of my better friends, years ago, was a transsexual woman who was a hooker. She herself kept her business out of our friendship, not because she was ashamed or I was ashamed of her, but because she just wanted to preserve my private life from the curiosity of her clients. She was a good woman, very intelligent and wise about life, and she made my life better in many ways, including introducing me to the best-kept-secret Vietnamese food in the city, greeting me with a smile every time I got home from work, and introducing me to the fact that there were some ways my ex was treating me that I didn't need to stand for.

Where did I say anything about public health risks??

No need to be facetious.

Come on, not being a virgin doesn't equate to selling your body willingly.

Well I have an opinion, and is it that I don't want to associate with hookers. Personally, I don't care that your friend smiled at you and brought you for a nice take away, I have this opinion and I will not be changing my mind because of your experiences.

Would you be happy if you had a daughter who became a prostitute or porn star for example?

Speedwell

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Where did I say anything about public health risks??
No need to be facetious.

Come on, not being a virgin doesn't equate to selling your body willingly.

Well I have an opinion, and is it that I don't want to associate with hookers. Personally, I don't care that your friend smiled at you and brought you for a nice take away, I have this opinion and I will not be changing my mind because of your experiences.

Would you be happy if you had a daughter who became a prostitute or porn star for example?

I would be happy if she was happy, and if she wanted to change her career, I would help her just as any mother would help any daughter changing careers. Same goes if it was my son. I wouldn't write off my adult child just because they did something I thought was ill-advised. I know and have known sex workers who have been both happy and unhappy in their sex work careers.

As for not being a virgin, it seems to me that your main quibble with associating with sex workers is you see them as contaminated, just as you would be devastated if your child chose sex work because you would see them as "ruined". It's flat out hypocritical to say that accepting money makes promiscuity different somehow, assuming you think that you have some say over how people choose to use their (safe, sane, consensual) sexuality in the first place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

why facilitating? society doesn't "facilitate" other personal services like massage or hairdressing or tattoos. they are just commercial transactions between 2 people. Why a different attitude to prostitution?

Society does facilitate people who want to provide personal services, it does this through legislation, and as long as those service providers comply with legislation, they are free to operate within that society. The different attitude to prostitution is because society does not want to facilitate the provision of that service. It's really that simple.

women have agency we are told, its not the govs job to protect them from themselves.

Our agency is limited as long as we act within the boundaries of the law. When we don't, our agency is restricted by the law. It is absolutely the Governments job to protect people from themselves btw, I don't know how you came up with the idea that it wasn't?

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society does facilitate people who want to provide personal services, it does this through legislation, and as long as those service providers comply with legislation, they are free to operate within that society. The different attitude to prostitution is because society does not want to facilitate the provision of that service. It's really that simple.

but its not really, what private individuals do in each others houses for example is permissible until its not. The only other thing I can think of is assisting suicide (which is for another debate) but it shows it really has to be something exceptional before the State says that one persona cant provide a service to another.

So what is the exceptional reason for an activity which is just at the far side of a scale of everything from porn to the casting couch to band groupies?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Our agency is limited as long as we act within the boundaries of the law. When we don't, our agency is restricted by the law. It is absolutely the Governments job to protect people from themselves btw, I don't know how you came up with the idea that it wasn't?

but it doesn't as a principle, you are free to become an alcoholic, a gambling addict, eat yourself and smoke yourself into an early grave, ride a motor bike, climb mount Everest, the list is endless. So why this one particular activity that only effects a tiny % of women 1/500 (guess) who choose prostitution ?

Kev_2012

Speedwell wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well that's where we differ. It's not a career in my eyes. If my kid told me they are not happy in their job as, I dunno, a QFA, I'd say no problem, change it and do what makes you happy. However, this is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't tolerate it.

And no! It is different! So you're trying to tell me that prostitute are actually attracted to most of their clients? I somehow doubt it. It's simply because of money.

Have sex with somebody if you are attracted to each other and it's consensual, not for money.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, read my previous posts. I said that if legalising it would remove the criminal element and protect the workers from harm then do it, but I have moral issues with people actively wanting to sell themselves and I don't want to associate with those kind of people and I wouldn't tolerate it from the people I do associate with. It's simply my opinion and I've already had heated arguments because of this with people that were close to me.

Speedwell

Kev_2012 wrote: »

And no! It is different!

If you say so.

So you're trying to tell me that prostitute are actually attracted to most of their clients?

I'm honestly not sure where you got that from.

I somehow doubt it. It's simply because of money.

Have sex with somebody if you are attracted to each other and it's consensual, not for money.

Again, read my previous posts.

Try reading mine.

I said that if legalising it would remove the criminal element and protect the workers from harm then do it, but I have moral issues with people actively wanting to sell themselves

Who cares about your moral issues?

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society does facilitate people who want to provide personal services, it does this through legislation, and as long as those service providers comply with legislation, they are free to operate within that society. The different attitude to prostitution is because society does not want to facilitate the provision of that service. It's really that simple.

But how do you know for sure that society does not want to facilitate prostitution, I have no authority to say it does but what authority do you have to say it doesn't? Now I'm sure if you asked around plenty of people would say they're opposed to it, but I wouldn't trust everybody who says that. I know 1 or 2 married men who would certainly say they're opposed to it, but when they go on 'business trips' they become a little more 'liberal' on the issue shall we say.

Don't forget that prostitution is technically legal in Ireland anyway (well another issue Ireland has swept under the carpet really) and to be honest I don't see the harm in a simple scenario where one person wants to sell sex and another person wants to buy it. The problems arrive when people are forced into it, that should never happen or be tolerated obviously but these people need help, taking a harder stance isn't always the best way forward and infact can cause more harm than good.

smash

Speedwell wrote: »

It's flat out hypocritical to say that accepting money makes promiscuity different somehow

That's a strange one and I think it's more complex than a simple statement. Personally I would associate sexual promiscuity with people who do it for enjoyment. Not someone you pay to slap on some lube and moan until you cum.

Speedwell

smash wrote: »

That's a strange one and I think it's more complex than a simple statement. Personally I would associate sexual promiscuity with people who do it for enjoyment. Not someone you pay to slap on some lube and moan until you cum.

I detected more than a whiff of "I won't let anyone dirty touch me or my family" in the poster's objection. People like that are usually more disgusted by the "sex" aspect of sex work than the "work" aspect.

One eyed Jack

esforum wrote: »

who says it isn popular? Its very popular. Theres thousands of prostitutes in Ireland for a reason and it isnt because of no trade.

I won't bother asking you for research and evidence to support your opinion, I think we both know you wouldn't be able to come up with any concrete figures or evidence to support your assertion and I have no interest in breaking your balls when we're just shooting the shìt here.

The poll is all we have, we can only go with whats preented. Over 80, many supporting the new legislation, well first off what legislation and how many are opposed?

The proposed Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015. As to how many organisations are opposed? A mere handful I would say. I don't have the definite figures off the top of my head.

You are refusing to listen to my reasoning so theres little point in continuing. You arent debating the facts, just forcing comments to fit your view. No, theres no evidence that criminalising prostitution has a positive effect on prostitutes lives. I have outlined why already.

I'm absolutely listening to your reasoning, they're arguments I've heard dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times before. Your reasoning has the fundamental flaw the same as Amnesty International arguing for "sex workers human rights". People are not born prostitutes or sex workers. They become prostitutes and sex workers, often through adverse circumstances. If you want to advocate for people's human rights, then the right to be a prostitute or a sex worker isn't one of them.

Tax? They wont pay tax, and they pay such whopping great big dollops of it now? You dont think you are paying for a sex workers medical care now? You are deluded. You obviously dont know the industry you are fighting against. (or how tax works really)

Because I don't agree with your perspective? Fair enough.

So now we accept the meaning of the word vuluntary. Progress.

Why do I as a non drinker 'facilitate' alcohol sale? or cigaretttes? Actually I dont because its regulated and taxed.

There is zero financial arguement for you here, zero. Your taxes cover illegal workers far more than they will ever cover legal ones.

And you want my taxes to cover more illegal workers, being forced to work involuntarily in an industry I don't believe is necessary in a modern, progressive society?

That'll be a firm "NO!" then.

Ok well let me honest here Jack, I wont be answering you again. Go to a shop, now I realise jack that the person in the shop is a shop slave by your definition but allow them to sell you a book anyway. Its called a dictionary. Open it and look up the word 'Voluntary'.

Now, second and stay with me here, I voluntarily agreed to do my job, I do not do it for free, I volintarily put myself in harms way.

So do firemen, soldiers, paramedics, farmers, builders and........well literally hundreds if not thousands of various occupations in the world.

People sign up having made the decision freely, they get paid as part of the employment, many jobs carry risks.

We legislate to minimise those risks and make the workers safer.

We can also legislate to minimise the risks to society even more, and that's what we're doing with the new legislation that you don't appear to have been aware of. I'm not going to say you don't know what you're talking about though.

So its ok to have sex with people for money providing you are not facilitating them? whatever the hell that means. You realise that not facilitating means not assisting it yes? You wont be assistsing a prostitute or porn star unless you offer assistance. You wont be offering them anymore than you already do.

It simply means that as long as I am not asked to facilitate prostitution, they are free to carry on as they please. When I am asked to facilitate prostitution by regulation through legislation, then I have no interest in doing so. I have an interest in seeing that prostitution is not legislated for in Irish society because it is IMO an unnecessary and harmful industry. You can focus on individual cases all you want, but the issue of prostitution itself is of no benefit to the aims of a modern, progressive, civilised society.

Let me spell this out for you, a large slice of prostitites claim welfare, they have medical cards, the drug addicted ones may in some cases be on methadone which tax buys. They will not qualify for a mortgage and a fair few will not be able to rent on their own. When you have a 'worker' also in the benefit system it costs you more than if they arent.

You're not making a very good argument for allowing people to do as they please. It doesn't turn out so well for many of them apparently.

For some it is a viable career choice, it is absolutely NOT your place to tell people what careers they can and cannot have but besides that, you classify most peoples jobs as being forced work anyway unless they are willing to work for free which would be closer to slavery ironically enough.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what careers they can and cannot have. I'm telling you I do not have to support or facilitate anyone else's career choices. I also don't have to support the continuation of an industry I disagree with, hence the shoving children up chimneys analogy - we don't facilitate that (or slavery) in society any more because it's unnecessary and harmful to society as a whole.

May I ask, what actual experience have you got with prostitution? You seem to have zero in my opinion.

Well you can ask, but I hope you'll understand when I respectfully refuse to answer your question. I'm ok with you thinking I have zero experience simply because I don't share your perspective.