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

Kev_2012

Who cares about your moral issues?

Well I care about my moral issues?

Speedwell wrote: »

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.

Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?

The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.

Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.

Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.

One eyed Jack

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.

Y'know...

No, no, terrible idea!! :pac:

thattequilagirl

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well I care about my moral issues?

Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?

The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.

Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.

Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.

Sounds more useful than my actual BA.

silverharp

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well I care about my moral issues?

Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?

The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.

Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.

Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.

in fairness though there are plenty of things that of your daughter did them you would consider yourself a failed parent. its still a big leap to outlaw this particular activity.

smash

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Sounds more useful than my actual BA.

I believe there are practical application night courses available on mountjoy square. Not quite in DIT, but in the vicinity...

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness though there are plenty of things that of your daughter did them you would consider yourself a failed parent. its still a big leap to outlaw this particular activity.

Can you imagine the pub talk?

How was your week Paddy?
Ah not too bad Mick... Rode your daughter 3 times.

Huntergonzo

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.

Jaysus I'd love to be a lecturer on that course, imagine the practicals ;-)

thattequilagirl

smash wrote: »

I believe there are practical application night courses available on mountjoy square. Not quite in DIT, but in the vicinity...

Work placement happens mostly in Coppers.

smash

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Work placement happens mostly in Coppers.

No, that's just training. Like jobsbridge.

Olishi4

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well I care about my moral issues?

Here pal, are we having a discussion or are you just gonna start acting the gowl?

The simple matter of fact is that if someone (normal) raises kids, they don't raise them thinking that selling your body for sex is a viable career choice.
If you do that (which seems to be your stance, in which case I'd fear for your kids), then in my eyes you have quite simply failed as a parent.

Protect the workers, but it should never be encouraged.

Christ, the way you're going on I wouldn't be surprised if you lobbied UCD to bring in a 4 year course BA. English and Whoring.

Ye I just can't believe that people are going to tell parents that they are wrong in trying to ensure that their children do not think of it as an attractive career choice later in life or even promote it in the slightest.

And yet that is what society is telling people as we heard here, it's a career.

God forbid, you say that you disagree and have valid concerns or else you will be accused of being sexually repressed or a virgin or like someone else said in a post, sitting with your arms folded and legs crossed but then again, what would you expect if people are equating sex work as sexual liberation.

esforum

Kev_2012 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

well your life fair enough and when you say family, I presume you mean children? Cant argue with that, as a parent thats your right.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jesus the teachers get an awful doing in AH!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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!

So therefore its better they dont become criminals if they have fallen this low surely?

and no, society has a duty to all in need regardless of payment or I assume you mean, tax.

But even so, being licensed and tax paying means they are paying into society!!!!!

You are defeating your own arguement but then as your arguement is without foundation, hardly surprising.

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?

I keep asking that Silver but he doesnt seem to have an answer, instead just keeps going in a loop.

StudentDad

To my mind this is the worlds oldest profession. It's never going to go away despite the best efforts of those against it. With that in mind it should be legalised, properly regulated and taxed like any other profession.

SD

esforum

smash wrote: »

Can you imagine the pub talk?

How was your week Paddy?
Ah not too bad Mick... Rode your daughter 3 times.

why would it be any more acceptable to make that statement than to say "Ah not too bad Mick, I paid your daughter to strip and stick her tits in my face"?

or

"Ah not too bad Mick, I bought your daughters latest porno and jerked off to it"?

or even....

smash wrote: »

Ah not too bad Mick... Rode your daughter 3 times.

but now its ok because shes not a prostitute?

Is that the kind of greeting your father in law gets and you expect from a future son in law or daughters boyfriend? Anyone that greets me in this manner shall be punched, in the face, hard and that applies to the father of my 10 grandchildren.

esforum

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ye I just can't believe that people are going to tell parents that they are wrong in trying to ensure that their children do not think of it as an attractive career choice later in life or even promote it in the slightest.

And yet that is what society is telling people as we heard here, it's a career.

God forbid, you say that you disagree and have valid concerns or else you will be accused of being sexually repressed or a virgin or like someone else said in a post, sitting with your arms folded and legs crossed but then again, what would you expect if people are equating sex work as sexual liberation.

no thats incorrect and its a foolish method of trying to sway the arguement, I dont want my daughter to be a stripper or porn star

I also dont want her to be a nun, Garda or a **** load of other careers.

Doesnt mean we should make nuns illegal

smash

esforum wrote: »

why would it be any more acceptable to make that statement than to say "Ah not too bad Mick, I paid your daughter to strip and stick her tits in my face"?

or even....

but now its ok because shes not a prostitute?

Perhaps you're missing the point that none of these statements are acceptable yet the attempt to legalise the situation is in itself an attempt to normalise such statements.

esforum

smash wrote: »

Perhaps you're missing the point that none of these statements are acceptable yet the attempt to legalise the situation is in itself an attempt to normalise such statements.

nope because all my examples were examples of already legal acts and the statements remain unacceptable

esforum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

im not banging my head against the wall anymore, you have a fundemental lack of understanding of the industry, the people in it, how it operates and in fact the issue at all. Your arguements are all over the place.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote:

In this case there is no consensuality.

hinault wrote:

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

Consent is a really important and normal part of commerce. Of course consent is important in the case of prostitution. Why would it not be?

Speedwell

Olishi4 wrote: »

Ye I just can't believe that people are going to tell parents that they are wrong in trying to ensure that their children do not think of it as an attractive career choice later in life or even promote it in the slightest.

And yet that is what society is telling people as we heard here, it's a career.

I think nobody is forcing people to promote sex work to their children, or proposing any such thing. You don't have to like sex work yourself, or even like sex, to treat sex workers like human beings with rights.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

I do not personally "like" the idea that anyone under financial duress is compelled to do work they really do not want to do. I would love to live in a world where that did not happen. But it does happen and that is the reality we live in. Forget the sex trade. There are people compelled to work in all kinds of work that they literally hate with a passion, just to make ends meet.

I would love it to be otherwise, but it is not. And I want as many options to be open to people as can be... without criminalizing them needlessly without reason. There are SOME people who would MUCH prefer to have sex for money two or three times a week than get down on their knees and clean a row of toilets in a commercial block. And there are SOME people who would rather LICK the toilets clean rather than sell themselves sexually.

Because people are all very different. And what I think we see on threads like this is people who would never sell themselves sexually.... thinking (probably with their heart in the right place in some cases) that they need to force that decision on others too.

But all they are ACTUALLY doing is forcing those people who would rather sex than toilet cleaning.... to go do the toilet cleaning. They are erecting a nanny state of removing peoples choices under the guise of protecting them from their own free will.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

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.

And yet they do. All the time. Not just in sex work but in porn. Because people have massively differing views and feelings on sex. I have heard the same point as yours made on threads about porn. Who would do porn willingly or openly if not forced? But then there are websites like newbie nudes where people are producing porn ENTIRELY free of charge, no in 10s or 100s, but in THOUSANDS of willing and happy volunteers.

So the "I do not think anyone would do it willingly" reasoning is simply baseless and goes against what we know reality to be merely by observation. People do it all the time.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

In my opinion, it's immoral. But hey, each to their own.

Forgive me if I suspect, purely on experience of others not of you, that this is a moral opinion that you can not actually offer any arguments for or defend in any way? Not saying you HAVE to or anything. Experience just makes me suspect you CANT do so.

nozzferrahhtoo

Eramen wrote: »

Research, then have an opinion..

Do so yourself. I am still waiting for your research to validate the things earlier in the thread that you said, and I asked about, and then you pretended no one had replied.

What you are describing is child exploitation and pedophilia. Neither of which has ANYTHING to do with the kinds of things people on this thread are arguing for legalizing and regulating.

Your nonsense is pretty much as bad as trying to argue against pet ownership by pointing out some people have underground dog fights. You have no ACTUAL arguments against the sex trade so you have to indict the sex trade with the crimes of others.

I guess you should go around naked then if you want to stay true to your beliefs? Why? Because SOME people use child slave labor to produce clothes!!! So by your "thinking" the clothing industry is immoral and wrong and should be destroyed.

Know what you should do? Research, then have an opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo

melissak wrote: »

Because of the exploitation.

Something we can better address in a legal regulated industry.

melissak wrote: »

Because drug addiction and desperation force some women into this industry

If there are people FORCED into it then they are likely to be FORCED into it regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. So having an issue with a legal industry is not going to address the concerns you purport to have. A legal industry however at least OFFERS us the ability and the tools to deal with those issues effectively.

For example one issue that happens often when the sex trade is illegal, stigmatized, or both.... is that when some crime is committed against the sex worker they are unable, or unwilling, to approach the police about it.

So that fosters an environment of exploitation and abuse.

And I think this is a fact most, if not all, people against the sex trade miss. The majority of issues people raise about it..... are issues that are actually fueled, fostered by, and even caused by.... banning it and making it illegal.

So what this ends up looking like is that when people raise concerns X, Y and Z and act like they are worried about them.... they are not worried about them at all. They are just against the sex trade and they are happy about X, Y and Z because it gives them arguments to hide their bias behind.

I see little from them to suggest they are actually concerned with alleviating the issues they raise. Mainly because the best solution to tackle those issues is to have a fully legal and regulated industry. And they simply do not want that.

But this is what happens when bias comes before concerns, rather than allowing concerns mediate our biases.

melissak wrote: »

too lax laws will encourage sex tourism.

A few users have thrown out this phrase too and I am still not clear what it is meant to mean or what the issue with it actually is. What do you mean by "sex tourism" exactly? And what is the problem with it?

melissak wrote: »

No. I don't agree, even if legal It shouldn't be treated as a legitimate job Imo. It should be kept discreet and kept behind closed doors.

You do realize those things are not mutually exclusive right? You can treat something as a legitimate job but a job that is discreet and behind closed doors. There are many jobs that fit that description. I am not clear why sex work should be any different.

Take masseuses for example. Are they flaunting it in your face or waving their industry around like a flag? No. They are not. It is a quiet and discreet industry, conducted behind closed doors as a call out or call in service. And at most you will most of the time see nothing more than to pass over an advert in the news papers or a small sign on a shop window.

What is it exactly you envision happening and how do you expect it to be flaunted and shoved in your face? I live in Germany for example and I know merely through a friend that my city has three call in brothels. I have even passed them myself and not been aware they were there. I see nothing. Hear nothing. Am aware of nothing.

How much more subtle, discreet, and behind closed doors does it need to be exactly????

melissak wrote: »

I thought the poster I responded to was implying that it was the same as any other job. For example when my daughter goes to a career guidance class I do not want prostitute as an option to be considered.

Who says it would be? The options actually offered in such resources at school level are quite limited. I was not, and am aware of no one who was, brought down through a list of every career choice open to me. I was asked where I saw myself going and merely referred to the kinds of resources where I might find out more.

So I would no more expect your child to be offered the option of sex work than I was offered the option of a movie career. It is not for guidance counselors to dictate our options to us. Their role is mostly to guide us towards the resources and pathways to attaining the choices we make for ourselves.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

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.

What private individuals do in each other's houses is fine, until they make it the business of the State by asking for it to be facilitated and legislated for through regulation. I can think of plenty examples where this applies, such as marriage equality for example - it was never about what two people get up to behind closed doors, it was about their union being recognised and given equal legal protection by society. Abortion is another example where it's not just a private matter for the individual involved, there are social implications to facilitating and legislating for the issue of abortion in society that need to be considered. Prostitution is no different - there are social and legal implications that need to be considered, and so far society has shown no will to want to facilitate legislating for the prostitution industry.

silverharp wrote: »

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?

There doesn't need to be an exceptional reason for any issue which is deemed to be harmful to society. It's not simply about what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors, when being asked to facilitate prostitution through legislation in society. The social implications have to be considered, and so far, no country has been able to demonstrate that prostitution is either beneficial to, or necessary, in a modern, progressive society.

silverharp wrote: »

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 ?

Because the issue of prostitution has wider social implications than just those people who are engaged in the industry that want it decriminalised, legalised and regulated.

esforum wrote: »

im not banging my head against the wall anymore, you have a fundemental lack of understanding of the industry, the people in it, how it operates and in fact the issue at all. Your arguements are all over the place.

Seeing as I have a fundamental lack of understanding of the industry, the people in it, how it operates and in fact the issue of prostitution at all, why don't you clue me in then?

I'm even willing to overlook the fact that you weren't even aware that the legislation was being introduced. I'd like to understand how you see legislating for prostitution working within an Irish context and within your proposed social and legal framework. It doesn't have to be a thesis, a couple of lines will do.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bit of decorum there nozz

As you are the only one displaying a lack of it, keep your advice and use it yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather than expect me to deduce the obvious, could you elaborate on what these reasons are beyond sex?

I did not say there were reasons beyond sex. I said there are reasons people go for sex workers despite what you portray as "freely available sex" in the real world.

Convenience would be one of many examples. While you might hand wave sex in the real world away as "freely" or even "easily" available, for many it is not. There is time and effort involved. And some people like to bypass that. If I wanted to go and have sex with a stranger right now I would have to find some venue, so and scout them out, talk to people, until I find one. Or I could go to a sex worker and be having sex literally 10 minutes after the end of this post.

But the examples abound and that is only one. Confidence issues. Physical issues. Comfort issues. Convenience issues. There are any number of reasons people go to sex workers despite the availability of sex by non financial means.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

YOU see a point to the sex industry, but you never explain what is so unique about the sex industry that those people's needs couldn't be fulfilled through any number of alternative activities?

Nothing that I have said requires that there be anything "unique" about it. All an industry of any kind has to do to have a "point" is to provide a product or service that people wish to buy, rather than produce or obtain for themselves.

Just because there are ways to obtain something yourself, does not mean there is no "point" to an industry that provides it. I could go and get fish myself from the river or the sea. In fact I often do. So what is so "unique" about the local butcher or fishmonger that justifies their existence for me to go and get it there when fish are "readily and freely available" in the real world?

Same thing essentially.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any time you feel like explaining the reasons why you imagine sex workers provide such a unique service

Anytime you want to stop putting words in my mouth in EVERY thread you reply to me on, I'm all ears. I never claimed anything about them being unique. So the only one "imagining" anything here is you. Not me. And how.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quite frankly, I can't be bothered my bollocks entertaining you.

Your usual cop out. And as I usually ponder, I wonder who you think is actually fooled by it. If you want to make assertions then no one is stopping you. But similarly no one is stopping me pointing out how you are not backing up those assertions, you ignore and dodge people who ask you to back them up, and there is nothing on offer anywhere it seems to support them. And I will point that out whatever way I want, whenever I want to do it, and I'm under no obligation to do otherwise.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not sure what gives you the impression I'm dodging when the explanation is so much more obvious

Yes I think the explanation IS very obvious. The explanation is that the assertions you have made are baseless and do not match reality and you can not back them up.

The thread (on a DISCUSSION forum I hasten to remind you) is on the topic of whether the purchase of sex SHOULD be legal or illegal. The points you are making are founded on the assertion and assumption that is should be illegal. So you are assuming the very thing the thread is about.

And all I am doing is asking on what basis you feel it should be illegal. And in response to this you appear to have diddly squat to offer. Diddly. Squat.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was only a rental contract. It's not nice when it happens, is it? Now imagine you're in a position where you are being subjected to exploitation several times per day, every day. That's what causes the burnout and mental health issues in the vast, vast majority of sex workers.

My point exactly. And that is why I argue for a legal and regulated industry where we are able to assist such people who are facing such things.

What you "propose" is nothing of the sort. Just wave a hand at it all, make it illegal, and care nothing for the people working in the industry. Do nothing to help them with their issues, linguistic or otherwise, and just brush them all under the carpet without a care.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not a correlation btw - sex work is a direct causative contributing factor in the ill mental, physical and sexual health of people who engage in sex work.

Citations needed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not presumptuous at all though. The fact is that nobody needs to visit sex workers

So what? No one NEEDS to go to cinemas. No one NEEDS television. No one NEEDS sport. No one NEEDS Fast Food like McDonalds. No one NEEDS alcohol.

What has "need" got to do with anything?

We do not mediate any other industry or product on whether we "need" it or not. So why is it magically and suddenly a requirement for THIS one? Answer: Because you have no actual arguments against the industry.... so you are forced by your biases against it to merely manufacture some.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there has never been any convincing argument made to necessitate it's continued existence.

Nor is one required. Because no other industry has to justify itself to continue to exist, so this one does not need to either. The requirement for convincing arguments lies with the people who want to prevent someone from selling something of theirs, to someone who wishes to purchase it.... especially when the product or service being sold is not one that in and of itself is not illegal or immoral.

So not only do you fail in producing arguments against it, you fail at producing arguments for why it needs to justify itself to anyone either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

alternative means to repay their debts, like legitimate employment, the same as every other college going student.

In an ideal world where everyone was the same and what works for one works for everyone.... you might ALMOST have a point here. But in the real world you do not and the means by which any individual seeks to finance their life, career, or education can differ massively from one person to the next.

Each student studies differing numbers of hours, lives differing distances from the college, studies differently outside hours, has different projects and placements to fulfill, and has differing abilities, time, resources and skills to seek employments outside ALL of that. And they themselves come from differing financial backgrounds, with differing access to grants and support, and differing costs of studying in the first place.

The nonsense you espouse simply ignores all of that MASSIVE AMOUNT of variance and acts like there is some one size fits all solution to life that they should all be admonished or encouraged to access.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It becomes Ireland's problem when those people from other countries are lobbying to decriminalise sex work in Ireland so they can expand their market share without contributing a cent in revenue

Yet another issue raised that would be addressed by a legal and regulated industry because in such an industry they would be taxed on their income and hence would be contributing revenue.

But as with most arguments against sex work.... the argument itself is only an issue that is produced by being against the sex work in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

while the Irish tax payer picks up the cost of regulation and policing involved.

And as before you do not actually show a SHRED of knowledge about what the actual and relative costs of each option would actually be, with what benefits or effects. You simply assert and assume that one option is more beneficial financially and socially than the other and hide behind the "I cant be bothered" cop out when asked to substantiate it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm certainly not willing to pay any more tax to set up a system that's encouraging exploitation of anyone at my expense.

We can add "exploitation" to words like "indignity" that you simply throw out there and do not validate in any way then shall we?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't mind paying tax for initiatives that encourage education and employment and encourage people to become responsible citizens who look out for each others welfare as opposed to "It's my life, you're not the boss of me!".

These things are not mutually exclusive. We should be doing both. Encouraging initiatives to help people reach their potential. AND allowing people to live their life and their choices.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Shouldn't we be doing everything we can then to make sure that there is no market to legitimise criminal behaviour?

Once again, as I pointed out above, you are assuming a position on the thread topic rather than engaging with the topic on which position is warranted. IF sex work is illegal then of course we should be doing everything we can to avoid criminal behavior.

But the topic of the thread is not what we should or should not do if it is illegal.... it is WHETHER it should be illegal or not in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's the buyers of sexual services should rightly be criminalised as they are supporting the criminal enterprises and continued exploitation of human beings.

Circular argument nonsense from you here. They should be criminalized because what they are doing is criminal so they should be criminalized. Again assuming the answer to the thread rather than answering the thread.

WHY should sexual services be illegal and criminalized? Do you even know why? Or is it "Just because" for you?

And what do you mean by "exploitation". If someone chooses to sell sex, and someone else chooses to buy it.... why is that exploitation??? Again "just because"? Or because you have no arguments against it, so you rely on emotive buzz words instead to carry the force of an otherwise non-argument?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is that really a society that anyone wants to live in? I certainly don't.

The society I want to live in is one where if someone has something that is not illegal or immoral, and wishes to sell it, they should be perfectly entitled to do so.

The society YOU appear to want to live in is one where you get to dictate your personal morality on others through law, and remove peoples free choice and autonomy under the guise of pretending to want to protect them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's why we go after the criminals, those people in society who figure they are above the law, or that the law shouldn't apply to them in exactly the same way it applies to everyone else within that society.

No one here is saying the law should not apply. They are saying it should not be illegal in the first place. Do keep up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they were doing it voluntarily they wouldn't expect to be paid.

You are conflating (willfully I suspect) two different meanings of the word voluntary. Sure they expect to be paid for the work they do, but it was their voluntary choice to take that job too. No one is forcing them to do the job. THAT is what people mean by voluntary in this context, and in that context being paid for it does not mean it was not voluntary. You are mixing doing something voluntarily up with doing volunteer work. Not the same thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks to society moving on, we no longer shove children up chimneys either.

Yes because thanks to society moving on we learned to value the concept of informed consent, and as part of that an age before which it could not be valid. So we do not exploit children for labor any more.

But the other side of the coin of informed consent is allowing people to make their own choices of things like career, and not erect a totalitarian nanny state to overly dictate those choices to them, such as you are attempting to promote in your desperation to drag society backwards.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society has moved past the point where the sex industry is necessary

And as pointed out it's being "necessary" is as irrelevant as irrelevant gets.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sex work isn't popular by any stretch, and it is damaging to society as a whole

Is it? How exactly? Or is this another one of your assertions that we can expect you not to support in any way at all?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and has never been demonstrated to be of any benefit to society as a whole.

Nor should it be required to. Because having a benefit is not the basis we mediate the legitimacy or legality of a business or industry on. What "benefit" does the fast food industry have for example? Very little, and unlike your empty assertions of nonsense.... there are very real harms that industry causes.

So really it is blatantly obvious your only approach to this subject is to move the goal posts on industries YOU personally do not like, and hold them to a different standard than society holds the rest. Biased much? Hell yea you are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Prohibition didn't work because it was implemented badly.

Both sides can say that. You keep trying to point to places where legality and regulation failed. It is JUST as valid for me to say THAT didn't work because it was implemented badly.

The difference being that at least what I argue for is done on the basis of regulation and goals that could work to alleviate and address the concerns people have raised on this thread.

Whereas criminalizing the buyer, seller, or both does not appear to do either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Or do not criminalize anyone given they are generally not actually doing anything wrong or harmful..... give people better support structures ANYWAY given it is a good goal in and of itself.... and pass legislation that prevents people exploiting others ANYWAY.... given that is also a good goal.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But we don't really have a problem with trafficking in this country anyway?

And yet people keep bringing it up as if they have a point on the thread.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And again - you're aware that trafficking goes on, and you want to make it easier for criminals by legislating for prostitution?

Woah boy hold up there. Why would legislation automatically make that easier??? Depending on the legislation and regulation involved, it could very well do the exact opposite. Often for the very reasons you think making the sex trade illegal would, but actually wouldn't.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

society doesn't want to facilitate prostitution!

YOU do not want to. You do not speak for society. As you should well know given how easily you go off on anyone you imagine is talking for others or using the word "we" not to your personal liking.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

'm not paying tax so that they don't have to pay any!

Is anyone here actually advocating a system where they would not have to pay any? The EXACT opposite appears to be what people are advocating. Are you floundering so much to rebut what people are saying that you have to attack things in this magical opposite land in your head instead?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

they don't want the industry regulated

I do not think we should care if they want it to be or not. Any more than you would care that they do not want it to be criminalized either. We should be concerned with doing what is best, based on arguments for what is best (as opposed to your fantasy and assertion of what is best). Regardless of what they "want" or not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the costs to them to get regulated would be prohibitive!

Would they? Care to show your workings and what you think the costs would be? Or is this another area where you are simply imagining the numbers will be whatever you need them to be to make you right and everyone else wrong?

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!

You do not know they are ONLY doing it because they are paid for it. PLENTY of people are paid for doing things they would do anyway even if they were not paid for it. Because they WANT to do it.

But this "voluntary" nonsense is just a red herring because it applies to ANY job ANYONE does.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's not a viable career option for anyone IMO

Except for those for whom it is, and your opinion on the matter, baseless and unsubstantiated as it is, likely means every but as much to them as the content of that opinion warrants. Nothing.

But by all means tells us in your lofty "opinion" what the characteristics of a "viable career option" actually are. What are the attributes that must fit to qualify? Because, like every other assertion you make, you do not appear to be offering anything that can be unpacked or parsed if people stop to think about it, rather than simply flash read over it. Your entire approach appears to be the hope that people will read what you write, and process it without stopping to think too hard about it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The different attitude to prostitution is because society does not want to facilitate the provision of that service. It's really that simple.

And how have you established what it is society does or does not want? Have you polls? A vote? An election? Data? Or are you just, as per usual, simply making up facts to suit your own position?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Irony. Metre. Exploding. Again. You have been the very MERCHANT of baseless and unsubstantiated assertion on this thread. The very template of it. Where do you get off making a comment like this one?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm absolutely listening to your reasoning, they're arguments I've heard dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times before.

And not once rebutted.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People are not born prostitutes or sex workers.

Nor are they required to to gain the rights people advocate for them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

Not once person is advocating for that at all. More of your attacks on the straw men living in opposite land.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not trying to tell anyone what careers they can and cannot have.

Yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

sbsquarepants

Speedwell wrote: »

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). .

What are they, I can't think of any?

Speedwell wrote: »

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.

Certainly should be up to them, but it's not - a puritanical nanny state says "no, sex is somehow different to other physical acts and you can't choose to commodify that even if you personally have no problem in doing so"

All work involves ceding control of your body to a third party in return for money. I get up everyday and come to a building where a man much richer than me pays me to do things he dictates but which he either can't or doesn't want to do himself. I don't get to choose what to do and what not to - if I want the money, I can always say no I don't want your money, but if I want it I have to do as he says and that's just the way it is.
What is the fundamental difference unless you view sex as always being something "special" which lots of people, myself included just don't. Sometimes sex is just sex, nothing more.

Olishi4

Speedwell wrote: »

I think nobody is forcing people to promote sex work to their children, or proposing any such thing. You don't have to like sex work yourself, or even like sex, to treat sex workers like human beings with rights.

Oh yea, the right to choice, isn't it.

Silverharp was accused of inflicting his "physchological consequences" when he said something similar and now Kev has been accused of having the "whiff" of sexual repression all because they said they would be concerned and feel they failed to protect their child if their child went into the industry as an adult. If any parent didn't make a similar statement, I'd be shocked.

It sounds like you are assuming that they would reject their adult children if they made that choice but that is not what they are saying. They are saying, that they would do anything to prevent them from going into it and subjecting them to unrealistic glamorising of the industry because they don't believe it would be good for their son/daughters welfare. In other words, not promote it as a career option.

Speedwell

Olishi4 wrote: »

Oh yea, the right to choice, isn't it.

Silverharp was accused of inflicting his "physchological consequences" when he said something similar and now Kev has been accused of having the "whiff" of sexual repression all because they said they would be concerned and feel they failed to protect their child if their child went into the industry as an adult. If any parent didn't make a similar statement, I'd be shocked.

It sounds like you are assuming that they would reject their adult children if they made that choice but that is not what they are saying. They are saying, that they would do anything to prevent them from going into it and subjecting them to unrealistic glamorising of the industry because they don't believe it would be good for their son/daughters welfare. In other words, not promote it as a career option.

nozzferrahhtoo

Olishi4 wrote: »

If any parent didn't make a similar statement, I'd be shocked.

Then be shocked because I for one said as much more than once in the thread already.

In that I will judge my success as a parent based on by child's ability to make choices for themselves, and to live a life they are happy with.

And IF that turns out to involve a career in the sex industry somewhere, then that is perfectly ok with me.

I do not see my role as a parent to be solely to mold my children into what I want them to be. I see my role as a parent as being to help them find out who THEY want to be, and to give them the skills, knowledge, self confidence and ability to make their own choices, for their own reasons, and to find to find their own path to happiness. All while minimizing harm or suffering to others.

Olishi4 wrote: »

It sounds like you are assuming that they would reject their adult children if they made that choice but that is not what they are saying.

Well to be fair it is hard to know what some of them are saying. Because what they say sounds ominous but is unspecific. Such as when Kev said he would simply not "tolerate it" if his child went into sex work.

Now what that means or what form that intolerance will actually take, is assumption and guess work. An assumption I will not make either way, but you appear to want to. Only he can tell us how his intolerance would manifest if his child came home and declared they were now in the sex trade.

You do not know their minds any more than I do. I would not pretend to. I would merely suggest you do not either. Especially in a world where parents DO periodically reject and disown children for who or what they turn out to be.

Speedwell

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What are they, I can't think of any?

Without the proper license, any number of things. In some places, Tarot readings and other "psychic" services. Justice in a courtroom, or other social services. Human rights in general. Freedom from bullying (give me your lunch money and maybe I won't beat you up after school). Lots of things.

One eyed Jack

Speedwell wrote: »

I think nobody is forcing people to promote sex work to their children, or proposing any such thing. You don't have to like sex work yourself, or even like sex, to treat sex workers like human beings with rights.

But who isn't treating human beings as human beings with rights?

The fact that they work in the sex industry is a matter of employment rights, and currently, they don't have any employment rights because the industry is not legislated for in this country. That's not denying anyone their human rights, it is simply refusing to acknowledge sex work as a legitimate form of employment. Nobody is actively stopping anyone from choosing to engage in sex work.

They're just not facilitating their choices as there has been no compelling argument presented yet to do so.

Olishi4

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then be shocked because I for one said as much more than once in the thread already.

In that I will judge my success as a parent based on by child's ability to make choices for themselves, and to live a life they are happy with.

And IF that turns out to involve a career in the sex industry somewhere, then that is perfectly ok with me.

I do not see my role as a parent to be solely to mold my children into what I want them to be. I see my role as a parent as being to help them find out who THEY want to be, and to give them the skills, knowledge, self confidence and ability to make their own choices, for their own reasons, and to find to find their own path to happiness. All while minimizing harm or suffering to others.

Well to be fair it is hard to know what some of them are saying. Because what they say sounds ominous but is unspecific. Such as when Kev said he would simply not "tolerate it" if his child went into sex work.

Now what that means or what form that intolerance will actually take, is assumption and guess work. An assumption I will not make either way, but you appear to want to. Only he can tell us how his intolerance would manifest if his child came home and declared they were now in the sex trade.

You do not know their minds any more than I do. I would not pretend to. I would merely suggest you do not either. Especially in a world where parents DO periodically reject and disown children for who or what they turn out to be.

Yes all that sounds lovely however children aren't born with complete knowledge. It's the parents job to inform them and to guide them in the right direction. Your argument is basically saying "let people do what they want as long as they say it makes them happy as long as they don't harm people" covering all angles there right, but what about all those unhappy people who are significantly, negatively affected by it, you know, the ones we are not pretending that you don't care about. The ones who IMO make up the majority of the industry.