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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » they don't have any employment rights because the industry is not legislated for in this country.
One eyed Jack wrote: » refusing to acknowledge sex work as a legitimate form of employment.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nobody is actively stopping anyone from choosing to engage in sex work.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They're just not facilitating their choices as there has been no compelling argument presented yet to do so.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
Olishi4 wrote: » Yes all that sounds lovely however children aren't born with complete knowledge.
Olishi4 wrote: » It's the parents job to inform them and to guide them in the right direction.
Olishi4 wrote: » 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.
Kev_2012 wrote: » I don't know you, but I'm sure there are legal things that a child of yours could do that is gonna annoy you. There is no point in trying to come off as somebody that is liberal to an extent that there is no boundaries just for the sake of seeming "progressive".
Kev_2012 wrote: » No. It is nothing about molding them into what I want them to be. Would you be happy if........
Kev_2012 wrote: » I don't see why I would have to explain what "tolerant" means.
Kev_2012 wrote: » To me, sex is not something that is to be sold, from my view, that is the end of the discussion.
silverharp wrote: » but then have no rule about it and forget about "recognising it" . Sex for favours is as old as human history, Prostitution is just a particular form of it.
A bit like above , just take all the relevant laws off the books as the state has no interest in why 2 people are having sex. It doesn't need to be beneficial. Its kind of a slippery slope Islamic argument, adultery? gay sex? sex outside marriage?
what exactly?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Given I never suggested they were, and in fact everything I just wrote indicates the exact opposite....... I am not sure what you mean with your "however" or why you bring this fact up as if it is something new to me. There is no "the" right direction. Their direction might differ from yours. That is the point. The role of the parent is to give them the knowledge and skills and faculties and abilities to make their own decisions, and to find out who THEY themselves are. We as parents are there to guide them on their path, not force them down ours. I care very much for anyone who is in a job or industry they do not want to be in. I promote any and all initiatives I can in society that allow people to gain skills, re-train, change trade, or get out of where they are and into where they want to be. I do not limit that to, or preclude it from, sex workers. It is an ideal I think we should strive towards across the board. If someone is in sex work, restaurant work, child care work, medical work, political work, or simply unemployed..... and they want to change their circumstances..... I would like to afford them EVERY opportunity to do so that we can conceivably and realistically offer them. As for your opinion on what the majority of the industry is..... I think I will hold out for actual facts and studies over opinion on that one thanks.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But if you are asking for it to be legislated for and regulated, that's hardly forgetting about it, is it?
One eyed Jack wrote: » The exploitation that already exists in the industry, which would be ignored if society were simply asked to forget about it and ignore what's going on.
Olishi4 wrote: » You do suggest and imply things but whenever someone confronts you with them you deny ever saying anything.
Olishi4 wrote: » You'd only accept your own exact words quoted back to you and that is not a conversation.
Olishi4 wrote: » So a parents 12 year old comes up to them and says "I'm thinking of going into sex work as a career path when I am older". What would you say to them?
Olishi4 wrote: » Remember now, it's their path, not yours. Are you going to tell them that you are delighted that they are thinking of going down this road as long as it makes them happy? Or are you gonna provide them with factual knowledge on the negative effect it has on the majority of people working in it....oh wait no, you can't tell them that because you are still holding out for the facts and studies right?
One eyed Jack wrote: » But if you are asking for it to be legislated for and regulated, that's hardly forgetting about it, is it?.
silverharp wrote: » people can be exploited for various reasons , a general exploitation law covering coercion , people trafficking , kidnapping etc. is grand surely?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The only things I deny saying are the things I never actually said. And I note that when people like yourself suggest I said them and I correct them.... they NEVER seem to go back and find and quote me saying it. Why? Because I never said it. That is why.
smash wrote: » The bigger issue though is that these laws exist in places where prostitution is legal, and there are still large scale issues with coercion and trafficking within the sex trade.
Olishi4 wrote: » No it's because your posts are ridiculously long with very little substance.
Olishi4 wrote: » You nit pick at parts that are irrelevant to dodge questions.
Olishi4 wrote: » For example, I gave you a scenario where a 12 year old child was thinking about it as a career and you chose to highlight that it wasn't your child
Olishi4 wrote: » You probably wouldn't understand what I am saying here either but I'm not waisting my time again explaining it.
Olishi4 wrote: » Like another poster said earlier in the thread, I just can't be arsed with that kind of debating.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Agreed. But the question then becomes what exactly are the laws they have, and how are they implemented and enforced (if at all), and why is it going wrong.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Alas what I think we see is people who would view a general statement like yours, and simply throw their hands up and go "Therefore it will never work, so lets just make the whole enterprise illegal".
StudentDad wrote: » You can make that argument about any industry. At the end of the day those issues are not a product of legislation, they are a product of inadequate enforcement of the relevant legislation.
StudentDad wrote: » As it stands, the sex trade exists, exploitation exists. Ignoring the industry won't make it vanish. Driving it underground just makes more money for people doing the exploiting and the State fails a large chunk of it's citizens.
StudentDad wrote: » If the industry is properly regulated, taxed etc., it puts a big old spotlight on the industry and if done properly assists those involved.
smash wrote: » No, they're a product of the nature of the industry. This is completely untrue. I linked an article previously which stated that legalising it introduces an avenue for criminal gangs to continue or expand their practice under the guise of a legitimate business. Many of the girls are simply held to ransom. And can increase trafficking, coercion and money laundering.
StudentDad wrote: » You can make that argument about any industry. At the end of the day those issues are not a product of legislation, they are a product of inadequate enforcement of the relevant legislation. Pick any industry and there will be those who flout the law. Law enforcement will catch some, not all. If they did, sure we wouldn't need a police force etc. As it stands, the sex trade exists, exploitation exists. Ignoring the industry won't make it vanish. Driving it underground just makes more money for people doing the exploiting and the State fails a large chunk of it's citizens. If the industry is properly regulated, taxed etc., it puts a big old spotlight on the industry and if done properly assists those involved. SD
StudentDad wrote: » All of which are a product of inadequate enforcement of relevant legislation.
StudentDad wrote: » There is no magic bullet that will make this industry perfect. No industry is perfect. There will always be people in any given industry who laugh at the law and find ways to avoid it.
Eramen wrote: » One logical error after another and too many assumptions. You can't make 'that argument' about any industry.. How can we? Simply on the basis because crime exists in a given industry? Are you honestly saying if I pick the catering industry for example, it is comparable to the prostitution industry in regards to tax-evasion, social unrest, criminality, cost to the national budget (policing/law), drug-addiction, sexual exploitation etc? Come on.. Legalisation did not put the spotlight on the industry in Germany or Amsterdam, and in fact both nations have been winding down the prevalence of legal prostitution since the turn of the century. It costs too much to police, makes these areas a center of global trafficking, and it's a policy that has little public support. Only 5% of prostitutes in the Netherlands are registered to pay tax. A similarly low number in Saarland. It just doesn't make financial sense if you want to thread along this road.
StudentDad wrote: » As I said, there is no magic bullet to make this industry a paragon of human behaviour. However, doing nothing isn't an option either. I would rather the State legalise, regulate and tax and enforce the legislation rather than drive it underground where there are no protections at all. SD
smash wrote: » No they're not. They're a product of the industry itself. Supply and demand. Criminal organisations will hold girls to ransom in what is perceived to be a legitimate business and men will pay to have their way with them without consideration. It's what's already happening in other countries. The laws just simply don't work. Instead they open opportunities for the underworld to thrive. This is a rather silly statement. We're not discussing workers rights or tax evasion. Stop trying to simplify things to this extent!
StudentDad wrote: » In a sense we are discussing workers rights.
StudentDad wrote: » It seems illogical to criminalise an industry that will carry on regardless of the attitude of the State/society.
StudentDad wrote: » At least some portion of society turns to this industry for its services, so why not legalise, regulate and tax it?
StudentDad wrote: » As regards the criminal elements that is a matter for law enforcement. The industry isn't going away.
Eramen wrote: » I agree that something needs to be done, but strictly from a social point of view where men or women don't need to go into prostitution in the first place or where it can be minimised.You can't give 'rights' to prostitutes that they already have. They are in fact forgoing their rights because they are engaging in criminality, leaving themselves open to prosecution. What's next, special rights for terrorists and drug lords? I'm not even joking, it's a slippery slope. I think we should follow a tried and tested model that works while making our own beneficial adjustments to it while we go along. The EU suggests the Swedish one for a reason, where prostitution remains illegal and discouraged, but it works. It calls for stricter ramifications on the buying and selling of sex that works in sync with Sweden's generous social incentives. It has led to a decline in prostitution. It's funny how all the 'progressives' on this thread are all gung-ho for legalisation (based on nothing) yet never brought up the need for the elimination of the causes of prostitution in the first place or giving women alternatives to walking the streets selling sex. Such ideologues will never see sense. Why the hell should we be encouraging prostitution for women? Because that's the undertone of the message legalisation sends.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I never suggested otherwise. There will of course be actions or decisions my children make that irk me or disappoint me. But so what? That is me. I can divide those feelings from my role as a parent. I see my role as a parent to give my child the faculties to make their own decisions in life and find their own path in life. Regardless of whether or not that is a path that pleases me, or would be one I would choose for them myself. And I say that with none of the agendas you simply invented on my behalf above. Again I think the distinction you are missing is between what I think would make ME happy and what I see my role as a parent as being. And my role as a parent is not so much about what makes ME happy.
Then you will be overjoyed to find that I do not recall suggesting you "have to" and it is not something I would suggest. What I WAS however doing and saying was that I was addressing another user who was presuming to speak for what other parents mean or do not mean........ and I am just pointing out that this is not an assumption we are warranted to make. For example when you said you would simply not tolerate it....... I can not assume to know what you mean by that, can I? I do not know what you mean by it. Nor does the user I was replying to. Only YOU know what you meant by that.
Then do not sell or buy it. Problem solved. But I think there is a chasm of distinction in this world between "X is not for me" and "No one else should do X either". The former is fine. But with the latter you can expect people to at least ASK you for some basis for that position. A basis you appear unwilling, and I suspect incapable to be honest, of offering. But alas we live in a world where a large amount of people think that THEM not wanting something means no one else should have or want it either. "If I can not have it then no one else can" used to be the main catch phrase of the lead bad guy in the Transformers when I was growing up. Pity it could not have stayed there.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
Kev_2012 wrote: » Well then by what I mean, is that becoming a prostitute and remaining part of my future family that I hope to have are going to be incompatible with one another.
smash wrote: » No they're not. They're a product of the industry itself. Supply and demand. Criminal organisations will hold girls to ransom in what is perceived to be a legitimate business and men will pay to have their way with them without consideration. It's what's already happening in other countries. The laws just simply don't work. Instead they open opportunities for the underworld to thrive.
