Should prostitution be legal?

AARRRGH

Joey the lips wrote: »

http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/wijers-rights.html

I have show 2 links where prostitution exploitation operates alongside the legal trade in amsterdam. Can you who now think it should be legal provide evidence where legalising it disproves these articles...

Could you have found an article from a more extremist feminist organisation?

Random quote from the article:

Within this approach trafficking in women is considered to be just part and parcel of the overall evil of prostitution, without regard for conditions of consent or coercion. So viewed, prostitution and trafficking become practically identical.

Yeah, they sound really level headed don't they! Prostitution is 'evil' and trafficking and prostitution are the same thing!

Please, don't use articles written by extremist feminists. You may as well start quoting the Pope as proof prostitution is 'evil'.

Joey the lips

AARRRGH wrote: »

Eh... if you read the article you linked to you will see the problem is that a lot of prostitutes are illegal immigrants.

The article (which delightfully refers to prostitutes as 'whores') explains that illegal immigrants will no longer be allowed to work in legitimate brothels as... surprise surprise... they are illegal immigrants.

The article then states that these women may be forced to work in the 'back streets'.

All this tells us is illegal immigrants don't have the same rights as legal immigrants. We all know this.

So this is not a problem to do with prostitution, this is a problem to do with illegal immigration. You could replace 'prostitute' with 'waiter' and you'd still have the same article.

And anyway, wouldn't you rather a system where there is some protection for prostitutes? No one is trying to claim fully decriminalising prostitution will result in utopia. Of course there will still be problems, but... THERE WILL BE A LOT LESS PROBLEMS.

Read both articles and thats what I said at the start that "Immergrints" are forced into the trade illegally.

Be honest you are not going to research this are you?

Do your own research and prove why it should be legal. If it beats mine I will buy you a pint!

P. Breathnach

Joey the lips wrote: »

Link no.1 Proving illegal prostitution operates alongside legal prostitution even when its regulated...

I don't think anybody said or implied that legalising prostitution would eliminate all problems. The consensus among those who favour legalisation seems to be that it would benefit many. That's worth something.

Joey the lips

AARRRGH wrote: »

Could you have found an article from a more extremist feminist organisation?

Random quote from the article:



Yeah, they sound really level headed don't they!

Please, don't use articles written by extremist feminists. You may as well start quoting the Pope as proof prostitution is 'evil'.

Now this is typical your asked to prove something you prove it and your called an extremeist.

You prove your point of view!!! go on! becuase you cant!

You will not find any news papers showing where it operates successfully along side.

all you have done is give all those attached to this thread the information to make up there minds.

Who has been backing up what they say! me!

I am finishing this arguement unless you can back your arguements up with facts!

AARRRGH

Joey the lips wrote: »

Read both articles and thats what I said at the start that "Immergrints" are forced into the trade illegally.

Be honest you are not going to research this are you?

Do your own research and prove why it should be legal. If it beats mine I will buy you a pint!

I have been researching prostitution for about 10 years. I have written god knows how many articles about Ruhama. (I used to be a writer about the sex industry.)

I know the industry inside out.

You have to find UNBIASED BALANCED articles about prostitution. Link to extremist feminism nonsense will not win you any support.

All you have 'proven' is -

A. Illegal immigrants can't legally work in brothels. No sh*t!
B. Extremist feminists are crazy.

Well done.

Joey the lips

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think anybody said or implied that legalising prostitution would eliminate all problems. The consensus among those who favour legalisation seems to be that it would benefit many. That's worth something.

I did. I said that legalising prostitution will cause the the operation of illegal activities. I was asked why? how? when? what? and thats why I am spending half the day backing myself up!

Yes your right it would! might even benefit me if I did not vote against it!

Joey the lips

AARRRGH wrote: »

I have been researching prostitution for about 10 years. I have written god knows how many articles about Ruhama. (I used to be a writer about the sex industry.)

I know the industry inside out.

You have to find UNBIASED BALANCED articles about prostitution. Link to extremist feminism nonsense will not win you any support.

All you have 'proven' is -

A. Illegal immigrants can't legally work in brothels. No sh*t!
B. Extremist feminists are crazy.

Well done.

No pictures no proof

quote 10 years worth of articles I am sure you have a lot!

quite honestly I dont believe you.....

I have proven that illegal prostitution operates alongside legal prostitution thats all I set out to do becuase thats what I was asked.

Quotes:

10 years of research and you have no reference tut tut!!!

AARRRGH

Joey the lips wrote: »

I did. I said that legalising prostitution will cause the the operation of illegal activities. I was asked why? how? when? what? and thats why I am spending half the day backing myself up!

Yes your right it would! might even benefit me if I did not vote against it!

Look, you obviously aren't thinking very clearly.

I'll type it r-e-a-l-l-y slowly so you understand.

1. Prostitution is currently an underground, black market industry in Ireland.
2. There is no regulation.
3. There are no safety checks.
4. Decriminalising prostitution will remove 1, 2 and 3 above.
5. Yes, some prostitutes will continue to work illegally, for example, the junkies and illegal immigrants. But the other prostitutes will now have basic rights and protection.

Can you see how this is an improvement?

If not, please leave this debate as you are not capable of understanding this issue.

PS NO ONE IS DOUBTING ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION OPERATES ALONGSIDE LEGAL PROSTITUTION. WE ARE SAYING THERE WILL BE LESS ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION.

Joey the lips

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/48311?pageNumber=2

above is a reconised body: the psychiatrictimes....Not extremeist..

Wait I 'd love the following line if it were not sad for the ladies


It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week (Hunter, 1994). One woman explained that prostitution is "like domestic violence taken to the extreme" (Leone, 2001). Another woman said, "What is rape for others, is normal for us" (Farley et al., in press).

Hook, Line and sinker.... Splash

Quotes: its no longer worth trying to convince you! start quoting or just accept its unfair!

AARRRGH

Joey the lips wrote: »

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/48311?pageNumber=2

above is a reconised body: the psychiatrictimes....Not extremeist..

Wait I 'd love the following line if it were not sad for the ladies


It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week (Hunter, 1994). One woman explained that prostitution is "like domestic violence taken to the extreme" (Leone, 2001). Another woman said, "What is rape for others, is normal for us" (Farley et al., in press).

Hook, Line and sinker.... Splash

Quotes: its no longer worth trying to convince you! start quoting or just accept its unfair!

OK, I now realise I am wasting my time talking to you.

That article you linked to. See who the author is? Melissa Farley, an extremist feminist who is famous for her anti-porn and anti-prostitution views. Most 'reasonable' feminists (including me) consider her anti-woman.

Seriously, I think you need to leave this debate, or start posting reasonable, balanced information.

MikeC101

Unfortunately this is one of those issues where people make their mind up on it beforehand and then retroactively fit the "facts" to agree with their opinion.

And in this case, the victims will continue to suffer, but as long as those "moral" types convince themselves that they can dictate to others, not a damn thing will be done in improving the situation of those suffering.

I don't see it being legalised in Ireland - come on, this is a country where contraception was illegal until 1985!

As far as I can see making prostitution legal makes sense on social and economic grounds, and could only improve the safety and health of working girls. But the people opposed to it on moral grounds really don't seem to care very much about that.

Joey the lips

AARRRGH wrote: »

Look, you obviously aren't thinking very clearly.

I'll type it r-e-a-l-l-y slowly so you understand.

1. Prostitution is currently an underground, black market industry in Ireland.
2. There is no regulation.
3. There are no safety checks.
4. Decriminalising prostitution will remove 1, 2 and 3 above.
5. Yes, some prostitutes will continue to work illegally, for example, the junkies and illegal immigrants. But the other prostitutes will now have basic rights and protection.

Can you see how this is an improvement?

If not, please leave this debate as you are not capable of understanding this issue.

PS NO ONE IS DOUBTING ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION OPERATES ALONGSIDE LEGAL PROSTITUTION. WE ARE SAYING THERE WILL BE LESS ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION.

w - r - o - n - g !!!!! i and its not we its you!!!! Fact fact facts give me facts not your opinion!!!!!!

as for leaving this debate. I will be leaving it but the reason you ask is you have proved yourself so wrong, have failed to back up your facts and clearly are incapable of it

Its amazing how somebody can waste 10 years of there life researching a subject and not stand up to an arguement with a stranger. quote sources... quote facts!. Imagine if we were in a room. You would be red faced and drinking a glass of water!

Joey the lips

MikeC101 wrote: »

Unfortunately this is one of those issues where people make their mind up on it beforehand and then retroactively fit the "facts" to agree with their opinion.

And in this case, the victims will continue to suffer, but as long as those "moral" types convince themselves that they can dictate to others, not a damn thing will be done in improving the situation of those suffering.

I don't see it being legalised in Ireland - come on, this is a country where contraception was illegal until 1985!

As far as I can see making prostitution legal makes sense on social and economic grounds, and could only improve the safety and health of working girls. But the people opposed to it on moral grounds really don't seem to care very much about that.

I agree but I did not dictate I answered a question and was asked why so I dont care what anyone thinks I just answered what was asked. I am not morally judging anybody. and no it does not improve the welfare that was how I got here!

AARRRGH

Joey the lips wrote: »

w - r - o - n - g !!!!! i and its not we its you!!!! Fact fact facts give me facts not your opinion!!!!!!

as for leaving this debate. I will be leaving it but the reason you ask is you have proved yourself so wrong, have failed to back up your facts and clearly are incapable of it

Its amazing how somebody can waste 10 years of there life researching a subject and not stand up to an arguement with a stranger. quote sources... quote facts!. Imagine if we were in a room. You would be red faced and drinking a glass of water!

OK, I take it you're either very young or there's some other issue at play here.

If you really believe (which you quite amazingly do believe) that more rights for prostitutes won't benefit them, well then, what can I say?

You can't argue with that sort of logic.

Bye bye.

PS I don't know why, but I am reminded of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

Joey the lips

AARRRGH wrote: »

OK, I take it you're either very young or there's some other issue at play here.

If you really believe (which you quite amazingly do believe) that more rights for prostitutes won't benefit them, well then, what can I say?

You can't argue with that sort of logic.

Bye bye.

PS I don't know why, but I am reminded of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

For him who has gone backwards how much more right can you get then the regulated sex industry in amsterdam. This is what I said an illegal industry will operate along side a legal one

Forget what I have said start saying something useful instead of trying to disprove me....Where is your 10 years of research to back up your arguement... where!!!! quotes that book must be big!

ps: its amazing how when someone says they have 10 years of research and you ask them to quote they start to get personel. What age does that remind you off....someone younger than your research!

MikeC101

Joey the lips wrote: »

I agree but I did not dictate I answered a question and was asked why so I dont care what anyone thinks I just answered what was asked. I am not morally judging anybody. and no it does not improve the welfare that was how I got here!

I just can't see anywhere in those links where it proves overall welfare isn't improved?

One link is a claim from brothel owners that a large percentage of workers in legal brothels are illegal immigrants, how does this relate to welfare?

The other states the author believes prostitution itself to be "evil". Surely you can't rely on a source that exposes itself as being very biased?

Regular health checks and screening will help - in Australia (where prostitution is legalised) sex workers have lower rates of STIs than the general population.

turgon

I know from reading threads, Joey the Lips, that last year AAAGH was involved in a lawsuit with the IEDR as regarding registering www.pornography.ie, and he has a company registered named thus. I would say he is quite familiar in this regard.

Ignorance is Strength I suppose

,8,1

I think we need to care less about the welfare of prostitutes ("sex-workers") and more about the rights and wrongs of prostitution itself.

Too often this debate is framed in terms of "prostitute welfare". It needn't be.

P. Breathnach

,8,1 wrote: »

I think we need to care less about the welfare of prostitutes ("sex-workers") and more about the rights and wrongs of prostitution itself...

That is the model we have at present: prostitution is deemed wrong, and official Ireland seems unconcerned about the welfare of prostitutes. To me. it looks like a bad balance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MikeC101

,8,1 wrote: »

I think we need to care less about the welfare of prostitutes ("sex-workers") and more about the rights and wrongs of prostitution itself.

Too often this debate is framed in terms of "prostitute welfare". It needn't be.

But why is it "wrong" and why do you get to decide that it is?

Personally I'm not a huge fan of prostitution, but hell, it's the oldest trade in the world, it's always existed in one form or another, why not regulate it?

And why not be concerned about prostitutes welfare? Are they not worth considering?

,8,1

The conservative and religious right wants to criminalize prostitution so as to "stamp out immorality."

Not necessarily stamp it out but certainly not tolerate in the open as an accepted activity.

The progressive left wants to criminalize prostitution so as to "protect women."

Much of the progressive left wants to decriminalise prostitution.

Neither the left nor the right questions whether the state should have the power to regulate consenting adults' private sexual behavior.

"Consenting adults" and "the sanctity of private environments" are two premises that one does not have to accept.

So does it matter how statists "frame the debate"?

I wouldn't say that those who seek restrictions on prostitution are necessarily "statists" (unless you think that anyone who proposes any law of any sort is a "statist").

But why is it "wrong" and why do you get to decide that it is?

Why do you get to decide that it's right/acceptable?

Serenity Now!

You couldn't buy a rubber johnny freely in this country before 1993. Legalise prostitution? Two hopes...Bob and No.

SeanW

"Consenting adults" and "the sanctity of private environments" are two premises that one does not have to accept.

You're right - you don't have to accept these premises - if you're a statist.

By all means if your a religious whackjob, radical feminist or other Authoritarian type, who views the State as rightfully being omnipotent and overarching into peoples private affairs, then you don't have to accept either premise.

Why do you get to decide that it's right/acceptable?

In a free society, people are entitled to live their lives as they see fit, entitled to conduct private affair as they see fit and accept whatever contracts they see fit - but (and this is the key point) all of this is tempered by the responsibility to respect the rights of others.

In a free society I don't get to decide anything about what's right/acceptable save the protection of the State's integrity (providing an army defense, outlawing counterfeit of money, membership of the Real IRA etc), to protect the rights of the people and businesses (like, if someone steals, attacks you or burns your car or something, I want the police to deal with that on your behalf), and the provision and enforcement of Contract Law.

In a free society, I am forced to mind my own damn business and I don't get to decide what any fully capable, consenting adults do in their bedrooms, what they smoke or drink, who they screw or how. I don't get to decide anything. As long as noone is forced into anything or no non-involved party is hurt as a result of ANY activity, I do not get to decide anything about what's right/acceptable or "moral."

But we have Statism and it's increasing (look at the blasphemous libel legislation thread :eek: and thats just for openers)

Joey the lips

turgon wrote: »

I know from reading threads, Joey the Lips, that last year AAAGH was involved in a lawsuit with the IEDR as regarding registering www.pornography.ie, and he has a company registered named thus. I would say he is quite familiar in this regard.

Ignorance is Strength I suppose

Again turgon i dont really want to do this for another day because we are all loseing interest. I dont know what the ignorence is strength means with reference to prostitution. My opening comments on this thread were

"Prostitution should not be legal because it has been shown by economists that is operates in a legal and illegal way alongside each other". This is shown on the main amsterdam.info website. I was then asked by many daft questions and comparrissions which put me in a position of having to defend the sex trade which guess what! I at the bottom dont care it its legal or not!

Sean W seems to be able to compare workers in macdonalds and prostitutes which read it was a daft example unless we are shoving chicken nuggets up the wazoo of a macdonalds worker. Youself missed my point which had me trying to reexplain. Ionix says he will never pay for cheap sex. Yes he is right but her is the thing.

How economist explain the sex industry is by using total different examples to take your mind off the subject.compare it to a coffee shop in the airport(Please bear with me). If I am traveling through a country and I am in the airport and I want a cup of coffee. I will go to the airport cafe and pay the over inflated price for the coffee. Why 1. Because there is an absence of compitition 2. I do not care much because its just one cup of coffee and 3. The value of the cup of coffee is not much to have me look around. Now if I were a local working in the airport who buys coffee everyday and I am on a modest wage i would go somewhere else for a cheaper cup of coffee why because 1. I know where the competition is 2. I do care about the price of a cup of coffee and I know where its cheaper and 3.The value of a cup of coffee matters to me becuase I am buying a lot more

Now replace coffee with a ride from a prostitute and what you arrive at is a visitor to amsterdam will pay a premium for sex( Thats us) where as a local will know where the competition is and pay less becuase the greater frequency and lower pay. Its this market economists argue that causes the flurishment of the illegal sex industry. Its not the normal tourist but the dedicated tourist and locals.

Now the thread moved on to me having to prove this. The logic above demonstrates the theory. NOBODY in this thread has proved why prostitution is positive. Aaragh pointed out to me tha he has 10 years of research to prove prostition is right and should be legal. He has not given examples. I have. Here's whats better I have a degree in economics which proves I know economics but unless I give specific examples my knowledge is worthless. Do you agree. Just because you research something you should have examples to back it up. Its a standard rules of college research. all I asked for is examples of where its shown to be right.

One final note, all the illegally exported women brought into the countries amsterdam included are sold into the sex trade. This can only increase as time continues and if legal they wont need to hide there entry into ireland becuase all they have to say is "here is my documents I have a job riding in kitty o sheas"

Aarrgh final comment that really showed iggnorance was "PS NO ONE IS DOUBTING ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION OPERATES ALONGSIDE LEGAL PROSTITUTION. WE ARE SAYING THERE WILL BE LESS ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION."

Read that read what it says when you translate the logic. Would it be " No one doubts the a legal trade operates with an illegal trade but if you make the legal trade legal the illegal trade is less likely." Dohh the legal trade is already legal and the illegal trade is flourishing.... Not a very good comment for 10 years of research is it. It really shows a poor understanding.

One last bit of knowledge we all fail to extract. What do women think????? or are women in the extremeist caragory! Or is this a man only logic!

Can i take it we are flogging a dead horse and that no matter what the thread is a pointless arguement with no factual evidence to support the yes campagn!


PS: Turgon quoting a site you cannot access makes me question if you read it at all.

Joey the lips

Just another extramist website argument no doubt! Oh and located at:

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/5_major_human_trafficking_controversies

1. The Legalization of Prostitution
The issue of whether or not legalized or decriminalized prostitution increases or decreases sex trafficking is one of the most hotly contested issues in the field. Proponents of legalizing or decriminalizing (which are two different policies) prostitution argue that regulating the industry will make it safer for women. In theory, when women in commercial sex are registering and paying taxes, there is less opportunity for pimps and organized crime to exploit them.
However, a great deal of research and interviews with women in prostitution show that (just like Communism and lycra), legalization of prostitution is a better idea in theory than in practice. One of the best examples of this is Amsterdam, which has had a legal commercial sex industry since 2000. The city has grown as a sex tourism destination, and entrepreneurial human traffickers have tricked, coerced and forced more women and children into the Red Light Districts in order to meet a growing demand. For the past couple years, Amsterdam has begun to acknowledge that legal prostitution has increased crimes from human trafficking to drug use as is starting to rethink the policy. In the end, an overwhelming amount of research shows where there is legal or decimalized prostitution, there are high rates of sex trafficking.


The horse is flogged and is a non runner!

turgon

"Ignorance is strength" is a quote from George Orwells book Nineteen Eighty-Four. It describes the system whereby if people arent aware of what happening around them, or of the evils of the state they are living in, they can passionately follow and support it without questioning.

Let me put it another way. We have logically explained to you that if prostitution is legalized, illegal prostitution will go down. However you have decided to ignore that. The strength of your conviction lies in the fact that you dont even consider the other arguments. By simply ignoring our arguments you have become fully confident in the watertight truth of your position.

I habe no motivation to debate with someone who wont accept reasonable arguments.

At least ,8,1 had the honesty to say that his argument was based solely on morals.

Joey the lips

turgon wrote: »

"Ignorance is strength" is a quote from George Orwells book Nineteen Eighty-Four. It describes the system whereby if people arent aware of what happening around them, or of the evils of the state they are living in, they can passionately follow and support it without questioning.

Let me put it another way. We have logically explained to you that if prostitution is legalized, illegal prostitution will go down. However you have decided to ignore that. The strength of your conviction lies in the fact that you dont even consider the other arguments. By simply ignoring our arguments you have become fully confident in the watertight truth of your position.

I habe no motivation to debate with someone who wont accept reasonable arguments.

At least ,8,1 had the honesty to say that his argument was based solely on morals.

Oh my apologies I am getting the feeling you think I am not open for debate, quite the opposite if you can debate why prostitution should be legal and it does not repeat or contradict what was said I will do you one better. I will use the information and reference you in future discussions.

I cant see where its shown to work without the absence of the illegal trade. If it can and be shown I will amend my arguement. Incidently I found another article from the newzealand goverment which agrees with the dutch goverments view that controling the legal and illegal along side has become impossible.

See turgon, I notice to the answer to debate on this forum is that when someone does not like a debate going there way the say " Well I am speaking to a closed mind!" - The shut the door principle or "Well this is my opinion- so you get stuffed" - the slagging principle.

I promise you this. If prostitution can be shown not to operate illigally where legal does I will support it, encourage it and embeace it. Hell I might even use it.

For my part I apologise if I seem to offend, I just seem to be meeting many people with years of research who have not supported a single fact

Morals dont come into this with me.

turgon

We never said there wouldnt be any illegal prostitution, we said it would be greatly reduced.

Joey the lips

turgon wrote: »

We never said there wouldnt be any illegal prostitution, we said it would be greatly reduced.

No Turgon whats with we, are you the great saviour of the yes campagn.... YOU said
Basically ionxix5891, I think what is going on here is "excuse finding". These people are clearly anti-prostitution from a moral perspective. However when faced with the fact that it does not concern them when two people engage in this kind of consensual activity they try and backtrack to find excuses why it should be banned.

So you get rubbish like the black market. Because I suppose the black market will be so bigger when prostitution is legalized

As you said, its like the debate on marijuana. People cant admit its none of their buisness so they backtrack and try and find some excuse to come out with.

I think fundamentally people have a predisposition to wanting everyone to think and act the way they want them too.

So let me see its rubbish but its there! thats your arguement!

I am not wasteing my time argueing with you. I have told you I would apologise if you find facts. All you have done is contradict and speculate. It is you and others like you on this thread who is to wanting everyone to think and act the way they want them too.

Back off and get me facts because all I am going to do is accept that this thread is full of yes people incapable of backing up an arguement and no people who are "Moralistic" or "Feminist" for stating there point.

Its stinks of facism to me.

No doubt another is going to comment without facts " Come in make yourself at home add to the foolish yes attitude already here!"

Ladies, This is what the yes men here think of you......