Prostitution in Ireland.

philologos

kylith wrote: »

You've not answered my question. If a man who, for whatever reason, cannot get or does not want a girlfriend, but still wants to have sex why should he not be able to go to a specific place where a woman can, of her own free will, offer to engage in coitus in return for a sum of money?

That's his problem as I would see it. The sexual urges complaint isn't adequate, as the urges complaint can be used in a lot of respects where it wouldn't be deemed acceptable. Simply put, you have to control your urges and exercise them when it is appropriate to do so. This applies to rage, and feelings of covetousness, and it also applies to lustfulness. It is personal responsibility to control these desires, it isn't the responsibility of society to hold people by the hand as they do this or to tailor the law to suit. The sympathy balance between the person seeking it, and the person who is living as a prostitute is heavily in favour of the latter as I see it.

The area of prostitution is too difficult to legislate for and ensure safety, and consent for all involved, and even if it could be achieved, as I've already said, I don't think the assumptions are values that we should desire in our society. People have the right to take this up and disagree on whatever grounds, but this is my position.

I guess I don't believe it is acceptable to make every part of life something that people buy and sell.

kylith wrote: »

And making prostitution completely illegal will stop this how? It won't. In fact if prostitution is illegal women are more likely to be coerced into the sex trade. They will be unable to turn to the police if they are assaulted or raped because they are likely to be arrested themselves. You can talk about arresting brothel owners if you want, but if you arrest people like the man discussed upthread who care about the women they work with, who look out for their welfare and health, they will just be replaced with unscrupulous owners, or street-corner pimps and the women's welfare will be at the very bottom of those people's concerns.

As I've mentioned in some countries they have had some considerably success. Sweden as of 1999, and Iceland and Norway as of 2009 use a model which criminalises the act of seeking a prostitute or running a brothel. As a result of this policy the Swedes in particular have significantly reduced human trafficking in and out, and have reduced the illegal prostitution trade by 50%. Further in roads can and should be made and this policy should be applied right across Europe.

By the by, it isn't just about women, there are men involved in the prostitution business as well, albeit considerably less. It is about human rights that one would put an end to what is in a huge number of cases sexual slavery.

holystungun9

NoHornJan wrote: »

Sheeps wrote: »

. Would you consider sleeping with a prostitute shameful?QUOTE]

Yes.
Sleeping with a prostitute is a waste of money.

But having sex with her isn't

Wertz

Jakkass wrote: »

Wertz: Please read what I've said above about the prevalence of exploitation, abuse, and trafficking in countries where it is legal.

I've already read most of the thread and I'm aware of the issues internationally. Would you contest that in those countries you specifically mention, that there is more of a problem because of legal status of sex workers or less of a problem?
Has it occured to you that semi-legal/legl status in only some countries creates the sex tourism that is prevalent in some EU countries and leads to further problems for those countries by concentrating sex workers disproportionally to meet artificial levesl of demand?

I'm afriad few of your arguments are going to convince me that keeping prostitution solely in the confines of the criminal end of things is going to either help those being exploited or wider society in general, and it certainly isn't going to cease demand.
Like it or not there is a demand for sex, it's a marketable product...all the laws in the world aren't going to change some very basic human needs and wants. Abstention is not a naural state of being.

philologos

Wertz: The onus isn't on me to convince you. It is on those who are proposing the changes in the law to change it.

The whole "sex is natural" line is limited, because prostituting ones self for money isn't due to the fact that money is a human construct.

The legal status in the Netherlands and Turkey hasn't fixed a lot of the issues they remain as they were. This would lead me to conclude that the best solution is to apply the more effective Scandinavian model which has succeeded in reducing prostitution by 50% rather than exacerbate it.

thebigbiffo

Jakkass wrote: »

Wertz: The onus isn't on me to convince you. It is on those who are proposing the changes in the law to change it.

The whole "sex is natural" line is limited, because prostituting ones self for money isn't due to the fact that money is a human construct.

The legal status in the Netherlands and Turkey hasn't fixed a lot of the issues they remain as they were. This would lead me to conclude that the best solution is to apply the more effective Scandinavian model which has succeeded in reducing prostitution by 50% rather than exacerbate it.

after reading the last few pages i'm struck by one point you keep raising - that 'the scandinavian model reduced prostiution by 50%'. i didn't see any links but on what is this number based?

if you prosecute the 'john' as policy then it may lower frequency of visits fair enough - but i fail to see how any numbers sweden pulls out can be properly measurable. whats to say that the number of prostitutes hasnt actually increased - the 'industry' has been pushed further underground and looks to me like the perfect opportunity for prostitutes to increase their prices as johns make sure to protect themselves by hiring only the very best discreet services. ie, gone are your streetwalkers who would've been very easy to track and survey thereby leading to prosecution under the new law.

i still feel the whole thing is a non argument - it's an unregulated business...how on gods green earth can any numbers to trusted, they're provided by people with vested interests ffs!

Wertz

Jakkass wrote: »

Wertz: The onus isn't on me to convince you. It is on those who are proposing the changes in the law to change it.

You're arguing these points on an internet forum...I'm calling you on it...therefore it's up to you to try and press your side of the argument, not to delegate it out to someone else. FWIW you won't change my mind much on the issue but you might convince someone else.

Jakkass wrote: »

The whole "sex is natural" line is limited, because prostituting ones self for money isn't due to the fact that money is a human construct.

Okay, so let's replace money with food or some other non human construct as a reward.
If someone is hungry and is willing to do anything for food (including coveting or stealing it, to bring you back to another point you raised), why shouldn't that include sex?
In fact many women will admit to marrying a man for the protection his income will offer her and any prospective offspring...this can be seen across the animal kingdom, where the alpha male will have the pick of mates.
How does the woman who marries for the insurance of a decent provider for her and her kids differe from the woman who wants to provide for herself by charging for her services?
If anything the prostitute in this instance is at least being honest with the man and the man is only "buying" them for a half hour or whatever, not for the rest of their lives.

BTW I'm NOT saying all women marry for money or that that is even inherently wrong...

philologos

Wertz: In terms of legislation, I'm not the one proposing that we radically change our system. In fact the only change I would make would be to change the burden of prosecution to those seeking prostitutes so that the police can work to further eradicate prostitution from our midst.

As for food, this implies that the need for food is in any way comparable to sexual desire. Food is a necessity, this isn't true for sexual desire.

Wertz wrote:

In fact many women will admit to marrying a man for the protection his income will offer her and any prospective offspring...this can be seen across the animal kingdom, where the alpha male will have the pick of mates.

I believe humans are called to a higher moral standard than animals. There are many things common place in the animal kingdom that wouldn't be seen as desirable to humanity.

Again, the comparison with marriage is limited at best, particularly in a world where women are very much a key part of the workplace. Indeed from my own family background it was always expected that women work. I would have thought this was typical, perhaps not?

I don't view the man as the provider. Women can provide for their families equally through work.

By the by this debate isn't about women or men. It is about people. Both men and women work in prostitution contrary to popular belief.

thebigbiffo

Jakkass wrote: »

As for food, this implies that the need for food is in any way comparable to sexual desire. Food is a necessity, this isn't true for sexual desire.

money is a necessity...to buy food...through prostitution if the individual decides that is the best course for them. also, there are many men who would argue that sexual encounters are a necessity - i would think so.

jakkass, you just sound like you are moralising on this. you find prositution so distasteful that you could not possibly entertain society accepting it. this is not the way to look at any argument. i dont understand how in this day and age the right of the individual to choose how they live their lives - as long as they dont harm anyone else - can be dictated by you and your ilk. it's scary.

Wertz

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't view the man as the provider. Women can provide for their families equally through work.

...and if that work is in prostitution because it's all that's available or all they can do to make up a shortfall?

Jakass wrote:

By the by this debate isn't about women or men. It is about people. Both men and women work in prostitution contrary to popular belief.

For the most part though, it is predominantly a female lead industry and men are usually the clientelle. I couldn't quote you figures....but probably safe to say it's 4/1 women to men offering themselves for hire.

I don't agree with your point re; the higher moral standards...at some point those break down (civilisation only 3 hot meals away from anarchy for instance) and we have to face the fact that at the bottom of all our technology and knowledge and religion and morals, that we are in fact just another mammal.
We have an urge to eat, to f*ck, and not to die: those urges are dictated by parts of the brain that pre-date our initial move off the African continent...laws that try to get in teh way of any of those urges are going to be ineffective....so why try and impose the moral argument on to what is a base instinct?
Yes lets just lock up everyone because they do things we find morally reprehensible, those morals being something that is too a human construct just like money and laws.

philologos

thebigbiffo wrote: »

after reading the last few pages i'm struck by one point you keep raising - that 'the scandinavian model reduced prostiution by 50%'. i didn't see any links but on what is this number based?

This will have to do you.

The findings of the commission are interesting to say the least and very relevant to our argument:

Sweden's position on prostitution was also reaffirmed "Those who defend prostitution argue that it is possible to differentiate between voluntary and non-voluntary prostitution, that adults should have the right to freely sell and freely purchase sex (...) However, based on a gender equality and human rights perspective, (...) the distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary prostitution is not relevant."

thebigbiffo wrote: »

if you prosecute the 'john' as policy then it may lower frequency of visits fair enough - but i fail to see how any numbers sweden pulls out can be properly measurable. whats to say that the number of prostitutes hasnt actually increased - the 'industry' has been pushed further underground and looks to me like the perfect opportunity for prostitutes to increase their prices as johns make sure to protect themselves by hiring only the very best discreet services. ie, gone are your streetwalkers who would've been very easy to track and survey thereby leading to prosecution under the new law.

Lower number of visits, less prostitution business, win win. People are freed from this.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i still feel the whole thing is a non argument - it's an unregulated business...how on gods green earth can any numbers to trusted, they're provided by people with vested interests ffs!

I've given you a very clear argument as to how in countries where it is legal, there are still huge human rights issues surrounding prostitution. It is because I have severe issues with

Wertz wrote: »

We have an urge to eat, to f*ck, and not to die: those urges are dictated by parts of the brain that pre-date our initial move off the African continent...laws that try to get in teh way of any of those urges are going to be ineffective....so why try and impose the moral argument on to what is a base instinct?

thebigbiffo wrote: »

money is a necessity...to buy food...through prostitution if the individual decides that is the best course for them. also, there are many men who would argue that sexual encounters are a necessity - i would think so.

To both of you - They can argue it as much as you want. The factual matter is:
If you do not eat you will die. If you control and regulate sexual desires to where it is appropriate you will not die.

Wertz wrote: »

...and if that work is in prostitution because it's all that's available or all they can do to make up a shortfall?

Prostitution isn't work, it's abuse and exploitation.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

jakkass, you just sound like you are moralising on this. you find prositution so distasteful that you could not possibly entertain society accepting it. this is not the way to look at any argument. i dont understand how in this day and age the right of the individual to choose how they live their lives - as long as they dont harm anyone else - can be dictated by you and your ilk. it's scary.

I am moralising on this because it is a moral issue.

I've presented clear arguments for my position. I find prostitution distasteful due to the severe problems that it causes to prostitutes, the general impact it has on how we respect eachother as human beings rather than sexual objects, and as a believer in human potential in that it inhabits people from pursuing their full potential and worth.

Be as scared as you want, but I feel that we deserve better than this. I don't share your assumption that it is harmless because the evidence suggests otherwise. Hopefully people here who have sense can see what the basis of this evidence means.

Edit: I can't see there being anything wrong with wanting people to be respected for who they are, rather than what they look like.

Wertz wrote: »

For the most part though, it is predominantly a female lead industry and men are usually the clientelle. I couldn't quote you figures....but probably safe to say it's 4/1 women to men offering themselves for hire.

If this is true, it makes the prostitution industry worse due to the fact that it bolsters gender inequality. That said, I'm going to argue on the basis of all prostitutes rather than most.

Wertz wrote: »

I don't agree with your point re; the higher moral standards...at some point those break down (civilisation only 3 hot meals away from anarchy for instance) and we have to face the fact that at the bottom of all our technology and knowledge and religion and morals, that we are in fact just another mammal.

We are mammals, but we are people with the capability of knowing what is right from wrong. If you aspire to the rock bottom understanding that humans cannot have any better moral aspiration than animals then I'm going to have to disagree with you due to my belief in human potential.

Wertz wrote: »

Yes lets just lock up everyone because they do things we find morally reprehensible, those morals being something that is too a human construct just like money and laws.

We put people who do what is harmful in jail. This is no different as I see it.

Monty Burnz

Jakkass wrote: »

We put people who do what is harmful in jail. This is no different as I see it.

That exact same argument was used to sentence Oscar Wilde to the prison sentencet that killed him. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Do we put smokers in jail?

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That exact same argument was used to sentence Oscar Wilde to the prison sentencet that killed him. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Do we put smokers in jail?

Smoking isn't comparable with prostitution. I've already stressed earlier in this thread that this isn't comparable with homosexuality either in that it doesn't only involve you and your body. It involves others where genuine consent or lack of genuine consent is far from clear.

28064212

Jakkass wrote: »

Smoking isn't comparable with prostitution. I've already stressed earlier in this thread that this isn't comparable with homosexuality either in that it doesn't only involve you and your body. It involves others where genuine consent or lack of genuine consent is far from clear.

Which is exactly why we think it should be legalised and regulated, to allow genuine consent to be ensured

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

Which is exactly why we think it should be legalised and regulated, to allow genuine consent to be ensured

How do you determine genuine consent? People often lie or are forced to lie.

It's largely the same hang up I have with euthanasia.

28064212

Jakkass wrote: »

How do you determine genuine consent? People often lie or are forced to lie.

It's largely the same hang up I have with euthanasia.

How do you determine genuine consent for anything? So ban everything. People often lie or are forced to lie about consent for everything.

I consented to sign my contract in my place of work. I could have been blackmailed/coerced/physically forced to sign it, but I wasn't.

Mrmoe

Jakkass wrote: »

How do you determine genuine consent? People often lie or are forced to lie.

It's largely the same hang up I have with euthanasia.

Generally people over the age of 18 are informed enough to give consent. The areas where we people might be forced into prostitution we want to get rid of. You are assuming that people can not give consent, you do not trust them to make a decision for themselves.

If I wanted to be a prostitute tomorrow why should I be prevented from doing so? I know all the risks associated with it, no one is coercing me to do it, the only reason is that you find it unpalatable and I do not.

Monty Burnz

Jakkass wrote: »

I've already stressed earlier in this thread that this isn't comparable with homosexuality either in that it doesn't only involve you and your body. It involves others where genuine consent or lack of genuine consent is far from clear.

That will come as a surprise to any homosexual people who have sex with other homosexuals.

Consent is very clear in prostitution - far clearer than it is in a lot of social situations when neither partner may be entirely sure how far things will go. There is nothing clearer than party A saying to party B - 'do you want to have sex with me', which is how it actually works.

Of course, this thread was intended to discuss those who choose to work in the sex industry for their own reasons - I've stated repeatedly that any other form of prostitution is abhorrent and a crime. The idea is that by regulating the industry you make conditions better for everyone thatparticipates, particularly those offering the service. And by regulating those who choose to work in the industry, you can concentrate your resources on protecting those who are trafficked or forced into it.

Star Bingo

fcuking dopey whores and scumbag pimps; pathetic clientelle

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That will come as a surprise to any homosexual people who have sex with other homosexuals.

Consent is very clear in prostitution - far clearer than it is in a lot of social situations when neither partner may be entirely sure how far things will go. There is nothing clearer than party A saying to party B - 'do you want to have sex with me', which is how it actually works.

There is nothing clear about this at all. I've asked people how can we make it clear that people actually consent to work in the prostitution industry. Again, I can't think of a single means by which we can.

As for ban everything where consent might be hard to tell. It isn't only this. Protect as many as possible by limiting what is severely harmful to people. This is the reason why I see it as being essential to prohibit this.

Ali Babba

thebigbiffo wrote: »

'the scandinavian model

Where does she hang out?

Millicent

Jakkass wrote: »

As for ban everything where consent might be hard to tell. It isn't only this. Protect as many as possible by limiting what is severely harmful to people. This is the reason why I see it as being essential to prohibit this.

I think what people are driving at is: what is severely harmful about it?

rubadub

Jakkass wrote: »

Lower number of visits, less prostitution business, win win. People are freed from this.

For many people it would be "lose lose", you seem to assume every protistute is "trapped" or needs "freeing", what about those who do not have the same obvious religious/moral beliefs that you do? To many people having sex is no big deal, whether you like it or not. I suppose some might think a masseuse is a morally wrong job, giving manual bodily pleasure to other people for cash. Many might enjoy their job very much.

Some might think gambling is morally bad and could consider banning gambling to be win win, while the bookie and the casual gambler would view it as lose lose (pardon the pun).

Jakkass wrote: »

Prostitution isn't work, it's abuse and exploitation.

And many would disagree, my brother thinks people holding up advertising signs like on grafton street is exploitation and demeaning, those people might be prefectly happy doing it though.

Jakkass wrote: »

We are mammals, but we are people with the capability of knowing what is right from wrong.

Yes and many people know/believe it is not wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for ban everything where consent might be hard to tell. It isn't only this. Protect as many as possible by limiting what is severely harmful to people. This is the reason why I see it as being essential to prohibit this.

Are there any other jobs you would ban? Aalaskan fishermen perhaps? their job is dangerous. People involved in testing recognised harmful drugs? People working on sundays?

philologos

The law is meant to prohibit harmful activities taking place within a society. Given the high levels of abuse, and exploitation in prostitution it is only reasonable to prohibit it, and aim to reduce its influence rather than to increase its influence in society.

People may differ and to be honest with you it makes very little difference as I wouldn't hold morality to be relative or indeed I can't see how it makes pragmatic sense for it to be relative (which is the assumption behind your emphasis on it not being widely agreed upon), but that's where I'm coming from in holding that it should be illegal. This is something I can't tolerate given what is widely known about it as an "industry".

You've missed the point right along with the others on the Alaskan fishermen nonsense. You will see I dealt with this a few posts ago.

FreudianSlippers

Jakkass wrote: »

The law is meant to prohibit harmful activities taking place within a society. Given the high levels of abuse, and exploitation in prostitution it is only reasonable to prohibit it, and aim to reduce its influence rather than to increase its influence in society.

People may differ and to be honest with you it makes very little difference as I wouldn't hold morality to be relative or indeed I can't see how it makes pragmatic sense for it to be relative (which is the assumption behind your emphasis on it not being widely agreed upon), but that's where I'm coming from in holding that it should be illegal. This is something I can't tolerate given what is widely known about it as an "industry".

You've missed the point right along with the others on the Alaskan fishermen nonsense. You will see I dealt with this a few posts ago.

It's not really that simple... it fully depends on what school of Jurisprudence one subscribes to.

One may subscribe to a natural law mentality while others are legal positivists and divorce law from morality entirely.

Thomas Aquinas believed that "good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this"

Bentham and others observed "commands, backed by threat of sanctions, from a sovereign, to whom people have a habit of obedience" as what the law was.

HLA Hart thought this was an oversimplification and went on to specify types and/or levels of laws.
His followers are even split between those who believe that law can never depend on moral correctness and those that believe that law may be influenced by morality but it does not have to be.

Ronald Dworkin really has the most interesting and modern view. He discusses the idea of law being "fit" for its purpose and time - he rejects separating law from morals but looks at it differently, basically saying that laws are detached from morals but it is the implementation and interpretation of those laws by the judiciary that brings in the morals of each individual.

I'd highly recommend reading Dworkin's book "Law's Empire" if you're interested in law/morality debate and what law is meant to do, jurisprudentially.

philologos

I guess I'm not a positivist in respect to law. There are issues in politics which will ultimately require moral opinion in some shape or form to resolve. How can one even begin to discuss human rights unless one is willing to think about how we ought to treat one another in larger society?

As for Bentham, he also argued that human rights were nonsense on stilts if I remember correctly from my assessment of studying utilitarianism at university.

I'm a big fan of Aquinas, but I wouldn't see him as being the main influence on my understanding of ethics.

FreudianSlippers

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess I'm not a positivist in respect to law. There are issues in politics which will ultimately require moral opinion in some shape or form to resolve. How can one even begin to discuss human rights unless one is willing to think about how we ought to treat one another in larger society?

As for Bentham, he also argued that human rights were nonsense on stilts if I remember correctly from my assessment of studying utilitarianism at university.

I'm a big fan of Aquinas, but I wouldn't see him as being the main influence on my understanding of ethics.

Certainly it's quite more meaty than my abridged AH version

I don't know exactly where I fit in there. Probably closest to Dworkin though.

desertcircus

I still haven't seen a serious explanation of what makes prostitution different to any other form of manual labour. If I want to dance the tango but have no willing volunteers, I can hire a partner. If I want to box but have no willing opponents, I can hire a sparring partner. If I want to undertake a dangerous mission of some sort which requires help, I can hire a partner. If I want to have sex but have no willing volunteers*, I cannot pay someone who would willingly have sex with me for money. Why?

Prostitution happens: is it better that it happens in a completely unregulated environment or in one we can exercise some form of control over?

*insert standard disclaimer about how I'm so awesome that I have no shortage of willing volunteers...

rossie1977

desertcircus wrote: »

Prostitution happens: is it better that it happens in a completely unregulated environment or in one we can exercise some form of control over?

our friends on the conservative right don't believe in such things as regulation and taxation

philologos

rossie1977 wrote: »

our friends on the conservative right don't believe in such things as regulation and taxation

Your position is far more right wing than mine or others are :pac:

You are the one advocating that we should capitalise on sexuality. In a socialist system or even a system with a greater degree of economic equality, there would be no place for prostitution as I've already pointed out. If everyone had an equal provision of assets and wealth there would be no reason why prostitutes would be in business.

Drawing limits on what can be bought and sold != "right wing".

As for regulation, it has failed in the countries where it is legal. This is why I don't believe in it.

Mike 1972

Jakkass wrote: »

In a socialist system ... there would be no place for prostitution.

I seriously doubt that prostitution was completely unheard of in Eastern Europe between 1944 and 1989 (or Cuba today) In fact I daresay It was readily available to anyone who had access to hard currency.

sandmanporto

I am a man, but I do not know how I will think as I get older! I fear that!
Ever see the programme "TAKE ME OUT" on TV3? maybe thats why men here resort to the ladies of the night!

Only saw this thread now, so sort of related, all the lads who head off to Thailand etc for holidays or on their way to Oz, the vast majority of them are having a shagfest over there. Always think it so funny when some one's Mum boasts about little Johnny gone travelling to Thailand or South America with his buddies, oh if the Mammies only knew, there'd be no Sunday dinners when they return :pac:

MD1990

depends on if she was pretty

FreudianSlippers

MD1990 wrote: »

depends on if she was pretty

She's not, or else she probably wouldn't be a prozzy.

rubadub

Jakkass wrote: »

If everyone had an equal provision of assets and wealth there would be no reason why prostitutes would be in business.

I don't understand this reasoning. Why would they not be in business, no punters willing to pay? or nobody willing to be a prostitute. Surely you accept some people enjoy working as prostitutes.

Jakkass wrote: »

The law is meant to prohibit harmful activities taking place within a society.....

You've missed the point right along with the others on the Alaskan fishermen nonsense. You will see I dealt with this a few posts ago.

I don't see how it is nonsense. They are working to satisfy peoples urge to eat fish, it is an unneccesary job, people could eat something else and control their urge/appetite for eating fish -just like you say people can control the urge/appetite for sex.

I still would like to know if there are any jobs you would like to see banned, like humans testing out known harmful drugs.

OisinT wrote: »

She's not, or else she probably wouldn't be a prozzy.

I do not understand your logic at all, it makes far more sense that a prostitute would be attractive, otherwise people would not be as willing to pay. I could not imagine a woman paying am obese, bald ugly man for sex. If that poster had said "depends on if he was handsome" would you have said "he's not, or else he probably wouldn't be a prozzy"?

If she was pretty what job would she be doing instead? Why would unpretty/ugly girls be more likely to be prostitutes? are they unable to get other jobs? most jobs/careers do not rely on looks much, models & prostitutes would be 2 that certainly do.

You must never have been to a windowed red light district like amsterdam or germany, many of them are stunning looking, model material. The most shocked visitors are usually women going through the red light who cannot believe how good looking they are, I have heard it commented on by plenty of women who went there.

FreudianSlippers

rubadub wrote: »

I don't understand this reasoning. Why would they not be in business, no punters willing to pay? or nobody willing to be a prostitute. Surely you accept some people enjoy working as prostitutes.

I don't see how it is nonsense. They are working to satisfy peoples urge to eat fish, it is an unneccesary job, people could eat something else and control their urge/appetite for eating fish -just like you say people can control the urge/appetite for sex.

I still would like to know if there are any jobs you would like to see banned, like humans testing out known harmful drugs.

I do not understand your logic at all, it makes far more sense that a prostitute would be attractive, otherwise people would not be as willing to pay. I could not imagine a woman paying am obese, bald ugly man for sex. If that poster had said "depends on if he was handsome" would you have said "he's not, or else he probably wouldn't be a prozzy"?

If she was pretty what job would she be doing instead? Why would unpretty/ugly girls be more likely to be prostitutes? are they unable to get other jobs? most jobs/careers do not rely on looks much, models & prostitutes would be 2 that certainly do.

You must never have been to a windowed red light district like amsterdam or germany, many of them are stunning looking, model material. The most shocked visitors are usually women going through the red light who cannot believe how good looking they are, I have heard it commented on by plenty of women who went there.

PWC

/discussion

sandmanporto

Do any of you people defending anti prostitution acknowlodge that it is human nature for the older god damn man to pay for sex? i hate this reality but i cant escape that it will always be a reality that men will pay for sex!!
sick

sandmanporto

Tyler Yellow Peacock wrote: »

Ive asked some of the hookers in the dam why they do this job and they have all said the same thing, money. Where else would we get 3 grand a week? Its not like I'm going to do it forever.

Majority of them are good looking. Ive been there with female friends and like other posters have said, yeah even the females have said they were great looking. If it was made legal in Ireland it would be mainly foreign women anyway, who the hell would pay to ride an Irish girl.

Im very sorry to say this, but a lot of Irish men are influenced by the old fashioned way( the catholic way).
The catholic influence of the past is having a hold of us still! time to break loose and show the world, we are not backward.
For prostitution, it is a money making business. You may see that as a moral essay or a freedom speech; depending on whether you are liberal or the extreme opposite! However, men are ultimately pigs, sex mad etc.
I wont totally slate men here, women also take advantage too! In the Dam many of these girls work to get thru college!


So can we not get thru these feminist and male chauvinistic points of view for once? remember, we're both human after all!

philologos

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I seriously doubt that prostitution was completely unheard of in Eastern Europe between 1944 and 1989 (or Cuba today) In fact I daresay It was readily available to anyone who had access to hard currency.

One could therefore question to what degree they were socialist.

My point was it is essentially capitalising on prostitution. This is more a right wing notion than a left wing one.

In a situation where we would be economically egalitarian, I can't imagine many people being prostitutes for a start.

rubadub wrote: »

I don't see how it is nonsense. They are working to satisfy peoples urge to eat fish, it is an unneccesary job, people could eat something else and control their urge/appetite for eating fish -just like you say people can control the urge/appetite for sex.

I still would like to know if there are any jobs you would like to see banned, like humans testing out known harmful drugs.

Again, please read the previous posts in this thread and you'll understand in earnest what I was saying. You're missing the point made by a bargepole.

Mike 1972

Why do people make the ridiculous assumption that just because a high proportion of people working in the sex industry are foreign nationals it automatically means there must be something sinister behind it ?

My local Chinese take away employs mostly (shock horror) Chinese people. Should I call the cops ?

Krusader

Mike 1972 wrote: »

My local Chinese take away employs mostly (shock horror) Chinese people. Should I call the cops ?

Yes please do, it's most likely a Triad safehouse

rubadub

OisinT wrote: »

PWC

/discussion

They would be on the "cheap streets".

RoverJames wrote: »

Always think it so funny when some one's Mum boasts about little Johnny gone travelling to Thailand or South America with his buddies, oh if the Mammies only knew,

And if only those same mammies knew what their female friends were up to in Jamacia -or maybe they are up to it themselves.

sandmanporto wrote: »

human nature for the older god damn man to pay for sex? i hate this reality but i cant escape that it will always be a reality that men will pay for sex!!
sick

sandmanporto wrote: »

However, men are ultimately pigs, sex mad etc.
I wont totally slate men here, women also take advantage too! In the Dam many of these girls work to get thru college!

And while painting everybody with the same brush lets not forget women are "ulitmately pigs" and sex mad and sick too. There have been several TV programs about them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sex_tourism

The men may do it for the money, or for other unresearched reasons. Women usually give clothes, meals, cash, sex, and gifts to their male prostitutes. In some destinations, there are "going rates" for male companionship, ranging from $50 to $200.

Millicent

Tyler Yellow Peacock wrote: »

Don't know if you meant my post, I didn't mean there was anything sinister about it because foreign girls dominate the industry just the foreign girls would be better at the job.

Uh, why?

Dravokivich

Tyler Yellow Peacock wrote: »

Don't know if you meant my post, I didn't mean there was anything sinister about it because foreign girls dominate the industry just the foreign girls would be better at the job.

Love yer choice of phrasing!

Millicent

Tyler Yellow Peacock wrote: »

Becoz of their accent, their tan, their better shape bodies, their dress sense, their perfume, the way the wear their hair and make up, their earings, and lets be honest now foreign girls win Irish girls 10 nil in bed. That's just a brief explanation I could go on.

Speak for yourself. I'm a great lay. Also yawn at the rest of it. Besides the earrings part. That I am oddly curious about. Some sort of fetish there? :pac:

Johro

Tyler Yellow Peacock wrote: »

Becoz of their accent, their tan, their better shape bodies, their dress sense, their perfume, the way the wear their hair and make up, their earings, and lets be honest now foreign girls win Irish girls 10 nil in bed. That's just a brief explanation I could go on.

Please don't.
I can only take so much crap.

rossie1977

Jakkass wrote: »

Your position is far more right wing than mine or others are :pac:

course it is, watch the o'reilly factor, hannity or glenn beck debate on this subject as they have in the past, which side of the argument do they fall on, yours or mine

You are the one advocating that we should capitalise on sexuality. In a socialist system or even a system with a greater degree of economic equality, there would be no place for prostitution as I've already pointed out.

you are assuming i am a socialist, i ain't

If everyone had an equal provision of assets and wealth there would be no reason why prostitutes would be in business

you can't honestly believe this, things like attractiveness, age, weight and numerous other factors would still play a part in choosing sexual partners. during stalins time as leader of russia, the number of women becoming prostitutes rose significantly

Drawing limits on what can be bought and sold != "right wing".

no but using your morals (for the betterment of society) to force the prohibition of goods and services is

As for regulation, it has failed in the countries where it is legal. This is why I don't believe in it.

or so you say, there are many benefits to it being legalised, one is health, no legal licensed prostitute has ever tested positive for hiv in nevada, try that test in any state where prostitution is illegal..............

philologos

rossie1977 - Social conservatism != right wing.

Liberal - Conservative is entirely different to left and right which have to do with economics. Again, capitalising on sexuality is much more right wing than left. Indeed, it is also incredibly liberal.

Left - Right spectrum is inadequate for discussing social issues. I'm personally a centrist on an economic level as I think that the State shouldn't stay out of regulating the economy, or about drawing lines as to what is ultimately good or bad for the general society.

As for conservatism, I would consider it the pragmatic and logical process of ensuring that all changes to the legal system are advantageous before pursuing them. This is why I oppose prostitution. It isn't advantageous, the problems remain and the negatives outweigh other superior and positive approaches such as the Swedish system on prostitution.

So yes, I'm a social conservative because I believe that changes should be made carefully and in a considered manner. Our society deserves better than legalising what is harmful frivolously.

Johro

Prostitution in a dedicated district like in Amsterdam I would have no problem with. The women are looked after, aren't at the mercy of pimps and get regular check-ups by dedicated health professionals. Wherever it exists it should be run by women. Making prostitution illegal only drives it underground where it becomes a pimp's paradise and plays right into the hands of sex traffickers.
As for me, I personally would not pay for sex. I'm with Einhard on this: 'I couldn't sleep with a prostitute...well I could, but not in her capacity as a prossy...not because it's immoral or any of that kind of thing but I just imagine it to be so sterile and perfunctionary. I imagine the act of paying for sex with a woman who has absolutely no interest in you, possibly despises you, is more demeaning for the punter than the provider.

Having said that, of course prostitution should be legalised. It's a no-brainer. What the hell are we do legislating for morality in the first place?! It's not as if the service provided is somehow illicit or dangerous. And regulation is the only way that the safety of the working girls can be guaranteed.'

Athlone_Bhoy

www.ireland.com
:cool: